ov, )860, 
 
 &V-±±Q—rtt) 17 9 2 
 Evanson, Edward, 1731-1805 
 Arguments against and for 
 the sabbatical observance 
 i i 
 
ARGUMENTS 
 
 AGAINST AND FOR 
 
 THE 
 
 SABBATICAL OBSERVANCE OF 
 
 SUNDAY, 
 
 bV a cessation from all labour, 
 
 CONTAINED 
 
 IN THE LETTERS OF SUNDRY WRITERS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 THEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY, 
 
 WITH 
 
 AN ADDITIONAL LETTER TO 
 THE REVEREND DR. PRIESTLEY, 
 
 IN CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUEJECT. 
 
 By E 4 V E V A N S O N, M. A. 
 
 NULLUM IDONEUM MONUMENTUM ADDUCI POTEST EX SECUI.IS 
 PRIORIBUS, Q_UO MAN1FESTUM L I Q_U I DB M Q_U E FIAT, APOSTOLOS 
 CULTUM CELIBRATIONF.Mq.Ut SABBATI IN DIEM SOLIS TRANS- 
 TUL1SSE, OJJAMVIS HX.C SENTENTIA TAM ALTAS RADICES IN 
 QJJORUNDUM MENTIBUS EGERIT, UT PARUM ABESSE VIDEATUR, 
 
 QJJIN ARTICULIS FIDEI PURJORlS A DS C R I B E R E T U R. OJJAMVIS DIE 
 
 STATO CHRISTIANI CONVENIRENT, MINIME TAMEN JUDAICO 
 MORE EUM CELEBRABANT, AB OMNI OPERE VACANTES. 
 
 tfohmeri, Dijf. 1. Sett, xvi, 
 
 IPSWICH, 
 
 Printed by George Jer?nyn^ Boolifeller, 
 
 SOLD BY B. LAW, BOOKSELLER, N' 13, AVE-MARY LANE, 
 LONDON. M DCC XCII. 
 
PET 
 
 
 To the Reader. 
 
 JILL the controverfal letters Jo ere collectively 
 publijhed, except that to Dr. Prieftley appeared 
 in thejix loft numbers of the Theological Re- 
 pofitory, which Publication was formally con- 
 cluded in July, 1788. By that conclufon, 
 the prefent Editor, who had written on one fde 
 of the controver/y under the fignature Eubulus, 
 was prevented replying, through the fame channel, 
 to the letter figned Hermas, which the Rev. 
 Dr. Prieftley informed the Public was one of his 
 own fignatures . And as he was very far from 
 being fatisfed with the Doctor's mode of arguing, 
 he wrote to him to inform him of his diJfatisjaSlion 
 and to ajk whether he had any objection to his 
 republijhing the whole controver/y as it flood in 
 the Repofitory, together with a reply to his 
 letter -, and received from him a very obliging 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 anfwer, with full permiffion to ??iake what ufe 
 he thought proper of any part of his Repofitory, 
 
 In confequence of this permifiion it was his in- 
 tention topublijh this collection with a reply to the 
 Doctor's letter immediately. But fome domefiic 
 circumfiances obliging him to defer it for a con- 
 fiderable time, he began to grow indifferent to the 
 fubjeB ; and to refieB that iffuch a man as Dr. 
 Prieflley could be induced by habitual prejudice 
 to argue in defence of a religious infiitution, 
 notorioufly ordained by the founders of the anti- 
 Chriftian Church, and, to fay the leaf of it, 
 certainly not commanded in the Go/pel of fefus 
 Chrifi, other perfons could be lefs expected to 
 fur mount their prejudices. So that the time feme d 
 not yet arrived for reafoning upon it to be of any 
 fervice. Whilfl unbelievers might perhaps be 
 more confirmed in their rejection of a religion 
 profejjing to proceed from the great fountain 
 of light and to be the dictates ofperfeel wifdom, 
 yet fo obfeure and unintelligible in its pojitive 
 mfiitutions, as well as doclrines, that two men 
 educated for the clerical profefion who have both 
 avowedly turned their fludies to the invefligation 
 of the true religion of the Go/pel and of thefub- 
 fequent corruptions of Chriftanity by human folly 
 andfuperftition, could not agree whether an in- 
 
[ i l 
 
 Jlitution of fo much confequence to mankind as 
 the fabbatical obfervance of Sunday undoubtedly 
 is, in whatfoever light it be confidered, is or is 
 not anprdina?ice of the genuine religion ofChrifl. 
 For thefe reafons, and becaufe two or three 
 friends, of whofe judgement he has an high opini- 
 on, afjured him they thought the force of the 
 arguments already urged ^jyEubulus had 7iot been 
 invalidated by Dr. PrieflleyV letter, and that 
 therefore a reply was unnecefjary ; he determined 
 to drop the controverfy and leave it as it food 
 at the conclufwji of the Theological Repoiitory. 
 
 From this tacit fate of indolent indifference, 
 however, he has been lately roufed by the innate 
 principal of felf defence, in reading Afr.Chriftie\f 
 Letters upon the French Revolution. Where in a 
 note upon the hour ojthe national 'affembly 's meeting 
 on Sunday he was much Jur prized to find himfelf 
 as author of the objections fated in the Theological 
 Repofitory againfl the modern f abb at h, accufed 
 exprefly of rafhnefs and though tlelTnefs and 
 implicitly of being a Foe to Piety and even to 
 Humanity. The Note is this, " The urgent 
 " nature of their ft nation and bufnefs jufified the 
 61 French Legifators, in fufpending the obfer- 
 " vance of Sunday as a day of rejl frojn ordinary 
 " labours* But fuch a praclice will not pro- 
 
[ « ] 
 
 <f bably be continued. The enfuing Legijlaturt 
 " will renew the refpefl fo jujily due to one of 
 M the moji ancient andmofl venerable injiitutions 
 " that exijl in civilized fociety. The excellence 
 (C of Sunday as a political injlitutton hadfcarcely 
 " been queflioned by thofe who paid no regard to 
 " it in a religious lights till lately that fome 
 " raj/j and t bought left writers attacked it in the 
 " Theological Repofitory. Dr. Prieftley 
 * c fummed up all their arguments, and replied 
 {< to them with fuch ability as entitles hi?n to 
 wt the thanks of every man of piety and Jl ill more 
 ■' of every man ^humanity." 
 
 From Mr. Chriftie' 's fpeaking of t bis attack 
 upon the Sunday fabbath as made by more than 
 one writer, he appears not to have razd'Eubulus'j 
 letters himfclf and to know nothing of the con- 
 trover fty, but what he learnt from Dr. Prieftley y s 
 letter figned Hermas. Iff, Eubulus has reafon 
 to complain of his fever e cenfure, as being the 
 
 fentence of an unequitable, partial judge, pajjed 
 upon hearing the arguments of one party only. 
 And whether that be fo or not, confcious that 
 his objections againjl that infitution, were very 
 
 far from being urged 'rafhly or for want of mature 
 thought and confideration, but with the fincerefi 
 and mofl deliberate intention to promote the know- 
 
[ 7 ] 
 
 ledge of true y unadulterated chrijlianity, andths 
 moral virtue and welfare of his fellow creatures, 
 he knows the accujation to be groundlefs and 
 untrue. 
 
 Whether his opinion of the point in debate ', or 
 that of Mr. Chriftie and his friend Dr. Prieft- 
 ley be mojl reafonable, the Editor willingly 
 fubmits to the decifwn of thofe readers who can 
 fufficiently divejl themfehes of habitual prejudices 
 to become impartial judges of the quejiion. He 
 is not fo arrogant as to pretend to vie with Dr. 
 Prieftley for extraordinary talen ts and ability ; 
 but he will yield to no man in the fervor or fin- 
 cerity of his zeal for the caufes of rational piety 
 and human happinefs. 
 
 He cannot however forbear remarking, that 
 Mr. Chriftie in this cenforial note upon the 
 impiety and inhumanity c/'Eubulus advances 
 the very fame plea in behalf of the objeSl of bis 
 own prejudice, a Sunday fabbath, which he wild 
 not allow Mr. Burke, in favour of the Monaf- 
 teries and other Ecclefajiical injlitutions abolijhed 
 by the National Affembly of France, viz. their 
 being ancient and venerable and of excellent 
 political ufes-, yet, if antiquity alone can fancJify 
 any religious error or fuperjiitious inftitution, it 
 
[ 3 ] 
 
 is certain that thefyjlem of the Divine Humani- 
 ty, as Mr. Burke with much grave folemnity 
 defiominated it in thefirfi edition of bis celebrated 
 letter ; upon which, before the late revolution, 
 the religion of France was founded and eflablified 
 to the political exclufion of every other perfuafon, 
 and which if the Editor is not mifmformed, Mr. 
 Chriftie as well as every other rational chriflian, 
 regards as abfurd, incongruous, and even blaf 
 phemous, and alfo the injlitution of the order of 
 Monks, are both prior in date to the obfer- 
 vance of Sunday as a day of reft from ordinary 
 labours. 
 
 As to the political ufe of any ordinance c<m~ 
 heBed with religion, after the numberlefs evils, 
 with which the natural rights and feelings and 
 even the confciences of the inhabitants ofChrijl- 
 endom have been violated and outraged for above 
 fourteen centuries by blending politics and religion 
 together, it is furely high time to feparate them 
 and to " render untoCaefar the things that are 
 Casfar's and untoGodthe things that are God 's . " 
 At leaf before fuch arguments are urged, men 
 jhoiddfirjl determine whether the Gofpel of Jefus 
 Chrijl be true and of the celeflial origin it pre- 
 tends to, or whether it be like the Koran of 
 Mahomet or the Revelations ofNuma Pompilius 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 political ficlion and mere human device. On the 
 latterfuppofition indeed \ and on no other can flat efi 
 men have a right to interpret its doclrines and 
 ordain its pofitive inftitutions. But if it really 
 be a religion revealed from heaven, like the reve- 
 lation by Mofes and every other work of God it 
 mujl have come forth compleat and perfect from 
 its divine author, and though it ought undoubtedly 
 to regulate the con duel of Rulers and Politicians 
 as well as of private Individuals ', fince even the 
 Pagan maxim allowed the authority of heaven 
 to be para??iount to that of all earthly fovereigns, 
 in reges ipfos Jovis eft imperium, human 
 Legifatures can have no more right to controul 
 or regulate or to add to or diminifJj its doclrines, 
 precepts, or inflitutions, than private citizens 
 have to controul or regulate or add to or diminifh 
 the laws of the fate. 
 
 In every religious inftitution therefore afmcet-e 
 and ratio7ial difciple of fefus Chrifl will con- 
 fder not what political ufe it may be of but by 
 what authority it is ordained. But to talk of 
 the political benefit to mankind of an inftitution 
 which abfolutely annihilates the feventh part of 
 all human induftry, is fo glaring an abfurdity 
 
C >° ] 
 
 that I am confident nothing but a groundlefs per- 
 fuafion through the mifreprefentation of the 
 clergy, that the fpirit, though not the letter, of 
 the fourth commandment of the Jewifh law was 
 binding upon Chrifiians, could have induced 
 fatejmen to ejlablifh it. 
 
 In France fuperjlition had immured pre haps 
 100,000 healthy citizens, (IJpeak at random) 
 and thereby deprived thejiateoj theindujlryojthe 
 two hundred and fiftieth part of its inhabitants ; 
 but in the fame country the inter miffion of all kinds 
 of labour every Sunday is as great a diminution of 
 the national indajlry as if the cloiflers of their 
 monajleries fill imprifoned three millions and a 
 half or one-feventh part of all their citizens. 
 
 The fefuits have long proved to the world 
 how ufeful monaftic infiitutions may be as repofi- 
 tories of learning and feminaries of education ; 
 and, as Mr. Burke fuggejis, an able flat ef man 
 might without doubt convert them to other pur- 
 pofes beneficial to the community, though not in 
 fuch a degree as to compenfatefor the evils arifing 
 to fociety from the celibacy as well as indolence 
 of the cloifier. But to what political ufe and 
 benefit, can the univerfal idlenefs of funday be 
 applied? when experience Jhews us that the 
 
C « 3 
 
 utmofl efforts of the legijlature and the magijlrates 
 are infufifcient to prevent the moft pernicious 
 abufes of it. 
 
 The inflitution offundayfchoolsforthe children 
 of the labouring people, provided as foon as the 
 children have learnt to read they are injlruc~led 
 alfo in writing and arithmetic, is the only in- 
 fiance of the application of funday leifure to any 
 temporal benefit, and even that is obtained by 
 the breach and not by the obfervance ofafabbath. 
 For both the maflers and the pupils of fuchfchools 
 mujl be as laborioujly and attentively employed 
 in them during the intervening hours of funday, 
 as if they were occupied in any other bufinefs. 
 The univerfal inter mifjion of the labour of giving 
 and receiving infiruclion in temporal learning 
 everyfunday in our univerfities, and in all the 
 public and private fchools of the kingdom proves 
 this to be the general opinion* 
 
 If then the children of labouring people may 
 be not only innocently but ufefully occupied, dur- 
 ing the leifure hours of Sunday in attending to 
 the bufinejs of thofe fchools. What rational 
 liberal mind canfuppofe that the funday attend- 
 ance of their parents at our religious afjemblies, 
 could be lefs pleafing to heaven or lefs edifying 
 
[ » j 
 
 to them/elves; that they would become worfe 
 chrijlians or worfe citizens , if they alfo employed 
 the leifure intervals of the day in fome honefl 
 ufeful occupation, rather than in tippling at public 
 houfes y fauntering in the highways and fields, 
 Jetting at home with their hands before them or 
 yawning over, what are called, Books of 
 Piety and Devotion ? 
 
 T O 
 
[ i3 ] 
 
 ' ,REC, NOV 1880 
 T HE0L0 GIC ^ 
 
 5ff^*^ 
 
 TO THE 
 
 DIRECTORS of the THEOLOGICAL 
 REPOSITORY. 
 
 GENTLEMEN, 
 
 T3ERMIT me, through the channel of 
 ■*" your very ufeful publication, to endeav- 
 our to excite an attention to the grounds of a 
 religious obfervance, which prevails amongfl 
 all profefled chriftians, and which is held fo 
 facred, and of fuch high importance by even 
 the moft ferious, beft intentioned perfons, of 
 all theological opinions, that, I am aware rea- 
 fon has but a fmall chance of fuccefs in a con- 
 flict with fuch an inveterate,univerfal prejudice. 
 However, as fuperftition is ftill fuperftition, 
 by how many foever it may have been adopted ; 
 and as its effects in this, as well as in every 
 other inftance, are pernicious to the moral 
 virtue, and, of courfe, to the happinefs of man- 
 kind , whatever others may think of my at- 
 tempting to tear of the mafk from an inftitution 
 fo long and generally revered, I myfelf am 
 convinced that I only difcharge the duty of a 
 faithful difciple of Jefus Chrift, and of a real 
 friend to the welfare of my fellow creatures. 
 
[ «4 ] 
 
 The religious obfervance, I mean, is the 
 keeping the firft day of the week as a Jewifh 
 fabbath, or day of cerTation from all wordly 
 bufinefs. An inftitution which cannot be 
 productive of any valuable ends, but fuch as 
 are eafily to be attained without it ; and which 
 not only occafions a lofs to individuals, and 
 to the community at large, of one-feventh part 
 of the induftry of manufacturers and labourers 
 of every kind; but, what is infinitely more 
 important, induces a very large majority of 
 that moft ufeful and moil numerous part of 
 the people, to mifpend that feventh of their 
 time in diffipation and intemperance, which 
 too naturally, and too certainly, lead them to 
 vicious immoralities and crimes of every degree. 
 
 In the inveftigation of right and wrong re- 
 fpecting the inftitution of any religious obfer- 
 vance under the revelation of the gofpel, the 
 firft and grand point tobeconfideredis, whether 
 it owes its origin to the politive injunctions of 
 the authorifed publifhers of that revelation to 
 the world. For if that can be proved to be the 
 cafe, all argument is at an end,and whoever re- 
 ceives the revelation muft neceflarily feel him- 
 felf bound to comply with the inftitution ; 
 but, if it cannot, the inftitution is certainly 
 of no religious obligation -, and the zealous, 
 ftrict obfervance of it is merely fuperftition. 
 Should it be innocent, it is, at leaft, unnecefTary: 
 and if it tend, in any degree, to corrupt the 
 morals of the lower ranks of people, the com- 
 
C '5 ] 
 
 pelling them to obferve it is not impolitic only, 
 but criminal. 
 
 That there is not one politive precept in any 
 of the books of the New Teftament, for keep- 
 ing a fibbath, is well known to all who are 
 acquainted with them. Moft certainly, there- 
 fore, it is not kept in obedience to the divine 
 authority of the gofpel : neither is it kept in 
 obedience to the fourth commandment of the 
 Jewifh law ; for betides that no law of the 
 Jewifh religion can be binding upon a Chrif- 
 tian, any farther than as it is repeated and re- 
 eftablifhed by the gofpel (as are the precepts 
 againft idolatry and profane fwearing, and thofe 
 in favour of all the moral, focial duties) profef- 
 fed chriftians, in general, do not keep their 
 fabbath on the day commanded by that law j 
 but upon another day, to which that com- 
 mandment hath not the moft diftant reference. 
 
 It is pretended, however, that though the 
 fancfifying the firft day of the week, and keep- 
 ing it as a Jewifh fabbath, is not exprefsly 
 commanded in the gofpel, it may be inferred 
 from certain paftages in the holy fcriptures, 
 and in the works of the earlieft writers of 
 chriftianity, that it was practifed by the apof- 
 tles themfelves, and all the primitive chriftians, 
 who, we are told, ufed to hold their religious 
 aftemblies on that day ; and who, it may there- 
 fore be concluded, transferred the fabbatical 
 ceffation from all other buiinefs from the laft 
 to the firft day of the week, in honour of our 
 Lord and Saviour, who rofe from the grave 
 
[ i6 J 
 
 on that day of the week, and on the fame day 
 repeatedly manifefted himfelf to his difciples. 
 
 To a clofe-reafoning mind this very ftate of 
 the queftion mull appear a complete giving 
 up the point in difpute. For furely, under 
 any religious law whatfoever, to eftablifh fo 
 important an inftitution as annihilates, at one 
 ftroke, the feventh part of all human induftry , 
 nothing lefs can be requifite, than the exprefs 
 command of the lawgiver himfelf. And to 
 him who recollects that the fatal apoftacy from 
 true chriftianity, and the entire ftructure of 
 idolatrous, antichriftian fuperftition, which 
 hath for fo many ages ufurped its place, were 
 effected by means of fallacious inferences from 
 particular paffages of fcripture, and a zeal for 
 magnifying the honour of the Meffiah, the 
 very mode of argument ufed in its defence, will 
 fuggeft ftrong fufpicions of fallacy and error. 
 
 With refpect to the holy fcriptures, how- 
 ever, the truth is, that the apoftles and 
 firft difciples of Jefus Chrift are no where faid 
 to have diftinguifhed the firft day of the week 
 in any manner whatfoever. There are only 
 two paffages, viz. Johnxx. 10. and Acts xx. 
 7. which mention their being affembled on 
 that day. In the firft, from the circumftances 
 of the cafe, it is manifeft their meeting could 
 not be for the purpofe of any religious obfer- 
 vance ; but merely to confer together upon the 
 teftimony and evidence of their mafter's re- 
 furrection . And from the latenefs of the hour, 
 at which the two difciples muft have returned, 
 
[ *7 ] 
 
 from Emmaus to Jerusalem, it is certain that 
 the evening affembly mentioned there, and in 
 the parallel paiTage of St. Luke, according to 
 the Jewim computation of time, inileaei of 
 being on the firfl;, was really on the beginning 
 of the fecond day. Beildes the apoftjes them- 
 felves not understanding the religion of the 
 gofpel till after their forty days instruction. 
 from our Lord, after his refurrection, and 
 neither being commiffioned nor qualified to 
 teach it to others, before the fubfequent feaft 
 of Pentecoft, nothing previous to that asra can 
 be of the leaft obligation to us. 
 
 The other paiTage, viz. Acts xx. 7. deferves 
 our particular attention, and is as follows,— 
 " And upon the firft day of the week, when 
 " the difciples came together to break bread, 
 " Paul preached unto them (ready to depart 
 i: on the morrow) and continued his fpeech 
 " until midnight." The meeting here fpoken 
 of was evidently in the very beginning of the 
 firf\day of the week, that is, in theeveni. 
 after the bufinefs of the preceding day was over. 
 And if their coming together to break bread 
 means their participating of the Lord's fupper, 
 as from the general term,, the difciples, is highly 
 probable, it {hews us, that St. Paul thought 
 it better to ufe the evening for the purpofeqf 
 celebrating that facred inftitution, as well as 
 of inftruction, than to break in upon the daily % 
 occupations of the Gentile converts. Am 
 the hiftorian allures us, that he both intended 
 and. did actually fet out on his at 
 
 break of day, . this paffage of fcripture affords 
 
 c 
 
<c 
 
 [ '3 ] 
 
 qs a decifive proof that St. Paul had no idea 
 of keeping the firir, day of the week as a 
 Sabbath. 
 
 The only fubfequent paflage, in which the 
 
 firft day of the week is fo much as mentioned, 
 
 is that of St. Paul, I Cor. xvi. 2. "Upon 
 
 " d)e firft day of the week let every one of you 
 
 e lay by him in ftore, as God hath profpered 
 
 him, that there be no gatherings when I 
 
 come." A very rational provision for re- 
 gulating and preparing every perfon's quota of 
 the charitable collections which the perfecuted 
 Hate of the Jewifh converts made neceffary in 
 thole early times of chrifrianity ; but which 
 is Co far from inlmuatingany peculiar fanctity, 
 afcribed by the apoilles to that day of the week, 
 that it implies in it a direction to every difciple 
 of thofe times to fettle his accounts on that 
 day for the preceding w T eek, that he might 
 proportion his contribution to the irate of his 
 circumftances ; a builnefs quite incompatible 
 with the idea of a Sabbath day. 
 
 But though no paiTages of holy fcripture can 
 be produced which, even by inference, recom- 
 mend to chriflians the keeping the firft day of 
 the week facred, as a Sabbath day, there are 
 others, which expreilly teach us, that the 
 gofpel does not require of its difciples any 
 inch obfervance. 
 
 How far the Jewifh law, even whilit the 
 temple and government of the Jews fubiifled, 
 was binding upon the Gentile converts to chrif- 
 tianity, was a queflion very early agitated and 
 referred to the decifion of the apoilles them- 
 
[ '9 ] 
 
 felves at Jertifalem ; who, after receiving the 
 information of thofe that had been particularly 
 inftrumental in converting the Gentiles, at the 
 miraculous command of heaven itfelf, and 
 weighing every circumrtanceof the cafe, form- 
 ally decreed, that, as chriftians, it was not 
 neceflary for them to ohferve any injunctions 
 of the law of Mofes whatfoever, except ** the 
 ** abflaining from meats offered to idols; from 
 •* blood; from things flrangled, and from for- 
 M nication." Now, can any candid mind, 
 endued with common fenfe, fuppofe, if 
 keeping a Sabbath day had been a chriltian 
 duty, efpecially a duty (o important, as feems 
 generally imagined, that the mention of It 
 could have been omitted on fuch an occaiion f 
 For, in every language, to fay that only fuch 
 and fuch particulars of a law are neceflary to 
 be obferved, is plainly and expreilly to declare, 
 that every other particular is unneceftary. It 
 defer ves to be conlidered alio, that the apof- 
 tles, fubjee~t to theprepofMions ofhabit, likeal! 
 other men, were fo little inclined in this cafe 
 to omit any thing that appeared to them in the 
 fmalleil decree necefi'ary to the chriitian con- 
 verts, that the very nature of St. Paul's argu- 
 ments, in his epiftles refpecting meat offered 
 to idols, clearly mews, that they exceeded the 
 authority of their commiffion in every article 
 of their decree, except the lair, the abftaimng 
 from fornication , which, whether it be under- 
 stood in a fpiritual or carnal fenfe, is undoubt- 
 edly a chriftian duty ; not however in com- 
 pliance with any injunction of the Jewifh law. 
 
[ 20 ] 
 
 but in obedience to its repeated prohibition in 
 the gofpei. But notwithftanding this fummary 
 decifion of the queftion, by an afTembly of the 
 apoftles themfelves, we find that the Galatians 
 fuffered themfelves to be perfuaded by fome 
 other difciples, zealots to the Mofaic law, to 
 fuperadd the obfervance of all the precepts of 
 that law, to the religion of Jefus Chrift. And 
 the fole fcope of St. Paul's epiftle to that people 
 is, to reprove them for, and to reclaim them 
 from fo unreafonable and heterogeneous a prac- 
 tice ; in that he expreflly blames them for 
 " obferving clays and months, and times a\ . 
 iC years ;" by which wo; wording to my 
 
 apprehenfion, he could only mean the Sabbath 
 days, new moons yfeftivalfeafons, anafabbatic 
 years of the jews. 
 
 On this looting ftands the (rate of the quef- 
 tion, (o far as the books of the New Teftament 
 are concerned. And fmce the arguments in . 
 favour of , ice are fo far from find- 
 
 ing any fur rom that quarter, a man un- 
 
 acquainted with tbofe writings of the christian 
 of the three firft centuries, which have been 
 permitted to reach our hands, would naturally 
 conclude, that they, at leaft, were clear and 
 full in afcer taming the fact, that the firft day 
 of the week was, in their times, kept as a fab- 
 
 th by all the profefibrs of chriftianity. 
 
 Kow then muft fuch an one be aitoniihed, 
 
 when he finds, what is ftricHy true, that, 
 
 mftead of informing us fuch a fabbath was 
 
 t, they expreflly allure us, that, -neither 
 
 \ the gofpei enjoined, nor did they practife 
 
£ 2 1 ] 
 
 any liich ob - ! Nay, the) ; 
 
 and, as St, Pan d againft. the neceffity 
 
 of circumcifion . ufe the bleffings of the 
 
 christian covenant were promifed to Abr; 
 and his feed after him, vvhil.it he i 
 circumcifed, fo they adopt a (imilar argun i 
 to prove, th ig could not be 
 
 a duty of the gofpel, becaufe the prornii 
 the gofpel w to Abrah ;-■ nd re- 
 
 peated to all the patriarchs ; thoug] 
 no fabbath, but lived feveral centuries before 
 the command for keeping the fabbath was g 
 It is true, they inform us that chriftians in their 
 times, ufed to aiTembie together on the firft day 
 of the week, a cuftom probably introduced by 
 St. Pau'ls recommending it to the Cori 
 to fettle their accounts for the precc 
 and to depofit their quotas of the charil 
 collections on that day. And, a 
 had enjoined upon his clifciples, to comme- 
 morate him by a common participation of 
 bread and wine, it feems neceffary that fome 
 ftated time mould be fixed for that purpofe. 
 But, in the firft and pureit ages of chriftianity, 
 their meetings were fhort ; and, either very 
 early in the morning, before the ufual hours 
 of bulinefs, after which they departed, each 
 to his feveral daily occupation : orelfe, in the 
 evening, after all the bulinefs of the day was 
 ended. It was not till the reign of Coni 
 that is, till the fourth Century of the c 
 asra, that the firft day of the week was ordered 
 to be. kept facred as a fabbath-day. And it is 
 curious to 'remark, that that prince, whole 
 
[ 2 2 ) 
 
 profeiTion and eftabliihment of what was then, 
 very falfely, called chriitianity, appears to have 
 been entirely political, enjoined the jfabbatical 
 ceflation from bufmefs, only upon the cities 
 and large towns, and could not be prevailed 
 upon to extend the order to the villages and 
 country in general , no doubt providently ap- 
 prehending, that the fuppreiTion of agriculture 
 and other rural occupations for one-feventh of 
 the year, might, in forne feafons, be, at leaft 
 locally, attended with very fatal confequences. 
 The obfervance of a fabbath therefore amongft 
 ehriftians, is founded upon no religious autho- 
 rity whatfoever : but was ordained folely by 
 the interpofition of the fame civil power, which 
 laid the foundation of that idolatrous, blafphe- 
 mousfuperftition, which, though diametrically 
 opposite to the religion of Jefus Chrift, both in 
 its principles and effects, hath, for fo many 
 centuries, iuperfededit in the Weft; and which, 
 for wife reafons, the divine providence hath 
 fuifered to be fupplanted in the Eaft and South 
 by the grofs impofture of Mahomet. 
 
 From this plain and brief deduction, which 
 no one acquainted with the hiftory of the early 
 ages of chriftianity will attempt to controvert, 
 it appears, firft, that fabbath-keeping is no duty 
 of the gofpel ; fecondly, that it is an institu- 
 tion only of that predicted anti-chriftian re- 
 ligion, which, from the days of Conftantine 
 to our own, has been upheld merely by the 
 power of the civil magistrate. Flowfoever well 
 and wifely therefore fome people may employ 
 the idle hours of fabbatical leiiure, there* 
 
C 2 3 ] 
 
 can be no merit in the obfervance confidered 
 in a religious view. The religion of the gofpel 
 of Chrirr. is a fyftem of moral rules, intended 
 folely to influence the minds, and direct the 
 practice of its profeffors, in every action and 
 moment of their lives. Such a religion can 
 be of no ufe at all, unlefs men keep it conftantly 
 in their thoughts, and regulate their whole 
 conduct by thofe rules. It is the indifpenfable 
 duty therefore of a iincere chriftian, to meditate 
 daily upon the obligations of his religion, and 
 not to fleep without reviewing his behaviour 
 through the preceding day, and comparing it 
 with the facred rule of life he has engaged him- 
 felf to follow. To him therefore the appoint- 
 ment of any particular days or feafons for re- 
 ligious meditation, is unneceffary and fuper- 
 fluous. But how fmall a part of the great bulk 
 of the people, have either inclination or ability, 
 to employ the weekly returns of fabbatical 
 idlenefs in what are called religious exercifes 
 and meditations j even if there were any real 
 benefit in fo doing ! Look round amongft 
 thofe higher orders of men, whofe fitua- 
 tion and circumfiances afford them the 
 greateil mare of leifure time; and though they, 
 for the molt part, have had the great advan- 
 tages of a liberal education, obferve how few 
 of them employ their leifure to any valuable 
 purpofe; and how many abufe it, to their own 
 andothers detriment. Who then can thinkitpoi- 
 fible, that the uninformed minds of the illiterate 
 and ignorant can wifely and virtuoully ipend 
 one-feventh part of their lives in idlenefs, or 
 
L *4 j 
 
 . r, that great numbers of them fhould nof 
 :n*d it, as We find they do, to the cor- 
 ruption of their own morals, and the infecuri- 
 
 fcy and annoyance of fociety in general. 
 
 That admirable, perfect model of prayer to 
 the Dtity, taught us by our Lord himfelf, 
 dni ains out four petitions that perfonally re- 
 fped ourfelv a d one of them .is, that we 
 may not be led into temptation. A petition 
 i evidently c;;oins upon us, as an erTential 
 of our religion, the doing our utmofr. to 
 hourfelves and o6r fellow creatures 
 failing into fo perilous a fituation. 
 Whereas the calling off the labouring orders 
 from their ufual honeil occupations, 
 ibliging them to pafs every feventh day 
 Lenefs, which many of them cannot 
 but mifoend, is forcing them into a weekly 
 of the molt dangerous temptation ; the 
 confequeiice of which niuft be, what we ex- 
 perimentali' in : :> efpecially in all populous 
 blarces, a moil fatal depravity of tneirmo 
 
 '. have no doubt, it was for this very 
 
 . gofpel enjoins 
 upc i i on from 
 
 nefe, nor feflivj ns of any kind. 
 
 ion like that eftablifhed by Con- 
 
 and his fuc :h confecra- 
 
 irches fucceeded to the temples, a dif- 
 
 of men tc the >od, and the 
 
 worfhip to the 
 
 Jews, it feems 
 
 neceffary al) - particular days 
 
 i, ... ion to make 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 die former appear of fufficient importance: and, 
 without doubt* the more the ritual of the new 
 religion reiembled thole cuftoms to which the 
 people had been habituated, the more likely it 
 was to gain profelytes, and to become the 
 catholic profeffion of the empire. But chrif- 
 tianity, as taught by Jefus and his apoftles, 
 ordains none of thefe things. The evangelifts 
 inform us, that our great mailer, both by his 
 example, and exprefs precept, hath taught us, 
 that prayer to God, though the indifpenfable 
 duty of a chriftian, is the duty only of his pri- 
 vate clofet, where there is no place for hypocrify 
 and feigned devotion . Howfoever decent there- 
 fore and proper it may be for chriftians, when 
 affernbled together for any other purpofe, tc* 
 }oin in concife prayers or praifes, expreffive of 
 their common feelings, the afTembling merely 
 for the purpofe of public worihip, is not a duty 
 of the gofpel. 
 
 Under the chriftian inftitution, I know but 
 of two caufes for afTembling together, which 
 have any reference to that religion, viz* The 
 commemorative participation of bread and 
 wine, and the purpofes of inftrucTion and 
 mutual exhortation. As to the firft, when we 
 confider the hour of the day, the domeftic 
 manner in which it was inftituted, and the ex- 
 ample of the firft difciples of Jefus Chrift in 
 obferving it, it feems impoffible to affign any 
 reafon, why the obfervance of this comme- 
 moration ihould ever interfere with the ordinary 
 occupations of men and the ufual hours of 
 bufinefs. And, with refpect to the fecond, if, 
 
 D 
 
C 26 ] 
 
 inflead of one entire day fpent in idlenefs, an 
 hour at a time, in an evening, twice or thrice 
 a week, were employed in explaining not {ingle 
 detached fentences of the text of fcripture, 
 but the whole of the authentic books of the 
 new teftament, in a regular, well divided courfe 
 of lectures, in fo familiar a manner as to allow 
 and induce the hearers to propound their par- 
 ticular doubts and uncertainties, and aik for 
 farther explanation where it mould appear 
 wanted, it would be of infinitely greater ufe 
 and benefit, than the prefent mode of public 
 inftruclion, than which it is difficult to con- 
 ceive any method of teaching lefs proper for 
 the young, illiterate, and uninformed ; that 
 is, for all thofe who ftand moif in need of 
 being inftrucfted. 
 
 The great number of unhappy criminals, 
 who die, teftifying that they owe their ruin 
 to what they ignorantly call Sabbath-break- 
 ing; and the prefent laudable endeavours of 
 many benevolent perfons in the metropolis, 
 and other populous towns, toeftabliih Sunday 
 fchools, are convincing proofs of the great and 
 and well-known mifchiefs that muff ever at- 
 tend the weekly abufe of the idlenefs of the 
 Sabbath amongif the lower ranks of people. 
 Such fchools, if properly inflituted, will cer- 
 tainly be of- benefit, fo far as their influence 
 •extends : that is, the children inftrudted in 
 .them, inftead of lounging away the day in 
 -childim paftimes, or mifpending it in doing 
 mifchief, will employ it in the acquisition of 
 fome ufeful knowledge. But on grown peo- 
 
[ *7 ] 
 
 pie they can have no effect ; and fo much is 
 the human, as well as every other animal, a 
 creature of imitation, that even the fchoiars 
 of thefe Sunday fchools, when pail the age of 
 attending them, will foon become blended' 
 with the general mafs of people of their own ; 
 rank ; will frequent the fame pernicious af- 
 femblies at public houfes, and be initiated in 
 the fame weekly vicious exceffes or expenfive 
 diffipation, which ever have been, and ever 
 muft be, whilft fabbatical idlenefs is fuffered 
 to continue, deftructive of that practical moral 
 virtue, to eftablifh which amongft mankind 
 was the fole object of the genuine religion of 
 Jefus Chrift. 
 
 I am. Gentlemen, &c. Sec. 
 
 EUBULUS. 
 
 To the Directors, &c. 
 
 -GENTLEMEN, 
 
 r I 'HE following paper, occafioned by that of 
 Eubulus, will, 1 doubt not, be allowed a 
 place in your ufeful work, if it be judged worthy 
 of one. Some other correfpondent of yours, 
 will, 1 truft, feel himfelf prompted to take up 
 after me the defence of the practice objected to 
 by that gentleman. If he be in the wrong, and 
 any other reader of the Repofitory be convinced 
 with me that he is fo, he will furely not beback- 
 ward to lend all the additional fupport he can 
 afford to that fide of the queflion. which I have 
 
C *8 ] 
 
 cfpoufed. The fubject to be difcuffed mull-, 
 in the view of fuch a perfon, be one of very 
 high importance, I, therefore, flatter myfelf with 
 the profpect of aiTiftance. Under this expec- 
 tation, I feel lefs reluctance to lay my humble 
 attempt before the public, prefuming that I 
 fhall fee any omiffions or defects, which may 
 be difcovered in what I have written, amply 
 fupplied by fome abler pen. 
 
 i . The Jewim iabbath was plainly intended 
 to be not merely a day of reft from bodily la- 
 bour, but alfo of public and focial religious 
 worfhip. It was to be celebrated by a holy 
 convocation, which no doubt, fignified the call- 
 ing of the people together to join in acts of 
 public worfhip to their Maker, On that day 
 they were not to do their own ways, nor find their 
 own pie a fur e, nor J peak their own words, i.e. 
 as it ihould feem, they were not to purfue their 
 fecular employments, to indulge themfelves in 
 taking recreations anddiverfions,or to talk about 
 matters of worldly bufinefs. In other words, they 
 were to fpend the day in nothing but religious 
 meditation and devotional exercifes. — This I 
 apprehend to have been fufficiently proved by 
 Dr. Jennings (fee his JewiihAntiq. B. 3. C. 3.) 
 and others. Accordingly we find, that the pro- 
 phets feverely reprehended the Jews for either 
 the violation or neglect of the fabbath. Now, 
 if God thought fit to appoint one day infeven 
 to be thus kept by a particular people, to threat- 
 en thofe who difobeyed his command with ex- 
 cifron, to remind them from time to time by 
 his prophets of the obligation they were under 
 
[ 2 9 J 
 
 to obferve that day in the manner they pre- 
 fcribed, and to advertife thern of the dreadful 
 confequences, national as well as perfonal,wh ich 
 would follow inattention to this duty, there is 
 the higheft reafon to fuppofe that the wifdom 
 of the Deity law it to be neceffary, for thefpi- 
 ritual improvement of his people, that they 
 ihould devote one day of the week to religious 
 exercifes, without interruption from temporal 
 concerns. If this be admitted, and that human 
 nature remains the fame, and liable to the fame 
 influences from prefent fcenes and occupations, 
 it is no more than a fair preemption, that God 
 intended thatmankind mould allot the propor- 
 tion of one feventh part of their time to reli- 
 gious employments under all his diipenfations. 
 2. The chriftian difpenfation arofe, as it 
 were, out of the Jewifh. It derived part of its 
 evidence from the accomplishment of pre- 
 dictions delivered by Jewifh prophets, It was 
 introduced by a perfon educated a Jew, and fent 
 himfelf to none but the people of his own na- 
 tion. Any practice, therefore, which this 
 perfon did not expreflly abrogate, but himfelf 
 conform to, after he was inverted with his 
 public character, he was, no doubt, regarded 
 as acknowledging to be flill obligatory upon 
 his countrymen. The Jewifh fabbath he ap- 
 pears himfelf to have kept, and not to have ob- 
 jected to its being kept by the Jews, according 
 to the direction of their law. It is true, that 
 he condemned the Jews of weak and groundlefs 
 fuperrtition in pretending that acts of benefi- 
 cence were not to be performed on that day ; 
 
[ 3° J 
 
 but he no where charged any of them with a 
 fault, after they became his difciples, in con- 
 tinuing to attend the worfhip of the temple or 
 fynagogue, or in employing the part of it, fpent 
 at their'homes, in a religious manner. As we 
 are not informed that he did any thing of this 
 fort, the countenance which he gave to the 
 obfervanceof the fabbath by his own behaviour 
 flood unoppofed. And though the particular 
 reafon for which the keeping of the feventh 
 day was prefcribed to the Jews, does not affect 
 others, fo that from that circumftance it can- 
 not be inferred, that gentile converts we re 
 bound to keep the fame, yet the conduct of oje 
 Lord in employing the feventh part of his time 
 according to the eftablimed cuftom of hiscoun^ 
 try, and in not giving the moft diftant hint, 
 that it was too much to be fo employed, mews 
 that he did not think it a too large proportion 
 of time to be devoted to religious purpofes. 
 
 Had this really been his opinion, and had 
 he, therefore, intended to fhorten it for the eafe 
 and benefit of his followers, we might expect 
 to find, that he had dropped fome intimation 
 of his defign on one or other of thofe occafions, 
 on which he was accufed of breaking the iab- 
 bath, efpecially as he claimed to be Lord of 
 the fabbath. As he gave no fu^h intimation, 
 his conduct muft have led the Jews to con- 
 clude, that he was not commiffioned to releafe 
 them, on becoming his difciples, from the ob- 
 ligation they were under by the law to abftain 
 from the purfui tof worldly bufinefs and plea- 
 fure on the fabbath, and to keep it holy to the 
 
C 31 ] 
 
 Lord. It could not be ijecefTary for him to 
 ratify afrefh an injunction of the law by an ex- 
 prefs command to (hew, that he did not intend 
 to annul it. His own uniform compliance 
 with it could be underftood in no other light 
 than a full acknowledgement, that it was Hill 
 to remain in force with relpecf to the Jews, at 
 lead till the diffolution of their civil polity, 
 if not afterwards. He cenfured with the greater! 
 freedom thefalfe glofies that had been put upon 
 the lav/, and the abfurd traditions by which it 
 had been made void, but to the law itfelf he 
 objected not : that, he faid, he was not come 
 to deftroy. He, therefore, evidently approved 
 of the Jewifh converts obferving the iabbath 
 with the ftridnefs really prefcribed by the law. 
 Perhaps, as he forefaw and predicted the 
 overthrow of the Jewifh flate, he might not 
 efteem it necerTary to command the Jewifh con- 
 verts to obferve the iabbath after that event, 
 when they would be forced to difcontinue 
 fome of their ceremonies, forefeeing that they 
 would either look upon themfelves as bound 
 by the law and his example to do fo, or that 
 they would keep fome other day holy to 
 God, which being equally well calculated to 
 anfwer all the religious and moral purpofes of 
 the fabbath, he might not think it needful to 
 caution them again ft making fuch a change. 
 But had he (whofe zeal was fo great for the 
 public honour and worfhip of his heavenly 
 Father, as to fcourge from the temple thofe 
 who profaned it by converting it into a place 
 of merchandize) being aware that his follow- 
 
C 3* J 
 
 ers would ceafe to regard one day above another 
 in direct oppofition to his own example, and 
 to a practice which infinite wifdom had thought 
 fit to injoin, in the moil folemn manner, on all 
 the people of his nation, he would doubtlefshave 
 been particularly careful to guard themagainfl 
 fo unprecedented and dangerous a conduct. 
 
 3. The apoftles, after our Lord's afcenfion, 
 acted in the fame manner as he had done dur- 
 ing- his life- time.. It was the manner of Paul 
 in particular, that champion for the liberty of 
 the gentile converts, to attend the fynagogues 
 every fabbath-day. In his fpeech before Feftus 
 jie declares, that againft the law he had not 
 offended any thing at all. Now can we fup- 
 pofe, that the apoftles would have continued 
 to do as their mailer had done before them, if 
 they had received any private inftructions from 
 him, or been directed by the Spirit, to weaken 
 by degrees the attachment of the Jewifh con- 
 verts to any fuch practice, as that, in which 
 they had been brought up, but which, on ac- 
 count of its being, in fact, fuperftitious and in- 
 jurious, was to be aboiimed ? Would Paul 
 efpecially, who fo refolutely withftood the im- 
 posing fpirit of the Jewifh converts, not only 
 have refrained from hinting to them, that they 
 were no longer bound to obferve any day as a 
 fabbath, but alfo have countenanced their ap- 
 preheniion that they were fo by his own con- 
 duct, had he been authorifed to teach them a 
 different doctrine ? I know, that Eubulus hath 
 brought a paflage from the epiftle to the Ga- 
 latians, which he fuppofes to militate againft 
 
[ 33 1 
 
 iuch an inference as I have deduced from Paul's 
 conduct ; but I think, that your ingenious 
 correfpondent Hernias, in his paper on the 
 perpetuity of the Jewith ritual, feci:. 4th and 
 5th, hath fhewn with refpecl to fuch cafual 
 expreffions of theapoftle, that they ought not 
 to be rigoroufly underftood, but candidly in- 
 terpreted by the language of his behaviour, 
 which ihould be taken into consideration, 
 when we inveftigate the meaning of his words, 
 that we may not fet thefe and his aflions at 
 irreconcileable variance with each other. I, 
 therefore, infer from the unequivocal declara- 
 tion of Paul, Acts xxv. 8. xxviii. 17. and from 
 his conduct and that of the other apoftles, that 
 they did not oppofe, but countenance the ob- 
 fervance of a weekly day of reft to be devoted 
 to religious exercifes, and that they did not 
 object to the Jewiih converts ftill keeping 
 the fabbath. 
 
 4. There are plain traces of the obfervance 
 of what is called the Lord's day in fcripture, 
 before the death of the apoftles. On the day of 
 Pen tecoft, which feems to have been the firft day 
 of the week (See Dr Jennings's Jew. Ant. b. 3* 
 c. 5.) the apoftles and the hundred and twenty 
 difciples were afTembled (See Dr. Benfon s 
 Jirfi planting of chrijiianity . b. i.e. 1. ied:. 1.). 
 On the firft day of the week the difciples met 
 together to break bread. Acts xx. 7. On the 
 firft day of the week every one was to lay by 
 him in ftore for charitable ufes, as God had 
 profpered him. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. John v. as in the 
 fpirit on the Lord's day. Rev. 1. 10. 
 
 E 
 
C 34 ] 
 
 From thefe pafTages it feems highly probable, 
 that the firft day of the week was particularly 
 diftinguifhed and regarded from the time of 
 our Lord's refurrection, or at leaft very foon, 
 if not immediately, after his afcenfion ; and 
 from the laft of them it appears, that before 
 the death of John it had obtained the name 
 of the Lord's day. As John did nothing more 
 than ufe the epithet xvgtoaui to diftinguifh the 
 day he alluded to, and wrote for the ufe of 
 chriftians in general, of that and all fucceeding 
 ages, it is evident, that he knew they wanted 
 no other mark to difcover what day he meant, 
 and that, therefore, it was a name univerfally 
 given to the firir. day at that time by chriftians. 
 Now as the fabbath was a name affixed to a 
 particular day under the Jewifh difpenfation, to 
 denote that it was a day of reft and public wor- 
 fhip, it is probable that the firft day of the 
 week was called the Lords, for the like reafon. 
 On the former the Jews had been delivered 
 from bondage, and were, therefore, ordered 
 to keep it holy; on the latter Jefus was mani- 
 fejled to be the Son of God with power by his 
 refurrediion. As the apoflles and the other 
 Jewifh converts had been accuftomed to ob- 
 serve the former in commemoration of the 
 divine mercy to their nation, I think it is likely, 
 that as the latter was diftinguiihed by an event, 
 which confirmed the divine million of their 
 Saviour, and on which their hopes refted, they 
 celebrated it by abft aining from bodily labour, 
 and joining in acts of focial worfhip. If they 
 thought proper to diftinguifh it at all by any 
 
[ 35 ] 
 
 religious notice, and the performance of a par- 
 ticular rite, on account of the moft important 
 of all events having taken place upon it, there is 
 a probability, that as Jews, who hadobierved 
 the fabbath in commemoration of a tern poralde- 
 liveranceinavery folemn manner, they kept the 
 Lord's day with equal refpect and reverence. 
 And I think that the firftchriitians would hardly 
 have given it the name of the Lord's day, if 
 this had not been the cafe, and they had not 
 conceived, that there was a peculiar propriety 
 in their doing fo in honour of their Saviour. 
 
 5. The word churchy fo frequently occurring 
 in the fcriptures of the New Teflament, is al- 
 lowed to fignify aflemblies of people called out 
 and convened for fome particular purpofe. 
 Now, whether the affemblies, meant by the 
 word church in thofe writings, were held in a 
 private houfe, and confifted only of the perfons 
 belonging to it (which feems to be fome- 
 times the cafe), or were compofed of feveral 
 houfhoids, who met together in a place agreed 
 upon among them, it cannot be doubted but 
 that the object of their coming together was 
 to engage in acts of focial worfhip, and to enjoy 
 the means of edification. What is faid about 
 churches leads to this idea. But I think that 
 the word church would not have been adopted, 
 efpecially when there is a reference to a tingle 
 houihold only, if it had not been defigned to 
 convey the idea of their uniting at fome jiated 
 time in religious exercifes, in a more par ticular 
 manner than at others. The term would have 
 been needleflly, if not improperly, employed 9 
 
[ 36 ] 
 
 had it been intended to fignify no more than a 
 meeting of the members of a chnftian family 
 to join in daily devotion. This every Jew muff, 
 have underffood to be a ftanding family duty, 
 and would not have uled himfelf, or expected to 
 fee ufed by othei s,2.par{icular and feemingly ap- 
 propriate term todiftingiufh theperfons of a pri- 
 vate houfe meeting to perform this common 
 duty, equally incumbent upon all, from others. 
 I therefore conceive, that this term fuggefts the 
 idea of perfons, aiTembling on a particular fixed 
 day for religious purpofes. This day we mall 
 fee farther reafon, as we proceed, to fuppofe 
 to be the Lord's day, 
 
 6. Had not the firft chriftians fet apart feme 
 day of the week for religious worfhip, and held 
 it facred, their Jewifh neighbours would have 
 looked upon them as atheifts. But where do 
 we find that they regarded them in that light? 
 The Jewifh converts might continue to attend 
 the fynagogues on the fabbath, as well as keep 
 the Lord's day. King produces evidence of 
 both having been oblerved in the eaffern chur- 
 ches in the time of Origen. Enquiry into the 
 Conftitution, &c. pt. 2. ch. y. feci. u. 
 
 j. As it cannot be difputed, that churches 
 were formed in various parts of the world in 
 the days of the apoftles, fo there are many ftrong 
 indications, not yet noticed, of their obferving 
 a day for religious purpofes. In the churches 
 ofLyftra, Iconium,and Antioch, Paul and Bar- 
 nabas ordained elders, i. e. fome of the earlier! 
 converts of thofe cities,who had been mofl ful- 
 ly instructed, and were, therefore, beft quali- 
 
[ 37 3 
 
 tied to teach others. But for what end did they 
 appoint iuch officers, if there was not a parti- 
 cular tutu for the exercife of their function. 
 There is not the fhadow of a reafon, as far as 
 I can difcover, for fuppofing that the apofUes 
 took them off entirely from fecuiar purfuits 
 (as we mail by and by fee they did) to be every 
 day employed in nothing but going from houfe 
 to houie to teach, which in the day-time would 
 have occafioned an interruption of bufinefs. 
 Aad if they had made their paftoral vifits when 
 the bufinefs of the day was over,which perhaps 
 they frequently did, where would have been the 
 neceffity, unlefs for a purpofe hereafter to be 
 mentioned, for their not working themfelves 
 in the day ? As, then, elders were ordained, 
 and being inverted with an office, did, no 
 doubt, at fome time or other,, difcharge the 
 duties of it, and that probably not at feafons 
 when they muft have called off the members 
 of their flocks from their worldly bufinefs, it 
 was doubtlefs more peculiarly at a time when 
 they were at leiiure to attend to their inftruc- 
 tions, and ufed to meet to celebrate the Lord's 
 fupper, i. e. on the Lord's day. But of this 
 I proceed to adduce farther proof. 
 
 Paul tells the Corinthians ( i Ep. ch. xi. v. 1 8) 
 that he heard there ize/e dvuijions among them* 
 iv hen they met together in the church. On what 
 day they were ace uftomed to meet there is clear- 
 ly pointed out by a circumftance mentioned in 
 the 20th verle, where the apoflie fays, when ye 
 come together into one place, this is not to cat the 
 Lord's fupper$ for the fupper no where appears 
 
[ 3» J 
 
 as I remember, to have been eaten on any other 
 than the Lord's day As on this day the Co- 
 rinthian converts ufed to afiemble to commemo- 
 rate the death of Chrift,fb likewife to perform 
 other duties of religion; for we read in the 
 14th chapter, of prophefying, praying, and 
 fingingin the church, which the apoftlefpeaks 
 of as acts in which they engaged when they 
 met, which no doubt was on the day that they 
 partook of the Lord's fupper, in the celebra- 
 tion of which he had charged them with being 
 guilty of great indecencies. For, as he is frill 
 purfuing one fubject,and giving directions with 
 refpect to behaviour and the management of 
 offices to be performed in the church, there 
 can be no juft ground for fuppofing that he 
 refers to any other day. On this day, therefore, 
 they prophefied, prayed, and fung, as well as 
 celebrated the rite of the fupper. Now what 
 probability is there, that all thefe duties were 
 crouded together into the compafs of an hour 
 after the chriftians of Corinth had finifhed the 
 labours of the day. The apoftle permitted 
 two, or three, or even all of the prophets to 
 fpeak one by one, ver. 29 and 31 ; and as pro- 
 phefying was for the edification of thofe who 
 believed, ver 22, it probably confifled of in- 
 ftructions relating to christian doctrines and 
 duties, which it might employ the prophets 
 fome confiderable time to illuftrate and enforce. 
 This part of the public fervice, together with 
 the others of praying, finging, and diftributing 
 the elements of the fupper among the com- 
 municants, furely filled up more than an hour, 
 
[ 39 ] 
 
 if they were all done decently, and in order, 
 and might eafily furnifh employment for as 
 many hours as are now ulually allotted lor the 
 public ferviees of the Lord's day. 
 
 Paul, in his fir ft epiflle to Timothy, ch. v. 
 ver. 1 8. commands, Let the elders, that rule 
 well, be counted worthy of double honour, efpecially 
 thofe, who labour in the word and doctrine. That 
 the apoftle comprehended, under the word 
 honour, fome recompence for the ferviees done 
 the church, is manifeft from the next verfe, 
 which is introduced with the conjunction for, 
 to lhew that he is going to produce a reafon 
 for the command he had immediately before 
 delivered. His woids are, For the fcripture 
 faith, Thoujhalt not muzzle the ox, that treadeth 
 out the corn ; and, the labourer is worthy of his 
 reward. But in his firft epiftle to the Co- 
 rinthians, ch. ix. ver. 14. he fays exprefily, 
 The Lord hath ordained, that they who -preach 
 the go/pel, which I conceive to mean the fame 
 as labouring in the word and dociri?ie, Jloould 
 live of the go/pel. Now can it be at all likely, 
 either that elders mould be called off from 
 worldly occupations, which, had they purlued 
 them as other chriftians who were not appoint- 
 ed to any ipiritual office, would have been 
 the means of fupplying their bodily wants 
 without their being at all burdenfome to the 
 church, if all they had been to do were oc- 
 cafionally to vilit the flock, and attend at the 
 meeting of their brethren an hour before the 
 work of the day began, or after it was ended, 
 which, according to Eubulus, could not re- 
 
[ 4° ] 
 
 quire any interruption of fecular purfuits, to 
 aihft at the celebration of the Lord's lupper,, 
 and to deliver a few brief init.ruct.ions — or 
 that,, if they were, and were thereby thrown 
 upon the bounty of the church for their fub- 
 fiftence,. in return for fo imall a fervice, it 
 would not have been warmly objected to, as a 
 thing highly unreafonable and oppreffive? 
 
 Perhaps Eubulus may fay, that an objection 
 of this kind was ftarted againft the apoftles in 
 the Corinthian church, as he may think it 
 implied by Paul's queftion, If %ve have fown 
 unto you fpiritual things , is it a great thing if 
 ive Jhall reap your carnal things? I Cor. ix. u 
 But the apoftle's reply in the words immedi- 
 ately following is founded on their conceiTion, 
 that others had a right to (hare in their carnal 
 things, or at leaft in their readily confenting 
 that they mould do fo, If others be partakers 
 ef this power over you y are not we rather ? 
 However, he chofe himfelf to wave the exer- 
 cife of his right, that he might not hinder 
 the fuccefs of the gofpel. It therefore appears 
 to be very evident, that the firft chriifians 
 fubmitted to have public teachers eftablimed 
 among them with the incumbrance of pro- 
 viding for their fupport, though the apoftles 
 had no worldly power to force them to fuch 
 a fubmiffion y and from this circumftance it 
 Is highly probable, that the fervice performed 
 by thofe teachers was fomething more than 
 adminiftering the Lord's fupper, and giving 
 iome brief in(trucl:ion«, at the beginning or 
 clofe of a day, the reft of which was employed 
 in temporal affairs. 
 
[ 4i ] 
 
 Farther, Paul tells Timothy, 2 epifh ch. ii. 
 ver. 4. that no man, that warreth, entangleth 
 himfelf with the affairs of this life: from which 
 he would have him infer, that he ought to have 
 nothing to do with worldly buiinefs. And that 
 not only an evangelift, which Timothy was, 
 but likewifeall who preached the gofpel, were 
 to act in the fame manner, may be concluded 
 from theapoftle's comparing thofe who preach- 
 ed the gofpel, with thofe who under the law 
 minijiered about holy things, and waited at the 
 altar, in order to prove that the former were 
 entitled to a livelihood, as were the latter, by 
 virtue of their office, 1 Cor. ix. 13. 14. For 
 his reafoning would have been inconclufive, 
 had not the one been taken off, as were the 
 other, from fecular employments. Moreover, 
 the words live by the gofpel either fignified 
 nothing, or that the perfons, of whom they 
 were fpoken, were to derive the whole of their 
 fubfiftence from preaching the gofpel, without 
 gaining a part of it by other means. Now, is 
 it at all likely, that the apoftle, who preferred 
 death to parting with that glory, to which he 
 conceived himfelf entitled for having preached 
 the gofpel gratis to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. ix. 
 15. would have himfelf acquiefced in, much 
 lefs have countenanced, the inftitution of an 
 order of perfons in the church to be main- 
 tained by its bounty, and aflerted the expedi- 
 ence, if not neceffity, of their abftaining from 
 all worldly purfuits, merely that they might 
 be at liberty to fpend an hour once a week to 
 promote the religious and moral improvement, 
 
 F 
 
[ 43 ] 
 
 of their fellow-chriftians, and that at a time, 
 when the engagements of bufinefs would have 
 been otherwife fufpended ? Did they want 
 all the reft of the week to prepare for the dif- 
 charge of fo fhort a fervice ; or was it more 
 inconfiftent with the nature of their office, 
 than with the juperior one of an apoftle, to 
 work with their hands to get a living? 
 
 No doubt, the end to be aniwered by their 
 keeping themfelves free from the entangle- 
 ments of the affairs of this life was, that they 
 might devote their time to reading and Jiudy, 
 agreeably to the apoftle's charge to Timothy, 
 that they might bcjcribes we// faftru&ed unto 
 the kingdom of heaven, able rightly to divide the 
 word oj truth, capable of guiding the devo- 
 tions of the people, and thus qualified for per- 
 forming, with propriety and ulefulnfes, fervices 
 which occupied a much larger portion of a 
 certain day than Eubulus fuppofes to have 
 been then employed in any public acts of a re- 
 ligious nature. And I remark, that this day 
 muff, have been the Lord's day, when chrif- 
 tains met to commemorate his death, and not 
 the Jewifh fabbath ; fince it is not fuppofable, 
 that the elders were allowed to difcharge the 
 duties, which it hath been already (hewn they 
 were appointed to diicharge, mjynagogues, un- 
 lefs all the Jews, who aflembled in them, were 
 become converts to chriftianity, which probably 
 was not any where, certainly not every where, 
 the cafe, where elders were ordained. 
 
 The author of the epiftle to the Hebrews 
 (probably Paul) in his charge to thofe to whom 
 
[ 43 ] 
 
 Ke wrote, not to forfake the afTembling of 
 themfelves together, x. 25. sni James, in for- 
 bidding a preference to be fhewn to perfons, 
 who came into their affembly with a gold ring 
 and in goodly apparel, ii. 2. are, if I miftake 
 not, generally thought, and on good grounds, 
 to refer to the public meetings then held by 
 chriftians on the Lord's day for focial wor/hip* 
 Thefe writers, from the very nature of the fub- 
 jecls they wrote about, can be fuppofed to 
 fpeak of none but religious meetings, and in 
 no other meetings of that kind could chrif- 
 tians have a right to manage but fuch as con- 
 fided of chriftians. Thefe, therefore, were 
 the meetings which the writer to the Hebrews 
 injoined them not to forfake, and in which 
 James forbids any partiality to be difcovered. 
 And as chriftians confelfedly met on the firft 
 day to commemorate the death of their Lord, 
 it was no doubt to the meetings held on that 
 occafion, that both referred. 
 
 Peter, fpeaking of the views with which 
 elders ought to take the overlight of the flock, 
 fays, that they fhould do it not for filthy lucre' 's 
 Jake, but of a ready mind, 1 Eph. v. 2. i. e. that 
 worldly gain mould not be their leading ob- 
 ject in undertaking their office. From hence 
 it alfo appears, that there were elders, that 
 Peter approved of the inftitution ot iuch an 
 order of men, and that they were in fome way 
 orother rewarded by their flocks for their labours 
 among them; from all which the fame infer- 
 ences follow as have been already deduced from 
 the fame circumftances mentioned by Paul. 
 
[ 44 ] 
 
 Upon an impartial review of the evidence 
 now produced, I cannot but think it fufficient 
 to prove, that a day was fet apart every week 
 in the times of the apoftles for religious pur- 
 pofes, that this day was the Lord's day^ and 
 that no worldly bufmefs was done upon it. 
 
 To prove that the Lord's day was obferved 
 in the fame ftrictly religious manner in the 
 following ages, prior to the days of Conftan- 
 tine, I have no need to quote paflages from 
 the writers of that period of time, this being 
 already done to my hands by feveral, to fome 
 of whom I beg leave to refer. See particularly 
 Bimop Pearfon on the Creed, Art. 5. p. 263 
 to 266, ed. 9. King's Enquiry into the Con- 
 ititution, &c. of the Primitive Church, pt. 2. 
 where any one may fee not only numerous proofs 
 of the obiervance of the Lord's day, but alfo an 
 account of the religious duties performed in the 
 church in the firft ages. Dr. Whitby on 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 2. With refpect to what was done in the 
 church on the Lord's day, fee alfo Dr. Benfon's 
 Efiay, annexed to his Paraphrafe on 2 Tim. 
 
 Though what I have now advanced be, ac- 
 cording to my prefent opinion,enough to vin- 
 dicate the practice of chriftians in obferving a 
 day of religious reft, from the charge of being 
 fu perditions ,yet it may not be amifs to examine 
 Eubulus's objections to thispractice,cneby one, 
 that nothing he hath faid may be left unanfwer- 
 ed. This Lmay do in a future paper, if you 
 will give me leave, and I mould not find it 
 done before by fome other perfon. 
 
 I anv Gentlemen, &c. &c. 
 
 PHILANDER. 
 
C 45 ] 
 
 In Continuation. 
 
 ¥ Now proceed, according to the intimation 
 ** in my former paper, to examine the objec- 
 tions of Eubulus. That Gentleman fays, that 
 " an institution (of a day of cerTation from all 
 worldly bufinefs) cannot be productive of any 
 valuable ends, but fuch as are eafily to be at- 
 tained without it." p. 14. Were the valuable 
 ends, to be anfwered by the infKtution of the 
 fabbath among the Jews, as eafily attainable 
 without it ? If they were, what will Eubulus 
 fay to vindicate the divine wifdom in fuch an 
 appointment ? If they were not, what mould 
 render them attainable among chriflians, with- 
 out their devoting one day of the week to re- 
 ligious exercifes ? Are chriflians differently 
 conftituted from Jews, or not fufceptible of 
 like impreffions from fenfible objects, and the 
 .engagements of bufinefs and pleafure ? If this 
 cannot be aflerted with truth, as I prefume it 
 cannot, is not our withdrawing our attention 
 from fecular affairs during one day in feven, 
 and transferring it to concerns of an infinitely 
 more important nature, as expedient for us as 
 it was for the Jews ? Eubulus reprefents " a 
 very fmall part of the great bulk of the people 
 as having either inclination or ability, to employ 
 the weekly returns of fabbatical idlenefs in 
 what are called religious exercifes and medita- 
 tions," p. 23. If the greater part of the mafs of 
 the people be neither inclined nor able to act 
 
C 46 1 
 
 in this manner on a day in which law and 
 cuftom obljge them to fufpend their worldly 
 purluits, and they in general entertain an ap- 
 prehenfion, though it do not properly influence 
 their practice, that it ought to be fpent in a 
 religious manner, can there be any ground to 
 expect, that they would be more difpofed, or 
 more able to dedicate a (ingle hour of it, with 
 greater ferioufnefs and advantage, to religious 
 employments, when they did not think them- 
 felves obliged to keep the whole of any day at 
 all in a religious manner; and when through 
 the reft of the firft, and all the other days of 
 the week, their minds were Occupied with 
 worldly affairs ? Can one train of thoughts, 
 continued by an unremitted attention to one 
 particular fetofobjectsfora long time together 
 be difmiiTed,and a quite difFeren t one introduced, 
 at will, and in an inftant ? At leaft, is it in the 
 power of any befides the very few, who habi- 
 tually maintain a pious frame of mind, to 
 make fo fudden a tranfition ? This I take to be 
 contrary to the law which univerfally operates 
 in regulating the fucceffion of our ideas, and 
 to general experience. 
 
 Eubulus, fuppofing that " the inftitution of 
 a day of reft from all worldly bufinefs — induces 
 a very large majority of the moft ufeful and 
 molt numerous part of the people, to mifpend 
 the feventh part of their time," p. 14, feems 
 to infinuate, that there muft be, in the very 
 nature of fuch an institution, a tendency to 
 produce this unhappy confequence. I think, 
 he muft therefore arraign the wifdom of ap- 
 
[ 47 J 
 
 pointing a fabbath to the Jews, which, how- 
 ever, he dees not appear inclined to do, as he 
 feems to allow, that it was from God, and that 
 .chnftuns would be bound to comply with a 
 like inftitution, couid fuch be proved to have 
 been eftablilhed among them by divine autho- 
 rity. Neverthelefs, I do not lee how he can 
 avoid taking thi ftep, unlefs he can ihew, that 
 there is fuch a difference between the circum- 
 ftances or Jews and chriftians, as that fuch an 
 inftitution among the former could not, but 
 among the latter muji have a bad tendency, 
 which is not to be compensated by any benefit 
 that can arile fiom it. It is not the circum- 
 ftance of the Jews having been promifed, that 
 if they duly obeyed their law, their iand mould 
 be fruitful, and of chriftians having no fuch 
 promife, and that therefore the former might 
 jfafely abftain from rural bufmefs for one day 
 in feven, whereas the latter cannot, which 
 could make a fabbatical reft fate to r he one, 
 while it would be dangerous to the other, in 
 a moral view ; fince in both cafes alike the 
 inftitution of fuch a reft muft occaiion the 
 idlenefs, from which Eubulus apprehends the 
 bad tendency of it to arife. It is alio proper 
 to be obferved, that Eubulus, both here and 
 in other places, argues the diiufe of a thing 
 from the abule of it ; a mode of reafoning 
 which, if it were fair and concluiive, would 
 prove in many inftances too much, as hath 
 been frequently remarked. 
 
 Eubulus fays, that " without a pofitive in- 
 junction the ftrict obfervance of a fabbatical 
 
C 48 ] 
 
 reft is merely fuperftition." With fuch ftr~ 
 perflation, however (if their practice muft be 
 called fuch) I havefhewnin my former paper 
 that the apoftles and firft chriftians were 
 chargeable. But the practice of the apoftles 
 muft be a full j unification of the prefent one 
 of chriftians on the general grounds, on which 
 their uniform conduct in any other inftance 
 challenges imitation. 
 
 It is inconceivable that Paul, who com- 
 manded his difciples to be followers of him, 
 fhould not be aware, that chriftians would 
 draw his conduct, and that of the other apoftles, 
 in fo important an article as the obfervance 
 of a day of religious reft, into a precedent, 
 and that he and they would not therefore have 
 taken care to guard them againft fo doing by 
 a particular caution, had they entertained an 
 idea, that under the chriftian difpenfation no 
 day of the week was to be religiouily kept., 
 Jefus and his apoftles obferved the Jewifh fab- 
 bath, though not with the fuperftitious regard 
 of Pharifees, which would have prevented 
 them from doing acts of beneficence upon it. 
 Had they thought, that not only that, but 
 every other day of the week ought to be 
 employed by chriftians in worldly bulinefs, 
 would they not have dropped fome intimation 
 atleaft, that they fell into a compliance with 
 the eftablifhed cuftom of their country, merely 
 as a temporary expedient for propagating the 
 gofpel among the Jews with the greater fuccefs ; 
 but that, when the expedient had produced all 
 its effect, a difcrimination of days ought to be 
 entirely laid afide ? 
 
[ 49 ] 
 
 Perhaps Eubulus may obferve that, accord- 
 ing to my reafoning, chriftians ought to keep 
 the Jewifh iabbath, which very few of them 
 are found to do. But I do not fee how he cari 
 draw this confequence from it with refpec~t to 
 any beiides Jewifh converts at the moll; which 
 fubject I leave to be difcufTed between him 
 and Hermas. If fuch a confequence can be 
 eftablifhed with refpect to them, it would b& 
 ftrange indeed, that the example of Jefus and 
 his apoftles mould not carry with it the leaft 
 fhadow of authority with refpecl: to the reft of 
 their followers. The fpirit and intention of 
 an example may demand the higheft regard, 
 where there may be no apparent obligation to 
 do the very fame thing, that the perfon who 
 fets the example hath done before. Jefus 
 warned the difciples feet; yet we do not think 
 ourfelves bound to do the very fame thing, 
 though we allow, that this conduft of our Lord 
 obliges us to behumble,and to condefcend to the 
 performance of any kind offices for one another. 
 Jefus was a whole night in a w%o<rsv%v}, where 
 he doubtlefs employed all the time, either in 
 direct addreffes to his father, or in religious 
 meditation, or in both. This cannot oblige 
 his followers to fpend whole nights in devo- 
 tion in places appropriate for that purpofe, 
 though it certainly ought to induce them to 
 cherifh that devout frame of mind, which will 
 qualify them for the proper difcharge of the duty 
 ofprayeratftated times, and of any extraordina- 
 ry acts of devotion, which peculiar circumftan- 
 ces may require. Jefus fed thoufands at a time 
 
 G 
 
C 50 ] 
 
 by miracle: it is impoffible for us to do the 
 like; yet his relieving in this manner the wants 
 of his attendants, as well as every other difplay 
 of his benevolence, powerfully recommends to 
 his followers the cultivation of a fimilar temper, 
 and the exercile of it in acts of kindnefs. In 
 fhort, different circum fiances and fituations, 
 which do not at all diminish the obligation 
 to follow a worthy pattern, may yet admit of 
 great latitude as to the manner, time, and 
 injiances, in which a perfon is bound to do it. 
 Though therefore theobfervance of the Jewifli 
 fabbath by our Lord and his apoftles may not 
 lay us under any obligation to keep that day, 
 yet as it gave a fanction to the appointment, 
 of one day of the week for reft from bodily 
 labour and religious exercifes, it is plain, that 
 they approved offome fuch appointment, and 
 that they conceived, that without it religion 
 would not be able to keep its ground in the 
 world. If this had not been the apprehenfion 
 of our Lord, but, on the contrary, that the 
 direct tendency and inevitable effect of a fab- 
 batical reft would be the corruption of the 
 morals of his followers, and that every valuable 
 purpofe of fuch a reft might be much more eafily 
 and cert ainly obtained, without thefufpenfionof 
 worldly buiinefs for a whole day once a week, 
 we could not reconcile it with the idea of his 
 being a wife and benevolent legiflator, to fup- 
 pofe that he would not only have neglected to 
 enjoin an alter? tion of fo dangerous a practice, 
 but alfo have left it in the enjoyment of all 
 the countenance and fupport, which the au- 
 
L 5< ] 
 
 thority of his example could give it. But if 
 he faw fuch a practice to be important, and 
 even effential for the prefer vation of religion 
 among mankind, it is eafy to account for his 
 giving no exprefs command to his followers, 
 to fet apart the firft:, or any other day of the 
 week for religious exercifes, in preference to 
 the reft, as he might not think it material 
 which day they kept ; and not having the moft: 
 diflant apprehenfion, that, after what they had 
 feen him do, and had been themfelves accuf- 
 tomed from infancy to do, they would think 
 themfelves at liberty to keep no day at all, he 
 might fuppofe that he could fafely leave the 
 choice of the day to the judgement of his apof- 
 tles and firft: difciples. And if thefe were our 
 Lord's ideas, he may fairly be fuppofed to have 
 been fo far from judging an exprefs command 
 to fanctify fome particular day requifite, as 
 Eubulus thinks, that he might regard fuch a 
 command as fuperfluous. 
 
 Eubulus's aflertion, p. 16, that "theapof- 
 *' ties and firft: difciples of Jefus Chrift, are 
 " no where faid to have diftinguiftied the firft. 
 " day of the week in any manner whatfoever," 
 hath been already fhewn in my former paper 
 to difagree with facts. In the twentieth 
 chapter of John, to which Eubulus refers, we 
 find that the difciples afTembled on the day of 
 Chrift's refurrection, and again on that day 
 fe'nnight ; and though it were ever fo clear, 
 that they met only to confer about the tefti- 
 mony of their Lord's refurre&ion, it would be 
 of very little conference to the caufe of Eubu- 
 
[ 5* ] 
 
 lus, while there remains fuch abundant evi- 
 dence befides, that it was afterwards their 
 cuftom to arTemble on that day, for religious 
 purpofes. But with refpect to the fecond of 
 the meetings recorded in that chapter, it is 
 by no means lb plain, that the difciples had 
 no bufinefs together, but to talk about the 
 evidence of their Lord's being rifen. Between 
 the time of that and the former meeting, a 
 week had intervened, during which, as they 
 muft have had feveral opportunities of con- 
 verting on that fubjed:, it is very improbable, 
 that they then came together merely to re- 
 new fuch converfation. I mould rather con- 
 jecture, that all the apoftles, except Thomas, 
 being convinced of the refarreetion of their 
 Lord, their fecond meeting was held in part at 
 lean:, to commemorate that mofl important 
 event, and that from this meeting is to be 
 dated the commencement of the chriftian 
 cuftom of folemnizing the Lord's day. 
 
 Eubulus thinks that the meeting fpoken of 
 Acts xx. ji was evidently in the very beginning 
 of the firft day of the week, i. e. in the evening, 
 after the bufinefs of the preceding day was 
 over; or, as he elfewhere obferves, according to 
 the Jewifh computation, in the evening of the 
 Jewifh fabbath, or our Saturday, and that it is 
 probable^ the difciples were then met to par- 
 ticipate of the Lord's {upper, p. iy f In p. 25, 
 he. jeems to intimate, that the rite of the fup- 
 per was celebrated in the evening of the Lord's 
 day, and to affign that as a reafon why the 
 celebration of it fhould not interfere with the 
 
C 53 'J 
 
 ufual hours of bufinefs. How are the repre- 
 sentations in theie two paflages to be reconciled ? 
 But not to dwell on this apparent inconliftency, 
 I would aik, where is there the leaft proof that 
 the meeting under confiueration was in the 
 evening of the leventh aay. I can find none 
 in the hiifory. But if we reflect that Paul 
 hafted, if it were pojjibk for him (attend to the 
 force of thefe words), to be at Jerufaicm the 
 day of pentecoft, ver. 16, we fhall fee reafon 
 %o fuppofe, that Paul tarried feveral days at 
 Troas, in order to meet the difciples of that 
 place on the Lord's day, and keep it with them 
 according to their cullom, before he proceeded 
 on his journey. And if this was the cafe, he 
 muft leave Troas early on the morning of 
 Monday. See Wolfii. Cur. Phil. Dr. Whitby 
 in Loc. and Dr. Benton's hiflory of the firft 
 planting of chritfianity. b. 3. ch. 7. feci. 9. 
 
 The next parfage quoted by Eubulus is 1 
 Cor. xvi. 2. in which the apoftle fays not a 
 fyllable about fettling accounts, bat merely 
 orders the Corinthian converts to lay by, or 
 throw into a common ftock, what they could 
 afford for the relief of the faints at Jerufalem, 
 to prevent the trouble of making a col- 
 lection when he mould come to receive their 
 bounty. They had no need to examine into 
 their gains on the Lord's day, to fee what part 
 of them they could conveniently employ in 
 charity. That they could eafily do at any 
 time before the day came, on which the col- 
 lection was to be made. 
 
 Eubulus having confidered all the parTages 
 
[ 54 ] 
 
 (as he thinks, but which I have fhewn in my 
 former paper, to be by no means the cafe) 
 " which even by inference recommend the 
 ** keeping the nrfr day of the week facred as a 
 " fabbath day," adds, " there are others which 
 * c expreflly teach us that thegofpel does not re- 
 " quire of its difciples any fuch obfervance," 
 and he grounds his aifertion firft on. the apof- 
 tolic decree mentioned Acts xv. This decree 
 was occaiioned in the following manner. Cer- 
 tain perfons had gone from Judea to Antioeh, 
 and taught the brethren of that place, that they 
 muft be circumcifed in order to be faved, ver. i 
 Between thofe perfons and Paul and Barnabas, 
 there arofe fo great a diffenfion, that it was 
 thought neceffary to fend the latter to the a- 
 poftles and elders at Jerufalem, to take their 
 opinion upon the fubjecl: in difpute. Accord- 
 ingly the queftion was brought on, and agitated 
 in a council convened there for the purpofe,. 
 and their decifion is well known. Now if we 
 confider what gave origin to the decree, viz. 
 the difpute that had arifen at Antioch, whether 
 the gentile converts ought to be circumcifed, 
 and what was the end which the fabricators of 
 it had in view, viz. to remove obftru&ions to 
 fraternal union between them and the Jewifh 
 converts, I think we mall readily perceive, that 
 it was intended to enjoin only thofe things, 
 which the gentile converts might be in danger 
 of not otherwife attending to, and of thereby 
 giving un neceffary offence to the Jewifh ; leav- 
 ing the former at full liberty to act in concert 
 with the latter in all cafes wherein their chrif- 
 
[ 55 ] 
 
 clan freedom was not concerned, and there was 
 a confent of opinions between the two parties. 
 If this be admitted, the gentile converts might 
 keep a weekly fabbatical reft, without offending 
 again ft the fpirit or defign of this decree, or 
 reiigning any right enjoyed by their chriftian 
 profefiion. That they had no idea of their 
 being forbidden by the decree to obferve fuch 
 a reft, is evident from what hath been fhewn 
 to have been their practice in this refpedt. And 
 indeed, had they diftinguiftied no day of the 
 week from the reft, by keeping it facred, and 
 abftaining from worldly bulinefs, fuppofing 
 themfelves to be releafed by the Jerufalem 
 council from all obligation to do fo, there can 
 be no doubt but that, conlidering the zeal of 
 the Jewifh converts for the law, we ihould have 
 heard of their frequently cenfuring fuch a con- 
 duel, which muft have appeared to them high- 
 ly criminal. But where do we meet with 
 any thing of the fort ? 
 
 Though it be allowed, that i( to fay that only 
 " fuch and fuch particulars of a law are necef- 
 " fary to be obferved, is plainly and expreflly to 
 " declare that every other particular is un- 
 * c necefTary," it muft alfo be granted, that it is 
 to indulge a liberty with refped: to thofe other 
 particulars of the law, and to permit the ob- 
 fervance of 'fuch of them as are not otherwife 
 forbidden by the authority which enjoins tne 
 obfervance of certain particulars of it. That the 
 council of Jerufalem were of this opinion, ap- 
 pears from the fubfequenc behaviour of the 
 apoftles, and particularly from that of Paul, 
 
C 5« ] 
 
 who afterwards circumcifed Timothy at the 
 very time when he was employed in delivering 
 the decrees in various cities, and who attended 
 the worfhip of the fynagogue on the fabbath 
 days. Acts xvi. beginning, xvii. 2. xxi. 24. 
 
 I beg leave alfo to remark, with refpect to 
 the articles contained in the decree (that relat- 
 ing to fornication excepted, which is forbidden 
 by the divine law, whether communicated by 
 the light of reafon or of revelation) that they 
 feem to have been framed merely to preferve 
 harmony between the Jewifh and gentile con- 
 verts, and not to be binding in future, when 
 the peace of the church mould no longer require 
 the obfervance of them. After the feveral 
 articles are enumerated, it is added, From which 
 if ye keep yourj elves, ye foall do well. This 
 language appears to me to fhew plainly, that 
 all the injunctions, except the one concerning 
 fornication, were founded on maxims of pru- 
 dence, which affected the then ftate of things, 
 and that they were not in tended to bindchriftians 
 in future ages, when if they mould be no longer 
 regarded, there would be no danger of a fchifm 
 in the church becoming the confequence. To 
 the idea ju ft fuggefted, relating to the conti- 
 nuance of the obligation of the decree, the 
 determination of our Lord, which muft have 
 been known to theapoftles, that what enteretb 
 into the man cannot defile the man, and the ob- 
 fervations of Paul about the eating of things 
 offered to idols, (1 Cor. viii.) alfo lead. Now, 
 if what is here advanced be well founded, we 
 fhallfee fufficient reafon for the obfervance of 
 
C 57 ] 
 
 a fabbatical reft not being prefcribed in the 
 decree, viz. becaufe with refpect to that mat- 
 ter there was no difagreement between the 
 two forts of converts, and becaufe the obli- 
 gation to fuch an obfervance would remain, 
 when that to the obfervance of other particu- 
 lars of the decree would ceafe. 
 
 I would farther take notice, that the reafon 
 affigned by James, to whofe opinion the coun- 
 cil acceded, for the injunctions hepropofedto 
 have laid on the gentile converts, mews, that 
 they did not intend by their decifion to prohibit 
 the obfervance of a fabbatical reft, and that the 
 decree itfelf implies the exiftence of a religious 
 intercourfe and communion between the two 
 forts of converts. The words of James alluded 
 to, are, For Mofes of old ti?ne hath in every city 
 them that preach him y being read 'in thefynagogues 
 every fab bath -day. The reafon contained in 
 thefe words implies, that the Jewifh converts 
 continued to attend the fynagogues on the fab- 
 bath-day,and convey no cenfure of their conduct 
 in their fo doing. If,on their reception of chrifti- 
 anity,they had withheld,or been ordered to with- 
 hold,their attendance at thofe places on that day* 
 where would have been the pertinence of ot>- 
 ferving, that Mofes was then read in them ? 
 James's reafon is evidently founded on the fup- 
 pofition, that they did ftill afTemble with the 
 Jews on their fabbath, and by this means their 
 attachment to the law was ftill kept up, which 
 rendered it neceftary for their chriftian brethren 
 from among the gentiles to conform, in the in- 
 ftances fpecified in the decree, to their practice, 
 
 H 
 
C 5§ ] 
 
 But this conformity could only be needful on 
 the fuppoiition that the Jewilh and gentile con- 
 verts were incorporated into one body, and at 
 flated times met together to join in the fame 
 religious exerciles. For had there not fubiiited 
 a religious union of this fort between them, 
 and the object of the decree had been only to 
 preferve an intercourfeand friend {hip of a civil 
 nature between them, the decree would have 
 been fuperfluous, as iuch an object might have 
 been as eafily and effectually fecured with rc- 
 fpect to thefe two bodies of people as with 
 refpect to either of them and thofe who were 
 without the pale of the chriftian church, by 
 means of kind and courteous behaviour. Col. 
 iv. c. i ThefT. iv. 12. I, therefore, think, 
 that we are conflrained to infer from the decree, 
 and the reafon affigned for paffing it, that the 
 Jewifh converts attended the fynagogues on the 
 fabbath,that they were not blamed for fo doing, 
 and that between them and the gentile converts 
 there fubfiffed a church-union of great import- 
 ance, in the eirimation of the apofllcs, to the 
 caufe of chriftianity and their own religious 
 improvement, and therefore highly proper to 
 be maintained. And as we have feen diftinct 
 evidence from the fcriptures, that the Lord's 
 day was kept facred in the iirft age of the 
 church, this decree infcead of forbidding 
 fuch a practice, is a proof that it enjoyed the 
 approbation of the apoilles ; in as much as 
 they thought it requilite to order the gentile 
 converts to avoid certain things, which would 
 give umbrage to their brethren converted frora 
 
[ 59 3 
 
 judaifm, and produce a feparation between 
 them in their fecial and public wormip. 
 
 Eubulus, iecondly, ground's his aifertion, 
 that the gofpel does not require of its profeffors 
 the obfervance of any thing like a fabbatlcal 
 reft, on the defign of Paul's eniftle to the Ga- 
 latians. I readily allow, that the object of the 
 apoftle in this letter was to prove, that the 
 gentile converts were not required to obferve 
 any of the Jewiili ordinances. But how it can 
 be concluded from thence, either that they did 
 not keep one day of the week facred, or that 
 they fhould look upon themfelves as exempted 
 from all obligation to do any thing of the kind, 
 I do not perceive. That the primitive chrif- 
 tians did a&ually obferve the firft day of the 
 week in a religious manner, hath been already 
 fhewn ; and the Galatians would have drawn 
 a very ftrange inference, if, becaufe they had 
 been told, that they were not bound to obferve, 
 among other Mofaic inflitutions, that of the 
 Jewijh fabbath, they had confidered them- 
 felves as not obliged to keep <my&$y of the week 
 holy. Their being pronounced free from the 
 yoke of jewifh. ceremonies could not have been 
 fairly conftrued to mean, that they would la- 
 crifice their chriiaan liberty, or adl inconfifl- 
 ently with it, by obferving the day on which 
 their Lord rofe from the dead, and which the 
 apoftles themfelves had diftinguifhed by marks 
 of peculiar regard. Therefore, when Paul tells 
 the Galatians, that he was afraid of having be- 
 ftowed upon them labour in vain, becaufe they 
 obferved days, and months, and times, and 
 
[ 6o ] 
 
 years, he could be fairly underftood by them 
 to do no more than exprefs his difapprobation 
 of their unnecefTarily encumbering thernfelves 
 with the obfervance of institutions, to which, 
 as gentile converts they could be under no ob- 
 ligation to fubmit. Would a proteftant church in 
 a country of heathens, where there were alfo per- 
 sons of the popifh profeffion, conclude on re- 
 ceiving from the man by whom they had been 
 converted, a letter, containing exhortations, 
 that they would not fuffer thernfelves to be 
 prevailed on by their popifh neighbours to 
 join them in the obfervance of fafts and feflivals 
 not prefcribed by their religion, that their 
 friend ordered or wifhed them not to fanctify 
 any day at all, when fuch a practice was re- 
 commended by his own conduct, and followed 
 by the chriftian world in general ? 
 
 Upon the whole, I think we mufl fuppofe, 
 that there was an irreconcileable difagreemenc 
 between the practice and language of Paul, or 
 a moll; unaccountable want of any thing like 
 fy.ftem in his way of thinking, or of attention 
 in his mode of writing, unlefs it be allowed, 
 that in the pafTages in which he reafons on the 
 impropriety of the gentile converts adopting 
 Jewifh ordinances, he had not the moft diftant 
 reference to the fanctiflcation of a chriftian 
 lab bath. 
 
 That the re?dermay fee how ill-founded is 
 the obfervation of Eubulus, that the chriftians 
 of the three nrft centuries did not obferve any 
 day as a fabbath, p. 20, 21, nothing more is 
 necefTary than to refer him to the authors be- 
 
[ 6< ] 
 
 fore quoted ; to whom may be added Jofeph 
 Mede, from whofe difcourfe concerning chur- 
 ches, or appropriate places of chriftian worfhip, 
 it Teems evident, that from the days of the a- 
 pofties fuch a day hath been kept. I refer to 
 him only as producing evidence of the existence 
 of places of public worfhip, and of what was 
 done in them in the nrfl ages of the church ; 
 from which the conclufion appears to bejuft, 
 that one day of che week was then kept holy. 
 Direct proofs of this may be feen in the other 
 authors referred to. See Mede' s Works, b. ii. 
 Eubulus afferts, but fays nothing to prove, 
 that Abraham and the patriarchs kept no fab- 
 bath. Directly the reverfe I apprehend to have 
 been arTerted by many learned men, who have 
 endeavoured to prove, that one day in [even 
 hath been fet apart for religious purpofes from 
 the beginning of the world. But not to enter 
 into the difcuffion of this fubject, which doth 
 not appear to have much, if any connexion, 
 with the prefent difpute, I proceed to obferve, 
 that, if the htif. chriftians, as Eubulus r ays, 
 met early in the morning, or in the evening, 
 it was probably for fear of their enemies ; but 
 that, as often as they could do it with (arety, 
 they employed other parts of the Lord's day 
 in the public fervices of religion. For the proof 
 of this fact I mufl beg leave to refer the reader 
 as before. 
 
 It is well known, that people who live i 
 villages and country places, are the lair. t< 
 change their opinions and practices. This cir- 
 enmftance will furnifh a much better reafon 
 
[ 62 ] 
 
 than that ailigned by Eubulus for'Conftantine's 
 notextending his order to fnipend their worldly 
 bufinefsonthe Lord's day tothofe places, p. 22. 
 If the views of that prince were entirely politi- 
 cal, his conduct may much more juitly be 
 afcribed to a dread of exciting difcon tents The 
 reafon given by Eubulus for this conduct of 
 Conftantine is fo exprefled, that it may lead 
 an unwary reader to think much more favour- 
 ably of it than it deferves. He reprefents Con- 
 ftantine, as " providently apprehending, that 
 the iupprefiion of agriculture and other rural 
 occupations for one f event h of the year might 
 in fome feafons be, at lead locally, attended 
 with very fatal confequences." A reader, who 
 runs over this palTage in great hade, and with- 
 out reflecting, may inadvertently conceive this 
 ieventh part of the year to mean one connected 
 period. It is true, he muft read with very 
 little attention not to correct his miftake im- 
 mediately -, but if he did correct it, I think he 
 muft at once difcover the improbability of Con- 
 ftantine'shavingacted with the view afcribed to 
 him by Eubulus. This thought would at 
 once fuggeft itfelf to his mind, that if Con- 
 ftantine, for any reafon whatever, chofe to 
 enjoin on mechanics, manufacturers, &c. in 
 cities and large towns, thefufpenfionof bufinefs 
 one day in feven, by which they would be de- 
 prived of one feventh part of their gains, he 
 might eafily have obviated the objection, which 
 his fubje&s in country places were likely to 
 make on account of the fatal confequences, 
 which Eubulus fuppofes him to have been 
 
C 63 ] 
 
 aware of, by inferting a provifo in his decree, 
 that, to preferve the fruits of the earth in pre- 
 carious fcaions, they fhould be permitted to 
 work on the Lord's day. But what could have 
 induced this ^prince to have enjoined a fabbati- 
 cal reft on any part of his fubjects, feeing he 
 would thereby deprive the community of the 
 benefit of a feventh part of their labour, and 
 the perfons themfelves of the fame proportion 
 of their gains, if he had not found fuch an in- 
 stitution fubufting among chriftians ? If he 
 wiflied to pay his court to the clergy, and to 
 fecure their attachment, he might have eafily 
 obtained that end without increaiing their duty. 
 If the chriftian laity had been accuftomed to 
 pay ftipends to their minifters for the fhort 
 fervice of an hour at the beginning or clofe of 
 one day in the week, the reft of which they 
 employed in worldly bufinefs and had no idea 
 of the facrednefs of one day above another, 
 would it have been political in the prince, or 
 likely to be plealing to his people, to introduce 
 among them a weekly fabbatical reft, by which 
 they would be deprived of a part of their ufual 
 gettings, and which they had not before been 
 taught to confider themfelves as bound to keep ? 
 I am, therefore, fully of opinion, that Eubulus 
 afcribes the conducl of Conftantine to a wrong 
 caufe, and that his enjoining at all the obfer- 
 vance of a weekly reft argues, that he found 
 fuch a cuftom among chriftians, and, for fome 
 reafon or other, wiflied to make it as general 
 in his empire, as he thought he could do it 
 with fafety. 
 
[ H ] 
 
 Part of what Eubulus fays, p. 23, is per- 
 fectly juft; but I cannot agree with him, that, 
 becauie the religion of the gofpel ought to in- 
 fluence the minds, and direct the practice of 
 its profeflors in every action and moment of 
 their lives, the appointment of any particular 
 days or feafons for religious meditation is fuper- 
 rluous and unneceflary. The quite contrary 
 inference appears to me the only juft one, and 
 for reafons founded on the ftate of things, 
 which he proceeds to defcribe. For if, as 
 Eubulus reprefents, a very fmall part of the 
 great bulk of the people be inclined to employ 
 the day of fabbatical reft in religious exercifes 
 and meditations, now that it enjoys the coun- 
 tenance of law and general cuftom and opini- 
 on, is there the leaft fhadow of probability, 
 that, if they purfued their bufinefs and plea- 
 fures every day of the week, they would feel 
 more of a religious temper ? Is it not evidently 
 the influence of fuch purfuits for fix days, not 
 duly counteracted by private meditation and 
 devotion, that tends to difqualify them for the 
 religious exercifes of the feventh? What lefs, 
 then, could be expected from their being en- 
 gaged every day in thofe purfuits, without 
 having their attention called for a confiderable 
 portion of one day in the week to religious 
 and moral fubjects, than the total extirpation 
 of all pious and virtuous feelings from their 
 minds, and the mod alarming licentioufnefs in 
 their manners ? Could they indeed be prevailed 
 on fteadily to perform the religious duties of 
 the clofet and family, and uniformly to govern 
 
C 65 ] 
 
 their thoughts, affections, and actions, by the 
 rules of the gofpel, without keeping a fab- 
 batical reft, the duty of obferving fuch an in- 
 ftitution, as far as it anfes from the religious 
 and moral tendency of fuch a conduct, would 
 be fuperfeded. But upon what grounds can 
 fuch an event be expected ? 
 
 Suppofe the alteration, pleaded for by Eubu- 
 lus were adopted, would the luft of the flefh, 
 the luft of the eye, and the pride of life be a- 
 bated ? Would the man now enflaved to either 
 of thofe luffs, be likely, when he had more 
 time and additional opportunities for indulging 
 it, to become lefs fo, to perform with more fre- 
 quency or fervour the devotion of the clofet or 
 the family than he does at prefent, or to attend 
 public worfhip for an hour twice or thrice a 
 week, with more conftancy or benefit than he 
 does now the fervices of the church on the 
 Lord's day? All juft reafoning from the ftate 
 of things in the world, and the constitution of 
 the human mind forbids the hope of fuch events. 
 And it appears to me exceedingly ft range, that 
 Eubulus mould not have been aware, that, iri 
 proportion as his fcheme would allow more 
 time for the purfuit of bufinefs and pleafure, 
 it would render mankind more worldly-mind- 
 ed and fenfual, and thereby more difinclined 
 and unable to engage in religious exerciles at 
 any time. 
 
 As to the model of prayer taught by our 
 Lord, it is evident from the occalion on which 
 it was prefcribed, and his direction to his dif- 
 ciples to enter into their clofets to pray, that 
 
 1 
 
[ 66 ] 
 
 it was deiigned to guide them as to the fubjects 
 of their private devotions, though it contains 
 no fubject improper to be introduced into pub- 
 lic devotions. The command of the apoftle, 
 that prayers mould be made for kings, and 
 for all in authority, taken in connexion with 
 the end to be anfwered by making them, plain- 
 ly relates in a more peculiar manner to pub- 
 lic worfhip. 
 
 I entirely agree with Eubulus in opinion, 
 that the prefent mode of preaching is not fyf- 
 tematical enough; and I doubt not, but that 
 it would prove a very ufeful alteration, to fub- 
 ilitute regular and connected expofitions of the 
 fcriptures in the place of fermons on one part 
 of the Lord's day. Perhaps, as chriftians 
 have been always accuflomed to hear fermons, 
 it would be improper, for that and other rea- 
 fons, to lay afide the ufe of them entirely. 
 
 From what hath been before obferved, I 
 think it mull: be evident to all, who will give 
 themfelves the trouble to reflect, that the abo- 
 lition of a fabbatical reft, inftead of diminim- 
 ing, would greatly increafe the number of exe- 
 cutions. There is not the leaft reafon for 
 
 fuppofing, that fewer would be idle, expenfive, 
 and diflblute, or that the obligations to dili- 
 gence, febriety, juftice, and honefty, would 
 be more generally felt and attended to, but 
 the contrary. The motives which now deter- 
 mine the unhappy creatures, who fall victims 
 to public juilice, to purfue thofe courfes which 
 bring them to.an untimely end,would probably 
 operate with ftill greater force, and extend 
 
[ 61 3 
 
 their Influence to many others, who now refiil 
 and overcome their power. For fo little would 
 there be left of the appearance of religion in 
 the world, and fo much more diiinclined would 
 the generality be to cherim its principles in 
 their minds, in confequence of being fo entirely 
 immerfed in worldly buiinefs and pleafure, that 
 the vicious would grow more hardened in 
 iniquity, and their profelytes become daily 
 more and more numerous. 
 
 Eubulus, after having allowed, that the in- 
 stitution of funday fchools will certainly be of 
 benefit, informs us, that that benefit will be of 
 very fhort duration ; for that, when young peo- 
 ple have ceafed to attend thofe fchools, they 
 will foon be blended with the general mafs of 
 the people of their own rank, and be affimilated 
 to them. Should, then, no care be taken to 
 inffil good principles into the minds of child- 
 ren, becaufe early impreflions may afterwards 
 be effaced ? Are there not fome inflances to 
 juftify the obfervation, Train up a child in the 
 way he floould go, and when he is old he will not 
 depart from it? As I hope and truft, that 
 Eubulus is right in his apprehenlion, that "his 
 reafoning will have but a fmall chance of fuc- 
 cefs in a conflict, with the inveterate univerfa! 
 prejudice in favour of a fabbatical reft," fo I 
 flatter myfelf, that the good effects already 
 {een to be produced by Sunday fchools will 
 caufe them to be eflabliihed every where 
 throughout the kingdom, 
 
 Many obfervations might be added to re- 
 commend the continuance of the practice con- 
 
[ 68 J 
 
 demned by Eubulus. If what I have written 
 fhould be thought a full anfwer to that Gentle- 
 man, who appears to be a well wifher to the 
 interefts of virtue, and mould draw a more 
 general attention to the duty of obferving the 
 Lord's day, it will be a full recompence for 
 the labour of, 
 
 Gentlemen, &c. &c. 
 
 PHILANDER. 
 
 Remarks on Eubulus. 
 
 To the Directors, &c. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 r ~PHE fubject. difcuffed by Eubulus has often 
 A appeared to me to have its peculiar dif- 
 ficulties, and I was glad to fee his remarks upon 
 it,though they militate againft the common opi- 
 nion and practice, and my own preporTeffions. 
 For I promifed myfelf, that they would call 
 the attention of fome able judge to the quef- 
 tion, and produce that rational, liberal in- 
 vefligation, which to me it appeared to need. 
 The obfervations, judicioufly urged, and fully 
 jftated by Philander, have prevented my fuf- 
 fering a difappointment. But as I am of 
 opinion that the fubjedt is not exhaufted by 
 his pen, I requeft, leave to introduce into your 
 publication fome further thoughts upon it. 
 
 SUBSIDIARILY. 
 
 Eubulus feems to confound theobfervation 
 of the Lord's day with a Jewifri fabbath, as 
 if theformer neceilarily involved in it thelatter. 
 
[ % 3 
 
 With refpedt to the latter a ceilation from 
 all worldly bufinefs was the firft and leading 
 object of it; and this does not appear to be 
 juifcly laid of the Lord's day. The law of the 
 Jewifh iabbath, was in the firft inilance a law 
 of reft; and the injunction to keep an holy 
 convocation was fubfequent and fecondary. 
 The hints given us, in the New Teftament, 
 concerning the Lord's day, lead us to coniider 
 its primary deiign to be, to do honour to the 
 Lord, by employing it in chriftian worfhip. 
 Now the giving a day to one particular pur- 
 fuit or employment difcriminates and marks 
 that day: and implieth the detaching it from 
 all other engagements. A reft from labour, 
 in the cafe of the Lord's day, though not the 
 primary deiign of it, will of courfe be the con- 
 fequence of devoting it to facred ufes. Yet that 
 reft may not be fo ftrict and rigorous as to give 
 it the air of a Jewifh fabbath, or to entitle it 
 to be confidered as one : for which, as Eu- 
 bulus obferves, there is no poiitive precept in 
 the New Teftament. So that this view of the 
 fubject eftablifhes a clear and important dif- 
 tinction between a Jewifh fabbath and a 
 Lord's day. The latter is, what I conceive, 
 chnftians are concerned to defend. 
 
 The queiLon therefore is, upon what au- 
 thority ihould chnftians, really influenced by 
 their religion, diftinguiiTi one day outoffeven 
 by this title and by acts of focial devotion ? 
 
 Here let it be obferved, that an allowance 
 mould be made for the different modes, by 
 which a divine fanction is dirived to the rites 
 
[ 7° 3 
 
 of the Old and New Teftament. The for- 
 mer conftitute part of a code of laws, laid 
 down with great precision, authoritatively de- 
 fined by the words of the legiilator, and af- 
 ligned to certain periods of time, and to cer- 
 tain defcriptions of men. The latter, at leafl 
 in the full extent and with regard to every par- 
 ticular application, are not the fubjecl of ex- 
 plicit, fet, and formal laws : but are incidentally 
 introduced, as facts or events gave occafion, 
 and wear more the appearance of cuftoms than 
 injunSHmz. The reaion of this difference in 
 the mode of promulgation may be fuppofed 
 to be this: the former were appointed to a 
 people, at one time, feparated from the world, 
 and formed into a peculiar, religious, and poli- 
 tical body. The latter were to be pra&ifed 
 by thofe who were ftill to continue in their 
 fecular and worldly connexions. There a na- 
 tion was concerned: Here only a few indivi- 
 duals, as they were, fingly or in fmall parties, 
 brought over to the chriftian faith -, but in 
 other refpects were blended with the mafs to 
 which they originally belonged. The ritual 
 of the Jews was at once completely formed 
 and eftablifhed: the chriftian ritual was gra- 
 dually to gain ground and to infinuate itfelf, as 
 opportunity permitted. Thus they are handed 
 down to us, as cujloms which incidentally arole, 
 and gradually fpread. 
 
 E.G. We are affured ef that Chrift and his 
 " Apoflles baptized many Jews in his life 
 n time: John iii. 22. iv. 1, 2. Yet the evan- 
 " gelifts do not give us an account of the in- 
 
[ 7i ] 
 
 " ftitution of this baptifm. The institution wc 
 "we read, Matt, xxviii. 19. was of baptifm 
 "for the nations, or the Gentiles, long after 
 " the foremen tioned baptifm for the Jews that 
 " believed in Chrift*." Thus alfo we find by 
 the cafe of the Corinthians, and by feve- 
 ral paffages in the Ads, that the Lord's flip- 
 per was adopted by every church and obferved 
 by all converts to the gofpel; yet the firft in- 
 junilion, Jh'iffi/y explained, extended only to that 
 company of difciples with which Chrift firft 
 eat it. But this practice of the firfr. chriftian 
 churches, efpecially as corroborated by the 
 republication of the ordinance, 1 Cor. vi. 23. 
 &c. mews that it was meant to carry with it 
 an univerfal and perpetual obligation. We may 
 conclude, therefore, that they acted upon the 
 injunction of Chrift, though that injunction 
 be not expreilly recorded. " So the Lord's 
 "day may be a divine inflitution, though we 
 " have not in the gofpel an account of the 
 " particular time when it was firft appointed. 
 "It is natural enough to fuppofe, that it was 
 " after Chrift's refurrection, when he fpake 
 " to the apoftles of the things pertaining to 
 " the kingdom of God-f-." 
 
 Eubulus however aiTerts, " that the apof- 
 " les and firft difciples of Jefus Chriit, are no 
 " where faid to have diftinguifhed the firft day 
 " of the week in any manner whatfoever." 
 The pafTages ufually alleded, as proofs that 
 the firft day of the week was not only diftin- 
 
 * Hallet's notes and obfervations, vol. iii. p, 173. 
 t W, p. 173. 
 
[ V- ] 
 
 guifhed from other days by the firft chriftians, 
 but distinguished by acts of woruhip, are quo- 
 ted by him ? but he judges them to be totally 
 inconclufive to the purpofe for which they 
 are alleged. And one paffage in the Reve- 
 lations, it is to be oblerved, is entirely 
 omitted by him. 
 
 The firft text, John xx. 19. 26. it mud be 
 granted, does not fpecify the end for which 
 the difciples were affembled together. It 
 might be, as he fuppofes, merely to confer 
 together on the teftimony and evidence of their 
 matter's refurrection : but, as this fact was not 
 fully afcertained to their conviction, their 
 meeting could not be in honour of it. The 
 other texts, notwithstanding what Eubulus 
 has offered to invalidate their force, appear 
 to me clear and fatisfactory 
 
 Acts xx. 7. deferves particular attention. 
 And up 07i the Jirjl day of the week, when the 
 difciples were come together to break bread, Paul 
 preached unto them (ready to depart on the mor- 
 row) and continued his fpeech unto midnight. 
 This paffage, in my opinion, is full and explicit. 
 It afTerts the repetition of a general cuftom, of 
 which without calling a meeting, Paul availed 
 himfelf, that he might preach unto them. "And 
 " by affembling with them, and preaching to 
 " them, at that time Paul approved of their 
 " cuftom, and recommended it to us. If they 
 " had done wrong in keeping up this cuftom, 
 " Paul would have fhewn his diilike of it, as 
 " he always honeftly did on all fuch occafions : 
 " witnefs his reproving the Corinthians for 
 
L 73 ] 
 
 " the ill cuftoms crept in amongft them : and 
 H his blaming Peter to the face. Gal. ii. n — 
 " 14.*" 
 
 The next pafTage is 1 Cor. xvi. 1,2. Now 
 as concerning the collection for the faint s y as I have 
 given order to the churches qfGalatia,fo even do 
 ye. Upon thefirji day of the week, let every one 
 of you lay by him in for e, as God hath profpered 
 him y that there be no gathering when I come. Mr. 
 Locke's remark here is pertinent and forcible. 
 " It is certain, that the apoftle directs, that 
 ** they mould every Lord's day bring to the 
 " congregation what their charity had laid afide 
 " the foregoing week, as their gain came in, 
 " that there it might be put into fome public 
 " box appointed for that purpofe, or officer's 
 iC hands. For if they had only laid it afideat 
 " home, there would neverthelefs be need of a 
 " collection, when he came." It may be added, 
 that " when the apoftle told the church what 
 f* they mould do, when for the time to come, 
 " they mould meet for worfhip on the Lord's 
 " day - y he did as good as order them to per- 
 iC fift in this cuftom of obferving this day in 
 U this religious manner-f-." 
 
 The laft pafTage in Rev. i. 10. I was in the 
 fpirit on the Lord's day. It is obvious, that this 
 title marks one day above the reft : and which 
 that day was is apparent from the uniform 
 practice of the chriftians who lived next after 
 the apoftles, of applying this name to the firft 
 day of the week. Mr. Hallet, from parallel 
 paiTages, in which, the title the Lord's is applied 
 
 K 
 * Hallet, utfnpra. p. 181, 182. f Hallet, p. 185. 
 
[ 74 ] 
 
 to any thing, has fhewn that it not only in- 
 dicates fomething let apart to the honour of 
 Chrift, but alfo an appointment of his. 
 
 Thefe pallages, it mull be allowed, are few, 
 very few ; only three : yet on the authority 
 of thefe few texts, is it iuppofed that an in- 
 ftitution, reaching to all churches and to all 
 ages, doth depend ; and, as I apprehend, the 
 conclufion is made with propriety and weight. 
 For, though it appears, that the Lord's day, 
 or the firft day of the week, as a day devoted 
 to the honour of the Lord, and to chriitian 
 worfhip, is feldom mentioned in the original, 
 authentic records of the firft planting of chrif- 
 tianity : yet be it obferved, the fopce of the 
 argument in favour of the day does not lie in 
 the number of times the mention of it occurs ; 
 but in the manner, in which it is fpoken of. 
 It is mentioned, though incidentally, as a cujiom, 
 as ajixed and regular cujiom ; as a cuftom per- 
 vading different churches, and different parts 
 of thechriftian world, Troas, Galatia, and Co- 
 rinth. Much is implied in fuch a mention of it. 
 It is tantamount to frequent references to it, 
 to the enumeration of many inftances of the 
 observance of it. It comprehends many in- 
 ftances in one. The name the Lord's day, is very 
 emphatical, and holds forth the general fixed 
 eftimation of its nature and defign. Thefe tef- 
 timonies, which prove that this cuftom was, 
 at the earlieft period, introduced into the chrif- 
 tian church, and had an extenfive fpread, are 
 clear and weighty : as appears from the au- 
 thors to which Philander refers* 
 
[ 75 3 
 
 But Eubulus doth not fee that force in thefe 
 texts iron) the Ads and i Cor. xvi. 1,2. which 
 is commonly aicribed to them. If he means, 
 that they do not prove the obfei vance of a fab- 
 bath, ftriclly and fully, conformable to the 
 rigour of a jewiih fabbath, he is certainly right. 
 Bui they plainly go to prove, that the firft day 
 of the week was diftinguifhed by chriftian- 
 worlhip : and fo far at lean:, by a feparation 
 of it from the common purfuits of life. Eu- 
 bulus indeed alferts, that the meeting fpoken 
 of in the " firft. of thefe paffages was evidently 
 " in the very beginning of the firft day of the 
 " week, i.e. in the evening, after the bufinefs 
 " of the preceding day was over. And as the 
 " hiftorian allures us, that Paul both intended, 
 '_' and did actually fet out on his journey at break 
 " of day. This paffage of fcripture affords us 
 " a deciiive proof that St. Paul had no idea of 
 " keeping the rlrfl day of the week as a fabbath. ' ' 
 
 On what principles this is fo evident to Eu- 
 bulus, that fenfible writer has not pointed out 
 to us. With juft refpect for the abilities which 
 in the difcuffion of this fubjecf, he has difco- 
 vered, I mud fay, that the alfertion is not only 
 unfupported ; but incompatible with the lan- 
 guage of the text. The term, the firjl day of 
 the week, \uk iocv o-oc&£cclwv 9 occurs Mat. xxviii. 1 . 
 In the end of the fabbath, as it began to dawn 
 towards the Jirji day of the week, came Mary 
 Magdalene and the other Mary to fee tbefepulcbre. 
 Mark xvi. 1,2. And very early in the morning, 
 in the firfl day of the week, they came to thefe- 
 pulchre, at the rifing of the fun \ Luke xxiv. 1 . 
 
[ 76 J 
 
 Now upon thefrft day of the week, very early in 
 the morning, they came unto thejepulchre. John 
 xx. i. The fir ft day of the week, came Mary 
 Magdalene, early, when it was yet dark. Thefe 
 are all the places, befides the two paffages 
 under confideration, where we meet with the 
 phrafe. And, though the jewifh civil day began 
 at the fetting of the fun, yet, in each of thefe 
 places the phrafe denotes that part of the civil 
 day which fucceeded to the fun-rifing, or the 
 hours of light : which fenfe of the word day, 
 is very common in fcripture*. 
 
 It would be contrary to the analogy of lan- 
 guage to underftand it otherwife in the text 
 before us. The morrow mufl fland oppofed to 
 this fenfe of the word, day, and fignify the next 
 period of light, which was Monday : other- 
 wife the writer of the acts would be charge- 
 able with refering, in the fame claufe to two 
 different me?fures of time. And the Greek 
 word, nrcivpov, will, I believe, be always found 
 to ftarid thus oppofed to the meaning of the 
 Word, day, as fignify ing the time of light. 
 Befides, as Paul fet out on his journey at break 
 6f day, the time of his departure according to 
 the computation adopted here by Eubulus, 
 does not agree with the reafon affigned for 
 holding the meeting till midnight; which 
 was his eagernefs to depart on the morrow. 
 For this day-break, on fuch computation, was 
 not the morrow, of the firft day of the week, 
 but a part of that day, which had commenced 
 the evening before, at fun-fetting : the mor* 
 * SeeLardner's Obferv/on Dr. Macknight's Harmony, p. io> 
 
[ 77 ] 
 
 row of it did not commence till the fucceed- 
 iiig evening. 
 
 Thefe are decilive proofs that the christian 
 meeting was held on the Sunday evening, and 
 that Paul's journey was defignedly poftponed 
 to Monday : proofs, that if he did not keep a 
 jewifh fabbath, yet he did not travel on the 
 mil day of the week, but to avoid that, fub- 
 mitted to the inconvenience of holding a meet- 
 ing till midnight, which the calling the chrijf- 
 tians together, on the preceding evening, at 
 the cloie of the jewifh fabbath, would have 
 prevented. 
 
 The hiflorian does not inform us, at what 
 hour the difciples came together. It was pro- 
 bably late in the day. The chriflians, in that 
 early period, could not acl: as we now do in 
 countries where chriflianity is eftablifhed, and 
 where we enjoy the convenience and protection 
 of a national law, prohibiting to the whole 
 body of the people all fecular employment on 
 the firft day of the week : but they were 
 obliged to hold their religious aflbciations, as 
 their fituation permitted. Juft as it has always 
 been in times of perfecution, and in the in- 
 fancy of a religious interefl : when pious per- 
 fons adapt the hours and time of their meeting 
 to the neceffities of their condition. When 
 thefe neceflities , or dirficul ties ceafe, they choofe 
 the portions of time for the purpofe of their 
 religious affociation according to the principles, 
 on which they allot the feafons for other trans- 
 actions. What they did before early in the 
 morning, or late at night, they do then in the 
 full and open day. 
 
C ?3 J 
 
 This will account, I apprehend, why the 
 obfervation of the firifc day of the week for re- 
 ligious and chriftian worfhip is fpoken of in 
 the writers of the fucceedingages of the church, 
 without any direct mention of a ceflation from 
 labours, as what difcriminated and occupied 
 the day : till Conftantine, finding what was 
 the practice of the chriftians paiTed it into a 
 law, and enacted an univerfal reft from the oc- 
 cupations of life ; it may be prefumed, to in- 
 gratiate himfelf with fo large a body of the 
 people, by a law, which would give the royal 
 fanction to their cuflom, and fcreen them from 
 the oppofition and infults of their pagan neigh- 
 bours. Whether Conftantine, in this, acted 
 confidently with the attention which he ought 
 to have paid to the rights of his other fub- 
 jects ; whether he acted upon any grounds 
 xvhich the principles of chriftianity fuggefts 
 and juftines ; or whether any prince, in fuc- 
 ceeding ages hath, from the principles of 
 government, juftly.and liberally explained, 
 much more from the fpirit and principles of 
 chriftianity, any right to debar his fubjects, 
 without their confent, of a feventh portion of 
 their time, are queftions not connected, I con- 
 ceive, with the obligations under which con- 
 fcientious chriftians lie to let apart to the Lord 
 the firft day of the week, and to diftinguifh 
 it by acts of chriitian worfhip. In this refpect, 
 as well as in every thing that concerns religion 
 they are to act, not upon human authority, 
 but from the conviction of their own minds, 
 doing what they do heartily y as to the Lord, 
 
L 79 ] 
 
 and not unto men ; confidering that they Jerve 
 the Lord Chriji. 
 
 It appears to me, that Eubulus has not ad- 
 verted to the distinction, which this queftion 
 admits, between the duty and obligation lying 
 on chriftians, I mean iincere and ferious chrif- 
 tians, to obferve the firft day of the week to 
 the Lord, and the interference of the magistrate 
 to appoint a day of univerfal ceffation from the 
 occupations of life ; which is only to enforce 
 idlenefs where he cannot implant piety. To 
 this the New Teftament giveth no fanclion. 
 But doth it not fpcak to the piety of christians ; 
 to their fenfe of religion, to their zeal for the 
 christian caufe, to their concern for mutual 
 edification, by (hewing what the firSt chris- 
 tians did ? See the firft part of Philander's Re- 
 marks, and Mr. Hallet's Difcourfeon the Lord's 
 Day ; wherein the obfervance of it is placed 
 on the proper grounds. 
 
 Eubulus, I would further obferve does not 
 appear to have taken into connderation the na- 
 tural obligations to the worShip of the Deity, 
 nor many other arguments which his difqui- 
 fition hath given Philander an opportunity ably 
 and fully to reprefent. He has not, I conceive, 
 made a due allowance for the natural difpofi- 
 tion of the human mind to add the aids of fo- 
 ciety to every purfuit ; and for the vaSt im- 
 portance of thofe aids to the improvement and 
 comfort of individuals, and to the advance- 
 ment and fupport of a common caufe. From 
 this difpolition, mod wifely given to us by our 
 Maker, originate all aSTociations ; our literary 
 
C 80 ] 
 
 focieties, our academies cf fciencc, and our 
 various clubs. Christianity, that moft benevo- 
 lent fyftem, can never be unfavourable to the 
 exertion of that principle. Under its aufpices, 
 this focial propenfity mewed itfelf, from the 
 firft planting of that divine faith, with energy 
 and glory ; and wherever the gofpel was re- 
 ceived, churches were formed. 
 
 Hence, without deriving the obfervation of 
 the Lord's day from the fourth commandment, 
 without extending or perpetuating the obliga- 
 tions of that command, thefe churches fixed 
 on the day of ChriiVs refurrection forthepur- 
 pofes of their religious aftbeiation : and, if not 
 commanded to do it, were certainly counte- 
 nanced and fupported in it, by the apoftles. 
 A cuftom, of this antiquity and authority, as 
 well as utility, defer ves to be perpetuated in 
 the churches, and to become a law for all 
 chriftians through all ages. 
 
 —•waeaaEESiiSSESEW* 
 
 I 
 
 To the Directors, 6fr. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Fear the reply I here fend you to Philander's 
 remarks upon my objections to the infti- 
 tution of a fabbath amongfl chriftians may 
 reach you too late for its infertion in the third 
 number of your fixth volume. But my atten- 
 tion having been neceiTarily drawn off to other 
 objects, I have not, till now, found leifure to 
 take notice of that gentleman's two letters, and 
 
[ 8' ] 
 
 can only requeft the favour of you to give this 
 reply a place in your very ufeful publication, 
 as foon as it may be convenient. 
 
 The obfervance of a fabbath can be con- 
 fidered only in a political, a moral, and a re- 
 ligious point of view. In each of thefe I con- 
 sidered it in my former letter : and urged 
 arguments againfr. fuch an institution, in all 
 thefe refpects, which appeared to me unanfwer- 
 able, as being founded upon the very nature of 
 things, and confirmed by the experience of 
 fourteen centuries in one part, and by theex- 
 prefs teitimony of the earlien: christian writers 
 in another. And after all that Philander has 
 thought fit to allege againSt them, as far as 
 I am capable of judging, they ftill remain in 
 full force. 
 
 If it be the befr. policy in civil magistrates 
 to encourage and excite to the utmoft the in- 
 duftry of the people they govern (as it moft 
 indifputably is) it is manifest that, to eStablifh 
 an inffitution which utterly annihilates one- 
 feventh part of the national induftry, is ex- 
 ceeding bad policy. 
 
 This, indeed, is fo obvious an axiom, that 
 Philander does not attempt to controvert it. 
 But he feems to think he has confuted the objec- 
 tions I made to the modern fabbath, conhdered 
 both in a moral and a religious light. And, 
 what fupprized me not a little, his only argu- 
 ment, which can be fuppofed to have any weigh r, 
 is founded upon an idea, that, the reaibn of the 
 inftitution of the fabbath amongSt the Jews, and 
 and of all the fevere penalties whereby it was en- 
 
[ S* 3 
 
 forced was, becaufe theobiervance wasneceliary 
 to the- moral virtue of that people. If fo, why 
 was not that obfervance, as well as the rite of 
 cireumcifion, enjoined upon Abraham and all 
 his defcendants before Mofes ? Dees Philander 
 think that the great patriarch and hi& progeny, 
 before their departure out of Egypt, were really 
 more Immoral than the jewifh nation was after 
 th.^ promulgation of the fourth commandment ? 
 Neither that gentleman,, nor any peribn, who 
 has' read the bible, can imagine fo. The truth 
 is that, as Godinftitutedtheriteof circumcihon 
 to be a iign of the covenant made by him with 
 the father of the faithful, which mould diftin- 
 guiLh the family of Abraham from the reft of 
 the world, before it became a nation, fo he or- 
 dained the fab bath afterwards to be a lign of the 
 covenant made with the jews by the meditation 
 of Mofes, which mould diftinguifh them from 
 all the other nations of the earth. 
 
 This is the very account of its institution 
 which God himfelf gives of it, both by Mofes 
 and the prophet Ezekiel, though Philander 
 leems unacquainted with any other reafon for it 
 jbefides it's fuppofed moral tendency. In Ex, 
 sxxi. 13. God fays, by Mofes, to the children 
 of ifrael, "my fabbath ye jhall keep, for it is a 
 **Jign between me mid you throughout your ^ene- 
 '* rations" and verfe 16. " wherefore the chil- 
 ft dr en of Ifrael frail keep the fab bath, to abferve 
 " the fab bat b throughout their generations -, for 
 " a perpetual covenant. It is afign between 
 ' * me and the child? en of Ifrael for ever" To 
 the very fame purport E-zek. xx. 1 1 and 12* 
 
[ sj 3 
 
 ** T g we them my (idtutes and- jbewed them my 
 ** judgments^ wkkh if a man do, he jhall ' eien 
 ** live in them. Moreover aljb t I gave them my 
 *' fab 'baths to be a jign between me and them.'* 
 Where an evident diftindrion is made between 
 thofe ordinances of the jewhh law which were 
 intended to be a moral rule of life, and were 
 alone requilite, and furficient for falvation, and 
 the merely political intiitution of the fabbath, 
 which was only a fign of the covenant made by 
 God with that people. And from hence appears 
 the true reafon why particular violations of the 
 fabbath were ordered to be puniilied with fo 
 much greater ieverity than any ordinary inftances 
 of immorality, even with the death of the of- 
 fender : and why their national tranfgreilions of 
 the lame fort are declared to be puniilied with 
 the excilion or captivity of the whole nation. 
 Becaufe the non-obfervance of the fabbath was 
 a rejection of that covenant of which it was 
 made the perpetual iign, and an act of open 
 treafon and rebellion agairiii the theocracy under 
 which they lived ; crimes which every govern- 
 ment in the world finds it abfolutely necefTary 
 to puniuh with banifhment or death. So far, 
 therefore, is the inflitution of the fabbath among 
 the Jews from being a reafon for its obfervance 
 among chridians, that the declared intent of 
 k as a diftinguifhing iign of that partial cove- 
 nant, fhews it to be as improper for the univerfal 
 covenant of Chrifl, which in its very nature, 
 puts an end to all marks of diftinction arnongfl 
 mankind, as the rite of circumciflon itfelf. 
 With refpect to the moral or immoral tenden- 
 
C 84 ] * 
 
 cy of an inftitution, which puts a flop to all th 
 ufual occupations of the people, and oblige 
 them to ipend one-feventh part of their lives in 
 idlenefs, a judicious and accurate obferver of 
 human nature mail fee that, in the common 
 courfeof things, its tendency will neceflarily be 
 immoral. And to expect that the bulk of the 
 people, who are habituated to an active employ- 
 men t of fix clays of the week, mould fpend the 
 feventh in infipid idlenefs, or abftracted medi- 
 tation, is nearly as unreafonable as it were to 
 expect the earth, at regular periods, to Hand 
 flill, and the fun to revolve round it. Of the 
 generality of the working orders of men, as 
 well as of children it may with truth be faid, 
 when they are doing nothing, they are doing 
 mijebief. And to be cnovinced of this, one 
 needs only to furvey the ftate of alehoufes, 
 and other places of public entertainment, with 
 thofe fcenes of intemperance, or extravagant 
 diffipation, which prefent themfelves every 
 fabbath, not only in the metropolis and its en- 
 virons, but in every populous town and village 
 in the kingdom. And for the pernicious in- 
 fluence, which this inevitable abufe of the idle- 
 nefs of Sunday has upon the morals of the 
 people, I appeal not only to the confeffion of 
 dying malefactors, and the arguments alleged 
 in favour of Sunday-fchools, to which I ap- 
 pealed in my former letter, but alfo to the 
 brutum julmen of the late royal proclamation, 
 which was merely an official paper, ifTued of 
 courfe in every reign, at a period (if I miftake 
 not) of about twenty years, and which ferves 
 
t 35 3 
 
 only to prove, that notwithstanding the in- 
 terpolation of the magistrates as far as they find 
 it practicable, the vicious immorality of the 
 people Still continues, and by natural confe- 
 quence is increased ; and that government it- 
 ielf is convinced, that this deplorable corrup- 
 tion of the public manners is greatly owing to 
 what, in common cant, is called the pro- 
 phanation of the fabbath, but is, in truth, 
 only the inevitable abufe of a mod unnecef- 
 iary and impolitic institution of the fuperfti- 
 tion of the fourth century. 
 
 Among the Jews, the divine author of the 
 Institution guarded againSt this fatal confe- 
 quence, by the very rigid manner in which it 
 was ordered to be observed, and the fevere 
 punishment of every violation of it. Not only 
 all buiinefs and travelling, butallfocial, plea- 
 furable intercourfe with each other was pro- 
 hibited ; and each family was, in a manner 
 circumscribed within the limits of its own 
 dwelling, except during the hours of attend- 
 ance at the temple, or in the fynagogue. And 
 if modern legiilators will perSiSt in eStablifh- 
 ing by law a Similar ceflation from the ordinary 
 occupations of civil life, and really wish to 
 prevent the immoral and pernicious abufes 
 of the idlenefs they alone ordain, they Should 
 imitate alio the rigid feverity of the Jewish 
 law, and (if they think it right, or even 
 practicable) puniSh every offender with death. 
 But as the institution of the fabbath among 
 christians, is, at prefent, circumstanced, gover- 
 nors themfelves are, in a confiderable degree, 
 
[ 86 ] 
 
 the authors of that very vice and immorality 
 which they thus publicly lament and menace, 
 in ufclefs, insignificant proclamations. 
 
 As to what Philander fays in page 4.6, 
 concerning the difficulty of making a hidden 
 tranfition of our ideas from worldly affairs to 
 religious reflections, if it does not favour of 
 that enthuiiafm which iirlt led men intodeferts 
 and monafteries, under the pretence of with- 
 drawing from fecular concerns in order to pre- 
 ferve continually a pious frame of mind f it is 
 to me unintelligible. I can only fay, -that, for 
 my part, I am perfectly convinced, unlefs the 
 dictates of a man's religion be, at all times, fo 
 prefent to his mind and thoughts, in the midft 
 not of bufinefs only, but of pleafure and a- 
 mufement alio, as to controul and regulate his 
 conduct even in thofe circumstances, his piety is 
 not oftheieafr. utility either to himfelf or others, 
 and confequently of no value in the fight of 
 God, or thinking men. And with refpect to 
 any benefits ariftng from religious inhructions 
 or admonitions, to thofe who are willing to 
 attend upon them, I again repeat, that they 
 might be much better attained by employing 
 to thofe nurpofes an hour or two in an even- 
 ing after the bufinefs of the day is ended, two 
 or three times a week, than by employing 
 three or four hours in that manner every feventh 
 day, and fpending the remainder of the day in 
 idlenefs. So much for the inftitution of the 
 modern fabbath, eonfidered in a political and 
 a moral point of view. In taking notice of 
 what I had objected againff. it, confidered as 
 
[ 8; } 
 
 an ordinance of the religion of Jefus Chrift, 
 Philander has thought fit to charge me, p. 51, 
 with an affertion contrary to facts, that is, with 
 a direct falfehood. A charge of fo ferious a 
 nature as mould not have been urged, without 
 the clearefr. proof, again ft one whofe only mo- 
 tive for writing at all, is the inveftigation of 
 religious truth, and the important caufe of 
 moral virtue. 
 
 For the proof of this charge he refers us 
 to his former paper. A paper which I have 
 read over and over, and cannot only not find 
 in it any fuch proof, but not a fingle argu- 
 ment befides what is built upon mere con- 
 jecture and inferences, as unfupported and un- 
 allowable as that extraordinary one in hisfecond 
 paper, p. 5^, where he infers, that Paul tar- 
 ried federal days at Troas, to fpend the Lord's 
 day with the difciples, beeaufe he hafied to be 
 at ferifakm* The only argument which ap- 
 pears tome intended to controvert my afTertion, 
 that in the holy fcriptnres, the apojlles andfirji 
 difciples of f ejus Chrift are no where faid to have 
 diftinguijhed thefrji day of the week in any man- 
 ner whatfoever, is contained in his fecond 
 paper, p. 51 and 52, where he mentions a 
 paffage in St. John, not taken notice of by 
 me, in which the difciples are faid to be af- 
 fembled together in the evening, eight days 
 after the evening that followed the day of our 
 Lord's refurrection, This parTage I omitted 
 as nothing to the purpofe, efpecially fmce the 
 firft day of the week is not mentioned in it ; 
 firfl beeaufe I had obierved that, according to 
 
C 88 ] 
 
 the Jewim computation of time, every day 
 began about our lix o'clock in the afternoon, 
 and as our Lord confefledly rofe from the dead 
 upon the firft day of the week, from the late- 
 ne/s of the hour at which the two dijciples muft 
 have returned from Emmaus to Jerujalem, it is 
 certain that the evening-afemhly mentioned John 
 xx. 10. and in the parallel paffage af St. Luke 
 (and confequently the affembly holden eight 
 days after) was not upou the frjl, hut on the 
 beginning of the fecond day of the week. And 
 fecondly, becaufe, in the words immediately 
 following, I had remarked, that nothing in 
 the practice of the apoftles previous to the 
 feaft of Pentecoft could be of any obligation 
 to us. Yet Philander, without taking the 
 flightefl: notice of theie two difficulties, and 
 though it is notorious, that the apoflles did 
 not even underfland the gofpel themfelves at 
 that early period ; and were fo far from infli- 
 tuting ordinances for the univerfal obfervance 
 of future chriftians, that they did not attempt 
 to teach the religion of Jefus Chrift, till they 
 had received the miraculous pledge and proof 
 of their commimon above thirty days after, 
 choofes, to perfift in calling the day on which 
 thefe meetings were holden the frft day of the 
 week, and to conjecture that from this lafi meet- 
 ing is to be dated the commencement of the chrif- 
 tian cuftom of folemnizing the Lord's day. 
 
 But I will not wafte my own or the readers 
 time in a controverfy about fanciful inferences 
 and conjectures, or about the meaning or au- 
 thenticity of one particular word in the apo- 
 
[ S9 ] 
 
 calypfe. I muff, repeat that, coniidering the 
 institution of thefibb^thamongchnflians asan 
 ordinance of a religion intended to be universal, 
 which therefore tends to annihilate one-feventh 
 part of the induftry of all mankind, ana com- 
 pels them to pafs one~ieventh part of their lives 
 in ufelefs inactivity, or the too natural abuf^s 
 of that periodical idlenefs which cannot but 
 be pernicious to moral virtue y no lefs autho- 
 rity can be fufficieut for its eitubliihment than 
 the exprels command of the author of the reli- 
 gion, as fully arid clearly delivered as that for 
 the fabbath of the feventhday under the Jewifli 
 law, or for the commemorative rite of the 
 Lord's fupper under the gofpel. Unlefs, there- 
 fore, the defenders of the modern fabbath of 
 the firft day as a religious ordinance can pro- 
 duce fuch a command, they really do nothing. 
 However, well knowing the pertinacity with 
 which mankind adhere to cufloms they have 
 been long habituated to, without any regard to 
 their origin, or the reafonablenefs or unreafon- 
 ablenefs of their inflitution, I mould not have 
 attempted to call the attention of the public to 
 this .Subject, important as it is, if it had not 
 been demonstrable, beyond all doubt, that no 
 fuch ordinance as the fabbath was obferved by 
 chriflians till after the fecond century ; and 
 that no fuch obfervance was enjoined upon 
 ... them before the reign of Conftantine, who, by 
 ^the interpofition of his civil power, eitabiifhed, 
 not the religion of Jefus Chriil, but that idola- 
 trous, blafphemous fu perflation, the very apof- 
 tacy from the true religion of the gofpel, which 
 
 M 
 
L §o J 
 
 is the peculiar object of almofi all the pro- 
 phecies of the New Teftament. 
 
 Philander, indeed, does not deny that Con- 
 ftantine firft publicly enjoined the obfervance 
 of the fabbath, but concludes, that he found 
 it in the practice of chriftians before his time, 
 and therefore eftablilhed it by law. 
 
 That he did not find it in the practice of 
 chriftians in general is evident, becaufe he would 
 then have eftablifhed it univerfally, and not in 
 cities and large towns only. But it is indeed, 
 by no means improbable, that he found it a- 
 mong fome pro felled chriftians, as he did the 
 celibacy of monks, the ufe of the fign of the 
 crofs, the veneration of faints and martyrs, and 
 the vefliges of almofl every other fuperftitious 
 practice that was afterwards adopted into ge- 
 neral ufage by the hierarchies of both the 
 eaftern and weftern churches. 
 
 Philander feems to know no difference be- 
 tween the firfl chriftians afiembling together 
 for religious purpofes at fome appointed hour 
 of the firft day of the week, and their keeping 
 the whole day as a fabbath ; and his w r ay of 
 arguing is " from fuch and fuch circumftances 
 " or expreftions, I infer, it feems highly probable 
 " 2enAIthi?ik that the apoftles and firft chrif- 
 " tians did abftain from all worldly occupa- 
 " tions on the firft day of the week ; and that 
 " fucceeding chriftians continued to obferve the 
 " new fabbath, thus approved and inftituted 
 " by the example, though not by the precept 
 (e of the apoftles." And this he is pleafed to 
 call proof and demon/} ration. 
 
C 9' ] 
 
 Now, though, in my judgment, Philander 
 has not in the leaf! refuted the arguments I 
 drew from the apoftolic decree and St. Paul's 
 epiflle to the Galatiaris : and I am convinced, 
 that, if they had themfeives kept or encou- 
 raged the keeping a fabbath on the firft day of the 
 week, thev would have contradicted their own 
 plain precepts and inftruction?, and confequent- 
 ly that their having done fo is, in the highefr. 
 degree im probable ; yet that the chriflians of 
 the fecond century practifed every obfervance 
 which they had received as an ordinance of 
 the chriftian religion, from either the precept 
 or the example of the apoftles, there cannot 
 be a doubt. * But whether they obferved any 
 day as a fabbath, or not, is not a point to be 
 determined by Philander's or my inferences 
 and conjectures, but by the written evidence 
 of thofe chriftians themfeives. 
 
 To them I appealed, in my former letter, 
 as exprefTly averting (though they inform us 
 of their afTembling for religious purpofes, on 
 the firfl day of the week) that neither had the 
 gofpel enjoined, nor did they praBife any fuch ob- 
 Jervance as a fabbath. Jf therefore Philander 
 has never read the writings of the very few 
 chriflians of the fecond century, whofe works 
 are come down to us, he was not qualified to 
 argue upon the queflion ; if he has, his pre- 
 tending to conclude, in oppofition to their 
 own clear teflimony, that they did obierve a 
 fabbath, is unpardonable. 
 
 However, to put the matter of fact out of 
 all doubt with thofe readers who may not be 
 
[ 9* ] 
 
 acquainted with the writings of that early 
 period, I will translate a few paffages out of 
 Julian the martyr (who has given us a moil 
 explicit accountofthe time and purport of their 
 religious affembhes, ana every thing t ran faded 
 in them, and to whom all thoie commentators 
 muff refer, whole opinions feem to pafs for 
 gofpel, with Philander). 
 
 In his dialogue with Trypho (p. 227. ed. 
 Far.) he inform us, the Jew objected againft 
 the Chriftians that, though they boajied of the 
 truth of their religion, and wifijed to excel other 
 people 3 they differed in nothing from the heathen in 
 their manner of living ; becauje they neither obfer- 
 *ued fejiivals nor fab baths, nor the rite of cir- 
 cumcijion. To this objection, according to 
 Philander's (late of the cafe, thechriflian fhould 
 have replied, that it was not j uflly founded fo far 
 as concerned the fabbath ; for that they did 
 keep one, only, for reafons peculiar to their 
 religion, they had transferred it from thefeventh 
 to the firft day of the week. But inftead of 
 this Juftin acknowledges the whole charge to 
 be true -, and lets himielf to prove, that under 
 the new law and univerial covenant of the gof- 
 pel, the external ligns ol carnal circumcifion, 
 and a temporal fabbath were unneceffary and 
 incapable of anfwering the purpofes of the new 
 religion. There is now, fays he, p. 229, need 
 of another kind of circumcifion-, and you think 
 highly of t bat in your flefb. The new law will 
 have you keep a perpetual fabbath, and you, when 
 you have faffed one day in idlenefs, think you are 
 religious, not knowing why that was commanded 
 
r 93 ] 
 
 you , 'The L ord w G ; i s not pleafed withfuch 
 things as theje. if any among you is guilty of 
 perjury or jraud, let him ceafefrom tbofe crimes % 
 if bets an adulterer ', let him repent, and he will 
 have kept the kind oj j ibbath 'truly pleajing to 
 God, In p. 241, Do you fee that the elements 
 are neve? idle nor a ep fat bath? Continue as 
 you were c> eated. be ij there was no need j 
 eweumct/ion b fore Abraham, nor of the obfer- 
 vation of thefabbati. , andfejlroals, and oblations 
 bejore Mafes, neither now likewife is there any 
 need oj them after J ejus Chrijl, &c. In p. 245, 
 he fays, Tell me, why did not God teach thofe 
 to perform Juch things, who preceded Mojes and 
 Abraham, fuft men, of great renown, andw/jo 
 were wellpleafmg to him, thoug h they neither were 
 circumcifed nor ob/ervedjabbathsF And p. 261, 
 As therefore circumeifon began from Abraham, 
 and the fabbath, facrifices, and oblations from 
 Mofes ; which it has beenfloewn, were ordained on 
 account of your nation s hardnefs of heart, Jo ac- 
 cording to the council of the Fatter, they were to 
 end in "J ejus Chriji the Son oj God, &c. 
 
 Other pafiages of the fame purport might 
 be quoted, not only from this writer, but ; !fo 
 from Irenseus and 1 ertuliian. (The former of 
 whom, by the way, cites the very fame pillages 
 that I have cited out of Exodus and Ezekiel 
 to prove, that the fabbath was at firft ordained 
 merely as a diftinguifhing fign of the Mofaic 
 covenant, and not for any moral purpofe, or 
 for any reafon which made it necellary to man- 
 kind in general ) But I perfuade rnyielf, thefe 
 are abundantly fuiricient to convince Philan- 
 
C 94 3 
 
 der himfelf, and every candid reader, that the 
 chiiftians of the fecond ceatury did not ob- 
 ferve, and confequently had not received, any 
 fuch inftitution from the apoftles of Jeius 
 Chrift and their immediate difciples : but, on 
 the contrary, that they underftood the doctrine 
 cf the gofpel (as it feems to me every unpre- 
 judiced reader of the acts of the apoftles, and 
 St. Paul's epiftle to the Galatians mull do) 
 to teach, that the fabbath as well as circum- 
 cifion, and every other JewifTi ordinance, was 
 aboli flied by the new covenant, and not un- 
 neceffary only, but improper to be adopted into 
 the practice of the difciples of jefus Chrift. 
 
 Thus, Gentlemen, I truft, it is clearly evi- 
 dent, that the modern institution of a ehriftiart 
 fabbath, or day of ceffation from worldly buii- 
 nefs, whether it be confidered in a political, a 
 moral, or a religious point of view, is abfolutely 
 indefenfible. 
 
 Whether my feeble voice may excite the 
 attention either of our governors, or any num- 
 ber of my fellow citizens, I cannot judge. 
 And, if it mould, that it will have any efficacy 
 in perfuading them to relinquish, fo long-con- 
 tinued a prejudice, is much more than I per- 
 fume to hope for. By whatever means it may 
 be accomplilhed, we are, however, aflured, 
 that the whole fabric of anti-chriftian fuper- 
 ftition, which has been fo fatally erected and 
 upheld by Conftantine and his fuccelfors in 
 the civil power of Europe, mail, at length, be 
 utterly demolished. In the mean time, having, 
 to the befl of my poor abilities, endeavoured 
 
C 95 ] 
 
 to explode an erroneous practice of a very per- 
 nicious tendency, and fhewn that though it is 
 generally fuppofed to be an ordinance of the re- 
 ligion of Jefus Chrift,itrs, really, onlyaground- 
 leis inflitution of that very predicted fuperfliti- 
 on, I have difcharged my own duty, and am, 
 
 Gentlemen, &c. &c. 
 
 EUBULUS. 
 
 BBsaSESHSESSSas* 
 
 To the Directors, &c. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 T^ROM fome particular circumflances it 
 -^ happened, that I did not fee your third 
 number nor, confequently, Subfidiarius's re- 
 marks, till fome time after I had fent you my 
 reply to Philander; and though, in my own 
 judgement, an inflitution detaching one day in 
 fevenjrom all other engagement s> and devoting it 
 to f acred afes, is much too important in its 
 confequences to fociety to reft upon no better 
 foundation, than mere inferences, deduced by 
 any body, from ambiguous paiTages of fcrip- 
 ture ; yet, as Subfidiarius acknowledges the 
 pallages from whence the apoftolic fanction of 
 fuch an inflitution is deduced to be but three, 
 and allures us, thole three appear to him clear 
 and fafisfaSlory j and that in particular, from 
 the A els full and explicit • it will perhaps be 
 thought right that I mould explain why I un- 
 
C 96 ] 
 
 derfland the two firft. of thofe parages £o 
 differently from thefe Gentlemen, and why I 
 entirely omitted the paflage in the Revelation 
 upon which they are pieafed to lay fo great a 
 ftrefs. Subfidiarius, it is to be obferved, makes 
 great ufe of the argumentum ad verecundiam, 
 and confronts me with the names of Hallet 
 and of Locke, in defence of his interpretations. 
 But a finccre friend and prudent inveftrgator 
 of truth, like the God of truth himfelf, is no 
 refpecter of perfons ; nor will he rely impli- 
 citly upon the authority even of a Locke, in a 
 cafe where he is competent (as, in this, every 
 man of common fenfe and moderate erudition 
 is) to determine for himfelf. 
 
 In Acts xx. 7. the hiflorian, by mentioning 
 the purpofe of the aiTembly of the difciples, 
 informs us clearly alfo of the time of the day 
 when it was held : for, he td is us, it was to 
 break bread. That is, it was either to partake 
 of one common farewell-meal with the apoftle 
 before his departure, orelie to celebrate toge- 
 ther with him the Lord's Supper. If it was 
 the firft, all writers, both facred and prophane, 
 teach us, that the cuftomary time of their chief 
 and only fixed meal, was in the evening, on the 
 beginning of the Jewifh day. If the latter, 
 fiill, from what St. Paul writes to the Co- 
 rinthians upon that fubjecf, we know it was, 
 in thofe days, celebrated according to its firft 
 inftitution, in theevening at the hour oijupper. 
 If, therefore, this breaking bread of the dif- 
 ciples was, as St. Luke allures us it was, on 
 the firft day oj the week, it muft have been on 
 
[ 97 ] 
 
 our Saturday evening. For the next evening 
 would have been, according to the Jewiih com- 
 putation of time, on the fecond day. And I 
 leave it to any perfon of common fenfe, who 
 has read the pafiage, to judge whether St. Paul 
 preached to them one whole night, and fet out 
 on his journey on Sunday at break of day, as I 
 underftand him to have done ; or whether he 
 continued to preach to them two whole nights 
 and the intervening day, and fet out on Mon- 
 day morning as Philander and his auxiliary 
 fuppofe. Subfidiarius indeed, avoids the 
 abiurdity of fo prepofterous a predication, by 
 making thedifciples aiTembleon Sunday even- 
 ing ; but as the hour of breaking bread on our 
 Sunday evening was on the fecond clay of the 
 week and not the fir ft, he thereby flatly con- 
 tradicts St. Luke, and if he could be right, the 
 affembly would have no reference to the fub- 
 ject of the prefent debate. As to the difficulty 
 which he fus^efls about the word morrow, the 
 quibble would really have amazed me, if I did 
 not well know the omnipotence of habitual 
 prejudice. I only beg that Gentleman will take 
 the trouble of reading the fix firft verfes of tne 
 fourth chapter of the very fame hiftory, and 
 he will there find the fame word morrow in- 
 difputably ufed, twice, in oppofition to the pre- 
 ceding evening, though, with the Jews, the 
 evening and the morning were the fame day. 
 
 The next pafTage affords a ffriking proof how 
 dangerous it is to allow the imagination to infei 4 
 any doctrine of importance from the words of 
 fcripture, which is not exprellly taught in them. 
 
 N 
 
C 98 3 
 
 For inference, like fame, though founded, at 
 
 firfc, perhaps, upon flight or no grounds, mo- 
 bilitate viget, virefque acquirit eundo. From 
 St. Paul's order, 1 Cor. xvi, 2 that upon the 
 fir ft day of the week, every one mould lay up by 
 bird in for e, as God hadprojperedhim. Subii- 
 diarius fays, Mr. Locke pertinently and forcibly 
 infers that every one was to bring to the congre- 
 gation on that day, what their charity bad laid 
 a/ide the foregoing week as their gam came in, that 
 it might be put into fame public box, Sec. 'and 
 Mr. Hallet carries the inference flil) farther, in 
 whole words aubiidiarius adds, when the apojtle 
 told the church what they fhould do when they 
 Jhould meet for worfiip on the Lord's day, he did 
 as good as order them to per /if in this cufom of 
 objervmg this day in this religious manner. Thus 
 we have here, a change of names from thefrjl 
 day of the week to the Lord's day ; an apoftolic 
 command to affemble on that day for religious 
 worfhip, and to bring to the congregation the 
 portion of their gain deftined for charitable 
 ufes ; and an order for the perpetual obfervance 
 of the fame day in a religious manner, deduced 
 by circumftantial inference, not only without, 
 but even in direct oppofition to the plain fenfe 
 of the apoflle's own words. For inflead of or- 
 dering them to brine: their alms to the congre- 
 gation, which is the fuppofed circumilance 
 that firit. let all the wheels of this curious in- 
 ference in motion, St. Paul expreiily orders 
 every one to lay up a portion of his gain by him, 
 in the Creek, much itronger, w^ &&#«, at his 
 own houfe, and he was to lay up this charitable 
 
C 99 ] 
 
 quota making, or when be made/? fund or trea- 
 sure of what he hat/gamed, for that is t he real m ea n - 
 ing of the original, and necelrariiy implies, that 
 every one was to balance his accounts, on that 
 day, for the preceding week. A buiineis which 
 the jewiili converts would not have performed 
 on the fabbath, the day before : and which is 
 as inconnftent with the idea of detaching that 
 day from all fecular engagements, and appro- 
 priating it to facred ufes in honour of Jefus 
 Chrifl, as St. Paul's fettin£out to travel upon 
 it was in the former inkance. 
 
 As for the exprefiion the Lord's day in the 
 fir ft chapter of the Revelation, fuppofing, for 
 the prefent, the epiftles to the feven churches, 
 and the preface to them, in which only this 
 expreffion is found, to be the work of the fame 
 author, ?nd of the fame age with the reft of 
 that prophetic book, it is very far from clear, 
 that the apoftle meant by it what has been iince 
 called the Lord's day, and confecrated as a new 
 fabbath in pretended honour of Chrift. The 
 book of Revelation muft have been written 
 prior to feveral of St. Paul's epiftles, becaufe 
 they evidently refer to it; and at a time when, 
 we learn from St Luke that the Jewifh con- 
 verts and even the apoftles themfelves conti- 
 nued to obferve the law of Mofes, and confe- 
 quently to keep the Jewifh. fabbath . And fince 
 the language of the fourth command men': 
 that law is, the f event h day is the J abb at b oj 
 the Lord thy God, how can it be mo're im- 
 probable or more improper that the figurative 
 writer of the apocalypfe mould call the jewifh 
 
[ ioo ] 
 
 fabbath the Lord's day, then that other pro- 
 phets mould call the temple the Lord's hoitfe f 
 Before it can be admitted therefore, that St. 
 John, by that expreffion, meant the jirji day 
 of the week, bubfidiarius mull: perform the im- 
 pombility of proving from other authorities, 
 that it was the cuibm of the apoftolic age to 
 call the firft day of the week by that name. 
 Till then his urging that pafTage of fcripture 
 in argument is a mere petitio principii, an un- 
 reafonable taking for granted the very point in 
 debate; which, I truft, I have, in my reply to 
 Philander, dernonftrated to be inadmiflible. 
 
 I am Gentlemen, &c. &c. 
 
 EUBULUS, 
 
 To the Directors, &c. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 IN addition to the obfervations of Philander 
 and bubfidiarius, and in reply to the lafl 
 communication of Eubulus, I beg leave to 
 make a few remarks on what he has advanced 
 with refpec~t to the manner in which chriftians 
 in general fpend the Sunday, or the Lord's day, 
 making it a cefiation from all worldly bufmefs. 
 
 This, Eubulus fays, p. 14, " is an inftitu- 
 *' tion which cannot be productive of any va- 
 luable ends, but fuch as are eafily attained 
 " without it. It not only acca%>ns a lofs to 
 
 individuals, and to the community at large, 
 
 <£i 
 
C 101 ] 
 
 ** of one feventh part of the induflry of the 
 " manufacturers and labourers of every kind; 
 " but, what is infinite y more important, in- 
 '* duces a very 1 :rge majority of that moft ufe- 
 " ful and numerous part of the fpecies, to mif- 
 " pend that feventh of their time in diiiipation 
 '• and intemperance; which too naturally, and 
 " too certainly, leads them to vicious immo- 
 ralities, and crimes, of every degree." 
 
 In fupport of this opinion, he fays, p. 16. 
 " The apoftles and firft difciples of Chrift are 
 " no where faid to have diftinguiihed the firft 
 " day of the week, in any manner whatfoever ;" 
 and again, p. 94. "The chriftians of the fe- 
 " cond century did not obferve, and eonfe- 
 " quently had not received, any fuch inftitu- 
 " tion from the apoftles of Chrift, and their 
 " immediate difciples." 
 
 Farther, fpeaking of the writers of the three 
 firft centuries, he fays, p. 21 . — 22. "Inftead of 
 " informing us that fuch a fabbath was kept, 
 " they expreflly allure us, that neither had the 
 " gof pel enjoined, nor did they practifeany fuch 
 *' obfervance. — In the firft and purcft ages of 
 " chriftianity, their meetings were fhort, and 
 " either very early in the morning, before the 
 " ufual hours of bufinefs, after which they 
 " departed, each to their feverai occupations, 
 " or elfe in the evening, after the bulineis of 
 " ihe day was ended. 
 
 As Eubulus feems to acknowledge that the 
 practice of the fecond and third centuries, will 
 enable us to afcertain w T hat was the practice of 
 the apoftles, and agreeable to the will of Chrift, 
 
[ «oa ] 
 
 I fhall endeavour to fotisfy him, that Sunday 
 was foent by chriftians of that age, as far as 
 circumftances would permit, in the lame man- 
 ner as it is generally fpent now, viz. that it 
 was confidered as a jeered day, and that then 
 christians pafled as much time in places of 
 public worfhip as they do now. 
 
 1 need not quote particular pa ftages, to prove 
 what mull be allowed by all, viz. that in every 
 place in which chriftians were numerous, there 
 was a place for their afTcmbling themielves, 
 diftindt from a private houfe. This, is evi- 
 dent from Paul's epiftles to the Corinthians, 
 efpecially i Cor. ii. 22. Indeed it is natural to 
 fuppofe, that chriftians would imitate the Jews 
 in this lefpecl. In thefe places of general af- 
 fembly, the epiilles directed to whole churches 
 were, no doubt, publicly read, as they continu- 
 ed to be in after times, in thefe places feve- 
 ral fervices were regularly performed, and pro- 
 per officers were appointed, and paid for the 
 purpofe. We read in the x New Teftament of 
 elders , deacons, and deaconeffes. This fo exactly 
 refembles the cufiom of a later period, that it 
 affords a considerable prefumption that thofe 
 officers were employed in the fame manner 
 from the beginning, viz, fome of them in the 
 inftruction of chriftians affembled for that pur- 
 pofe, and efpecially on the Lord's day. 
 
 That there were thefe affemblies of chrifti- 
 ans, and that they were held on the Lord's 
 day, appears pretty clearly from the epiftles 
 of Ignatius; which, whether genuine or not, 
 were no doubt written within the period men- 
 tioned by Eubulus. 
 
[ IO S J 
 
 Exliorting Chriftians to perfect unanimity, 
 
 he fays, " As therefore the Lord did nothing 
 " without the Father, being united to him, 
 " neither by himfelf, nor yet by his apoftles, 
 " lb neither do ye any thing without your 
 *' bifhop and preibyters. Neither endeavour 
 " to let any thing appear rational to your- 
 " felves apart; but being come together into 
 " the fame place, have one common prayer, 
 " one common ^application, one mind, one 
 " hope, in charity undefilcd. — Wherefore come 
 " ye all together as unto one temple of God, 
 " as to one altar, as to one Jefus Chrift, who 
 " proceeded from one Father, and exifls in 
 " one, and is returned to one*." 
 
 Again, fpeaking of perfect chriftians, he 
 fays, " No longer obierving fabbaths, but 
 " keeping the Lord's day, in which alfo our 
 " life is lprung up in him, and through his 
 " death, &cf." 
 
 To thefe places of general afTembly, which 
 were called churches, chriftians came fome- 
 times from confiderable diftances, which muft 
 
 * Mr,o; iRtioauTrUt EuTioyov tj tyuivzoQai wta vpn ' a\X Effj to ceJh 
 
 fJUO, ZZ(OIT£X>XYI fMGt SzT.O-i; , E»J VOVS fAKX. t/.Ti," , It ayaWfl, V) Vr, XF} 7 ' 
 
 rr, a^,u:fji.!i) . Ek ejiv IiWWsj^pjj©*, ov uy.tkwt ovbcV E-;iv . Tlcwli. ovv 
 u< Hi vta, vaov cvvlfi^ili 9:a>, wj ettj to sv Syo"t<5;cy,ptov, u; ittl via, Iwroyy 
 vf>,ov , tov w^'evoj tsal^o; •BfosMpi.a, t >c. sv; v.c. aflx, ■£, p£«p»i£rav& , 
 Ign. Ad. Mag. c. vii. p. 19. 
 
 •f E» oiiv jv wetXatou; ^pay^.ao-iv avarca^EyJsj fk xxiwltfx O.rr.^o- 
 nXt^Coy ; jaweIi 0g££«!i£oyl£$ aXha, zee n Kvpt&xnv [£«v] Suy'lse. ev n ■£ 
 %u>* y\\xwv avelsiXsv $>' xvkiv , Sec. Ing. Ad. Alag. c. ix. p. 20. 
 The Greek has the word £«>!», but as it is not in the Latin 
 tranflation, and without it there is a better contraft to keep- 
 ing, the labbath, mentioned immediately before, it i?, I be 
 univcillilly confidered as an interpolation, See the note of 
 Cotileriv.2 on the paffage. 
 
[ IQ4 ] 
 
 have taken up much time, as alfo mull the 
 bufinefs that was done when they were afiem- 
 bled. The mod authentic account of this is 
 found in Juftin Martyr, and is as follows : 
 
 " On the day that is called Sunday, there 
 ** is an aflembly of all who live in the cities, 
 <c or in the country ; and the acts of the apof- 
 " ties, and the writings of the prophets are 
 " read, according as the time will permit. 
 " The prefident difcourfes,infiru£ting the peo- 
 " pie, and exhorting them to good actions. 
 " Then we ftand up to pray, and after prayer, 
 " bread, and wine with water, are brought, 
 ci and the prefident offers prayers and thankf- 
 " givings as he is able, and the people join in 
 " faying, amen. Then there is a diftribution 
 " and a partaking of the things for which 
 *' thanks were given, and they are fent to thcfe 
 " who are abfent by the deacons. The rich 
 <c give according to their pleafure, and what 
 " is collected is depofited with the prefident 
 " for the relief of widows, and orphans, the 
 " lick, &c*." 
 
 This is certainly very fimilar to the account 
 that any perfon would now give of chrifhans 
 fpending the Lord's day. Nothing is faid of 
 
 * Tn too riKiou teyofAswi vj^s^a. <aa.y\w xizld tooXeij yi aypovi; pivofuv 
 ETTt to covlo ovveXsvoth; ywHai , xca ret, aito^vn^.oiivu.c^lcc twj cnroioXwv , n 
 ™ ovyypcLpiicfioi twj Gjfoptlwv , a.vay.vyvuo'iuku (*e%fn sy^a'psi. Etra, 
 tsjxvcrapiitiu tov oa>ceyvuxTxov!@ j , o ^poi^oig o»» Xoyov Tr,v vovSttnav watA 
 •nrpwcXwtv tyi; tco-j xotXaiv rovluv y.iij.vptwc, •ssou^cm . I-.ttii.o. avxa.y.i'Sa, town 
 <nr«v/E{, kch Ei^aj vjijj.rrot/.iv ' isy.va-o'.^vjui'in^.m rr^ivyjfi;, apTo,- TzpocrQt- 
 p=m , kva owos xai iMk'p* xxi o crposs&jf eu;^«.j ojxoiu; x.cu EUpg#4tglf«s vrn 
 dvvaju: c.blui anaWE^wrst,, x.cuo\cco; etteu-P^usi , Xiyuiv to a.'xr,v . Kat » 
 Sioceod-ig x.cu y fxs?«\^t? cltto niv Etr£«pKti3=v]aJv ejckjw y>vfka, kxi TOi$ ov 
 nzfoucn ha. houaovw tzTtpirtlou, Apol. imo. Edit. Thirlby. p. 97- 
 
[ *°5 ] 
 
 this bufinefs being tranfa&ed in the morning 
 or evening only : fo that we cannot but con- 
 elude that it was done in mid-day -, and it mult 
 have taken up a considerable part of it. 
 
 The Lord's day had not the appellation of a 
 fabbathy nor was it a faji ; bat it wis always 
 called a feftival', and both with the Heathens 
 and the jews, feftival days were no more em- 
 ployed in labour than fail days, though oh them 
 they were at liberty to work if they p leafed. 
 
 The writer of the epiftle of Barnabas, com- 
 paring the jewiih religion with the chnftian, 
 fays, " The fabbaths which ye now keep are 
 " not acceptable to me; but thofe which I 
 " nave made, when refting from all things I 
 " fhall begin the eighth day, that is the be- 
 " sinning of the other world. For which 
 ( ' caufe we obferve the eighth day with glad- 
 " nefs, in which Jefus rofe from the dead; 
 " and having manifefted himfelf to his difci- 
 " pies, afcended into heaven*." 
 
 Tertullian comparing the feftivals of the 
 Heathens with thofe of chriftians, fays " If you 
 " would indulge to pleafure, you may ; and not 
 11 on one day, but on many. With the Heathens 
 " feftival days return once a year, but to thee 
 " every eighth day is a feftival -f." 
 
 o 
 
 * Opxl: «rw," /\.57ei* ov tx vjv <rx?>£x~lx ifMi 6zkIo& aW x izn~ciri<x ev 
 a KulccTrxviTxs tx •syavrx, a?x r ' v riy-t'x; oydous mower v, o s^iv xXKcrj *Wf*oii 
 o.yyjw . Aio x«i «yo^;» rriv n^;f«v t»iv oySonv £*? tv$foc-vvr,v . ev n y-xi 9 
 In/rout ocn^n s>c vfxps-'v, KCU $avspsu9sj; xnGn Eij tods oup xvov$ . Barnabse 
 Epift. c. xvii. 
 
 f Si quid et carni indulgendum eft, habes. Non tamen. 
 dies tantum, fed et plures. Nam ethnicis feme! armu is dies 
 quifque feftus eft, tibi odbivus quifque dies. De Idolatria, 
 cap. xiv. p. 94. 
 
[ W6 ] 
 
 Dionyfius biihop of Corinth, in his letter to 
 the church of Rome, quoted by Eufebius, fays, 
 " This day, being the Lord's day, we keep it 
 " holy. In it we read your epifHe, as alfo the 
 *' iirft epiftle of Clemens*." 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus fays, that " a true 
 " chriftian, according to the commands of 
 " Chrift, obferves the Lord's day, by cafting 
 " out all evil thoughts, and entertaining all 
 " good ones, glorifying the refurredtion of the 
 " Lord on that dayf~. ' The fame writer even 
 calls the Lord's day, though not a fab bath, a 
 day of reft, the chief of days, our reji i?tdeed ; 
 intimating, at the lame time, that the obfeiV- 
 ance of the feventh day was intended to prepare 
 the way for the obfervance of the eighth J. 
 
 We cannot collecl: with exactnefs how much 
 time the primitive chriftians fpent in public 
 worfhip. But it mould feem that it could not 
 be lefs, but rather more, than we ufually em- 
 ploy in it. According to the excellent author 
 of the Enquiry into the Conjiitution of the Primi- 
 tive Church, they ufually preached an hour. 
 The leflons were alfo of confiderable length. 
 
 * Tr,j o-,ijut-po> ow xu^ciY.w cvyixv r,jj.?pa,v 5*«y«yopy , sv *i avsyvvKupt* 
 Tr,v wfokpav Ji/xjv Jia KAiiaEMj yp«^Ei<7ay . Eufeb. Hill. L. IV. 
 
 c. xxiii. p. 187. 
 
 Tr t v njxspav ttoui. or av cmoQaXKr, tpccvXov vovpct. , xcuyvurLxon uparXodSrij 
 tuv e» a,vlu tov Kv^ov KVarotqiv &fa£wy. Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 
 p. 877. Potteri ec). 
 
 % H shdofxr, roivuy *)]UE|)a cwxTuvo'ii xrigvcrcrzlai , avo^y, xeotuv etoi^.k- 
 Cpvacc t*)V ap^jyoyoy nfx.tpa,v, rnv to ov7» avewrawtv ^sw' «y $s *a* vrpulnv 
 toovu (fw]©^ ysystriy, £y u t« wayja OT;y9fwp£t3«* xa* wayja x7vJ7foyoju.sj.7aj. 
 ex tkv7j?,- T«i »jju.cpaj >j -nrp«7>7 o-oifta jc«j « yvawjj r^wc,- E^ajw-TTE^at . Clem. 
 
 Aiex. Strom, vi. p. 810. Potteri ed. 
 
[ *°7 ] 
 
 That which was the fubjectof Ori gen's homily 
 on Jeremiah, reached from chap. xv. ver. 10. 
 to xvii. ver. 5. and another was from 1 Sam. 
 xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii. part ii. p. 13. 
 
 " Their pfalms," Bingham fays (Summary 
 of Chriftian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 87) "were 
 " lengthened to an indefinite number, between 
 " every one of which they had liberty to medi- 
 <c tate, and fall to their private prayers, which 
 *• Stillingfleet thought had always a place in 
 " their fervice. They met," he fays, ibid. p. 
 88. lc at three o'clock, or our nine in the 
 morning." It is evident from Cyprian, that 
 they had fervice both in the morning and 
 the evening; in the morning in commemora- 
 tion of the refurredion, and in the evening to 
 partake of the Lord's fupper*. 
 
 I have not quoted any later writers, as Eu- 
 bulus would not allow them to be of fufficient 
 authority ; though when there is no trace of 
 any difference in opinion or practice, among 
 fo many difcordant fects as chriirians were foon 
 divided into, it may be prefumed that what 
 we find to be the univerfal opinion, or practice, 
 of a later period, was alfo that of a former one. 
 I fhall, therefore, only juft mention what 
 Auftin fays of the Lord's day. " It is, there- 
 " fore, he iays-f*, called the Lord's day, becaufe 
 " in it, abftaining from all earthly labours, and 
 
 * Nos autem refurre&ionem domini mane celebramus. 
 Chriflum offerre oportebat circa vefperam diei. Cyprian, 
 Epift. lxiii. p. 156. 
 
 •j- Ideo dominions appellator, ut in eo a terrenis operibus vel 
 mnndiillecebrisabftinentes,tantum divinis cultibus ferviamus, 
 Aug, Civit. Dei. 1. xxii. c. xxx. Pearfoa on the Creed, p. 266. 
 
[ io8 ] 
 
 " the allurements of the world, we employ it 
 " only in divine worfhip." In the Apoltolical 
 Con fli tut ions alfo directions are given to affem- 
 ble continually on the Lord's day. <rw£g%£<r&s 
 ccltoiK^iTfjoog. Lib. vii. cap 30. 
 
 Befides the public worfhip of the Lord's 
 day, the hve fcajh of the primitive christians 
 were alfo held on the fame day, and generally 
 in the evening; as may be interred from the 
 famous letter of Pliny, in which he fays " the 
 *' christians meet on a certain day to fing hymns 
 *' to Chrift, and lay themleives underafolemn 
 " obligation not to commit any wickednefs, 
 " &c. then they depart, and meet again to 
 " partake of an enteitainment very innocent, 
 *'. and common to all. " Tertullian fpeaks of 
 this love teaft as ajupper, a little before night; 
 and in the three firif centuries, Bingham fays 
 it was held in the churches, vol. ii. p. 252. 
 According to thefe accounts, the chriffians of 
 the three firft centuries muit havefpent a very 
 great part or every Sunday in their churches. 
 
 What is here faid relates to times of peace, 
 in which chriilians were at liberty to fpend 
 their Sundays as they pleafed. In feafons of 
 periecution the public alTemblies of Chriftians, 
 would, no doubt, be much interrupted, dis- 
 continued, or be held by night. But there could 
 be no occafion to do this in any place out of 
 Judea till the reign ol Nero, becaufe chrif- 
 tians were not perfecuted by the Romans till 
 that time. Coniequently, their firil cuiloms 
 would be fixed very early, in the age of the 
 apoftles ; and they would be the fame to which 
 
[ i°9 ] 
 
 they would revert, when, after a feafbn of 
 perfecution, peaceable times mould return. 
 The latter, therefore are an indication of the 
 former. 
 
 All, therefore, that could be meant by the 
 primitive chfiftians when they faid that they 
 kept no fabbathj muft, if we judge by their 
 practice, have been either that they did not 
 obierve the Jewifli fabbath of the feventh day, 
 or that, as on other feftival days, they did not 
 hold themfelves abfolutely obliged to refrain 
 from labour on Sundays ; and in climates in 
 which the weather was uncertain, they would 
 probably work in the fields in time of harveft. 
 Indeed, I fee no good reafon why we mould 
 fcruple to do this ; as work of this kind comes 
 under the defcription of work of necejjity, as 
 much as the lifting up an ox or an afs that 
 fliould fall into a pit on the fabbath day, which 
 the mod rigid of the Jews themfelves allowed. 
 In Judea the feafons and the changes of wea- 
 ther are regular ; fo that no inconvenience 
 would arife from a conftant retting every 
 feventh day. 
 
 That Conftantine intended an abfolute cef- 
 fation from all labour on the Sunday, is not 
 probable, fince his order refpected Friday*, as 
 much as Sunday 5 and two days in a week would 
 certainly have been thought too much toabftain 
 from labour. Befides, it is well known, that the 
 
 * AiO TOtJ VVO VufAOCltOV <X.pX W '5'O^iTEUOjUEVOt,' OCTrCtTi Q~ytfKl(l C&ytLV Tail 
 
 JTwvu/xoij rov awfapog riptfcai evou9;te** Ojuoiwj ^i >£ r ^ v Wfo rov axi'ocilov 
 
 .ft/xav. For fuch it is acknowledged was the original reading, 
 snd not t«s ra> v&GSstlw, 
 
[ no ] 
 
 christians refpected the Jewifh fabbath, though 
 not in 10 high a degree as the Lord's day, and 
 had affemblies in the churches on that day. 
 
 1 would obferve, however, that Eubulus is 
 miftaken in aiierting, p. 85 that " with the 
 •' Jews not only all bufinefs and travelling, 
 " but all focial and pleafurable intercourfe with 
 €( each other was prohibited; and each family 
 *' was in a manner circumfcribed within its 
 •' own dwelling, except during the hours of at- 
 ** tendance at the temple, or in the fynagogue." 
 No fuch precept as this is found in Moles, and 
 the Jews in all ages, generally made choice of 
 the fabbath in preference to all other days for 
 their focial entertainments. " On the fabbath," 
 fays Reland, " they put on their beflcloaths, 
 •' in honour of it, and ufe every expreffion 
 ** of joy, efpecially in feafling, and indulging 
 * f themfelves as well as they can afford*." 
 
 I am the more fur prized that Eubulus mould 
 imagine the Jews fpent their fabbaths in 
 this reclufeand rigid manner, when it appears 
 from Luke ch. xiv. 1, &c. that Jefus was in- 
 vited to what may well be called afeafl, at the 
 houfeof one of the chief Pharifees, on the fab- 
 bath day. That the company on this occafion 
 was large, is evident from their chufmg out the 
 chief rooms, and that it confifted chiefly of per- 
 fons of diflindtion, is probable, from its giving 
 our Lord occafion to advife his hoft, that, when 
 
 * Porro in ipfo fabhatho requiritur indutio veftium pre- 
 ttofhrum, in honorem fabbathi, et fumma laetitia, cujus plu- 
 rima figna edunt, epulando et indulgendo genio, quantum 
 res unius cujufque patitur. Antlquitates facr<e, Par. IV. 
 cap, viii. fe£t. 10. p. 300. 
 
L »i ] 
 
 he made a feaft, he would not invite hisf?-ie?ids 
 and rich neighbours, &c. which feems to im- 
 p]y that he had then done fo. 
 
 The chrifrians of Tertuliian's time were far 
 from fpending the Sunday in the rigid and 
 gloomy manner in which it was obferved by 
 the old Puritans. " It is faid" fays he, " let 
 *' your works mine, and now our (hops,, and 
 " gates mine. For you will find more doors 
 ** without lights and laurels among Heathens 
 ** than among Chriftians§." And this book 
 was written when he was a Montanift, the 
 inoft rigid of all the feels of chriftians. 
 
 Hilary fays, " We on the eighth day, which 
 *' is alfo the firft, rejoice in the festivity of a 
 " perfect fabbath-f-." It is evident, however, 
 that the Sunday feftivity of the primitive chrif- 
 tians did not confifr. in fports, but in iinging 
 pfalmSj and other expreffions of religious joy, 
 or in ch earful fociety, 
 
 What were the practices of the Chriflians in 
 the times of the apoftles, may^be pretty fafely 
 inferred from thofe of the times that immedi- 
 ately fucceeded them, fince we have no account 
 of any difference between them. Befides, the 
 apoftles, and all the Jewifh chriftians, having 
 been ufed to a weekly day of public worfhip, 
 and having, no doubt, experienced the benefit 
 of it, would naturally continue the fame cuf- 
 
 § Sed luceant inquit opera veftra. At nunc lucent tabernae et 
 januse noftrae. Plures jam invenies ethnicorum fores line lucer- 
 niset laureis, quam Chriftianorum. Deldol. c. xv. p. 94. 
 
 f Nos in o&ava die, quae et ipfa prima eft, perfecli fab- 
 bati feftivitate lxtamur. Prologus in Pfalmorum explana* 
 tionem. Opera, p. 637. 
 
[ 1.2 ] 
 
 torn when they became chriftians, .and recom-* 
 mend the fame to the gentile converts. Indeed, 
 it is moft evident, and allowed by all, that the 
 cuftoms refpecfing the Jewifh fynagogues were 
 kept up in chriftian churches, the former hav- 
 ing been, in all refpedts, a model for the latter. 
 
 But independently of thefe ftrong prejhmptions, 
 from practices both prior and fubiequent to 
 thofe of the apoftollc age, there appear to me 
 to be fufficient marks of regular aiTemblies 
 being held by chriftians in the books of the 
 New Teftament, and alfo of thofe affemblies 
 being held on the firft day of the week. 
 
 As this day was unquestionably in after times 
 called the Lord's day,ix. may fafely he concluded 
 to be the fame that was intended by the fame 
 term in the book of Revelation. For chrif- 
 tians, who made fo much ufe of the books of 
 the New Teftament, would never ufe words 
 in fenfes different from thofe in which they 
 apprehended them to be ufed there. This day, 
 therefore, had, even in the age of the apoftles, 
 acquired a peculiar appellation, and was, in 
 the cuftomary forms of fpeech, diftinguifhed 
 from all the other days of the week ; and the 
 probability will be that, along with the fame 
 name, the early chriftians received from the 
 apoftles the cujloms peculiar to that day, and 
 fuch as have been recited from their writings. 
 
 But there is not wanting, in my opinion, 
 the cleareft evidence in the books of the New 
 Teftament themfelves, that all the chriftians 
 in fuch large cities as Corinth and Ephefus 
 afTe'mbled for public worfhip at mid-day, and 
 
C ><3 ] 
 
 that thefe aflemblies were held on the Lord's 
 day. This is more particularly evident from 
 the epiftles of Paul to the Corinthians, whofe 
 public aflemblies required much regulation. 
 In them he diftinguimes the church, from 
 private houfes, as was mentioned before, I 
 Cor. ii. 22. He fpeaks of the whole church 
 coming together into one place, I Cor. xiv. 
 23, 26. and again 1 Cor. xi. 18. In thefe 
 churches, or public arlemblies, women were 
 to- keep filence, 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35. and 
 Grangers were frequently prefent, fo as often 
 to be converted by what they heard or faw in 
 them, v. 23. IJ therefore the whole church be 
 come together, into one place , and all /peak with 
 tongues, and there come in thofe that are unlearned 
 or unbelievers, will they not fay that ye are mad. 
 But if all prophecy, and there come in one tbat 
 believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced 
 of alii he is judged of all. And thus are the 
 fecrets of his heart made manifefl ; a?idfo falling 
 down on his face, he will worjhip God, and re- 
 port that God is with you of a truth. It ap- 
 pears alfo from the epiflle of James that 
 ftrangers frequently attended the public af- 
 femblies of chriftians, ch. ii. 2. If there come 
 into your af'embly a ?na?i with a gold ring, in 
 goodly apparel \ and there cotne in alfo a poor 
 man, in vile raiment ; and ye have refpecJ to 
 him that hath the gay clothing, and fay unto 
 him- Jit thou here, in a good place ; and fay to 
 the poor, fiatid thou there, or fit here under 
 my footflool, &c. 
 
 p 
 
C V4 ] 
 
 What do thefe circumftances give us an idea 
 of, but of luchpromifcuous affemblies as are 
 now held by chriftians in all countries, and in 
 mid-day, to which any ftrangers that chufe it 
 may rejbrt ? What were churches in private 
 houies ? ( i Cor.xvi. 9 Coll. iv. 1 5.) but affem- 
 blies of chriftians held there, independent of 
 the proper members of Inch houfes ? And where 
 were epiftles to whole churches read, but in 
 fuch affemblies ? as in the church of Laodicea, 
 Coll. iv. 16. That thefe affemblies were held 
 frequently and regularly, appears from feve- 
 ral circumftances. Their being attended by 
 ftrangers fufficiently implies it. For how 
 could fuch perfons know of private, or only 
 occafional aileniblies? In Acls ii. 25. we read 
 of Paul and Barnabas affembling t hem fe Ives a 
 whole year with the church, and teaching much 
 people. What could this be but attending re- 
 gular aflemblies of the whole church in that 
 populous city, where the chriftians were nu- 
 merous in a very early period ? 
 
 If thefe affemblies were weekly, there can 
 hardly be any doubt but that they were held 
 on the Lord's day ; and notwithstanding what 
 has been urged by Eubulus on this head, I 
 cannot help thinking it very evident, that this 
 was the cafe both at Corinth, and at Troas. 
 
 With refpect to the former, though the 
 apofcle fpeaks of the money to be collected 
 (1 Cor. xvi. 2.) as laid up by individuals, on 
 the firft day of the week ; I cannot help 
 thinking with Mr. Locke, that, it was alio 
 on that day to be depofued in fome one hand. 
 
C ns 3 
 
 or place ; beeaufe otherwise it would not have* 
 
 aniwered his purpofe, in preventing all gather- 
 ings when he mould conic. Could he mean 
 to intimate that they mould every week, and 
 on the fir ft day of the week in particular, put 
 into a private purfe in their own houles what- 
 ever they intended for this charity, left it 
 ihould get mixed with their other money, and 
 afterwards they might not be able, or willing, 
 to feparate it ? This, furely, was too trifling, 
 and arguing an unworthy diftruft of their li- 
 berality. Beiides, is not the unquestionable 
 fa 61 of all iimilar collections of money in 
 
 J 
 
 after times being made in churches, and on 
 the Lord's dav, a fufficient evidence that the 
 pra&ice began in the times of the apoftlcs. 
 Indeed, why mould the apoftle mention the 
 fir ft day of the week on this occafion, if it was 
 not the time of their public alfemblies ? 
 
 I have particularly confidered all that Eu- 
 bnlus has advanced in fupport of his opinion, 
 that Paul preached at Troas on the evening 
 before the Lord's day, and not on the evening 
 of that day, and think it evident that his con- 
 clufion is ill-founded. It appears from Acts 
 xx. 6. that at this time Paul ipent {even days 
 in Troas. Why then mould he preach to 
 them on the firfl day of the week, if it had 
 not been the time of their ufual aflemblies. 
 He had his choice of all the (even days ; but 
 probably, the wind not being favourable for 
 failing, he did not chufe to call the church 
 together before their ufual time of meeting, 
 and before that went from houfe to houfe. 
 
[ "6 J 
 
 Eubulus lays much ftrefs on the Jews be- 
 ginning the day on the evening. But, as Dr. 
 Lardner fays in his Obfervations on Mack- 
 night ' s Harmony, p. 9. (in which he (hews 
 that the women went to embalm the body of 
 Jefus on the morning of the nrft day of the 
 week, and not on the evening of the feventh, 
 though that morning, juft before fun rife, is 
 faid, Matt, xxviii. 1. to be the end of I he Sab- 
 bath) " All know very well that the Jewifh 
 i( civil day began at the felting of the fun ; but 
 (< that day was divided into two parts, night 
 *? and day -, by day meaning the natural day, 
 " or that part of the civil day which is light." 
 
 To ufe the term day for day light was as 
 cuftomary with the Jews as it is with us. 
 Thus, Luke fays, ch. xxii. 6. As Joon as it 
 was day, the elders of the people, &c. led ye/us 
 into their coimcil, though, according to Eu- 
 bulus, the Jewifh day was then half expired ; 
 and all the preceding tranfactions (of the fame 
 day, according to him) are faid to be done on 
 the evening, and the night, as if they belonged 
 to the preceding day; juft as we mould now 
 fpeak. So alfo Ezra is faid (Neh. viii. 3.) to 
 have read in the book of the law from the 
 morning until mid-day, though, according to 
 Eubulus, their mid-day was pafTed about the 
 time of his beginning to read. Alfo the term 
 next day is ufed in oppofition to the evening 
 before, though, according to him, it was a 
 part of the fame day, Ads iv. 2. They put 
 him in hold to the next day, for it was now even- 
 
C "7 ] 
 
 tide. And yet Eubulus refers to this paflage 
 as in his favour, p. 97. 
 
 I have no doubt, therefore, but that when 
 we read, Acts xx. 7. And upon the Jir/i day 
 of the week, when the difcipies came together 
 to break bread, Paul preached unto them f ready 
 to depart on the morrow J and continued his 
 fpeech unto 'midnight, the afTembly began in 
 day-light of the Sunday, and that the next 
 day was the Monday following ; efpecialiy 
 as there was then no perfecution of chrif- 
 tians, to induce them to hold their aflemblies 
 in the dark. I mail conclude with a few ob- 
 fervations of a more general nature, but I 
 fhall not enlarge upon them. 
 
 1. If the appropriation of one day in {even 
 for the purpofe of public wormip was the 
 practice of the apoflles, we may conclude that 
 it is not hurtful, but ufeful. And though 
 we Gentile chriftians are not bound by the 
 Jewifh ritual, we may fafely infer that if the 
 fabbath, as obferved by the Jews, neceffarily 
 led to evil, it would not have been appointed 
 by God for them, And from its not being 
 hurtful to them, we may fafely infer that it 
 cannot be fo to us, fince human nature is the 
 fame. That this oblervance was prevented 
 from being hurtful to the Jews by any pe- 
 culiar reftrictions with refpecl: to fociai intef- 
 courfe, I havefhewn to be a mifapprehenfion 
 of Eubulus. 
 
 2. In my opinion the cefTation from labour 
 on the Lord's day makes a pleafing and ufeful 
 diftinftion in our time ; and befides its ex- 
 
[ n8 J 
 
 cellent religious and moral ufes, greatly con- 
 tributes to the civilization of mankind. The 
 expectation of it relieves the labour of all the 
 preceding fix days ; and consequently that 
 labour is done better with this interval than 
 it would have been without it, to fay nothing of 
 the relief that it affords the labouring cattle. 
 
 3. Befides, I cannot help thinking that in 
 this country the manufacturers labour to ex- 
 cefs ; and that it would be very deiirable, 
 would contribute to lengthen their lives, and 
 make their lives much happier, if their lav 
 bours could be moderated. The riches of 
 this nation are procured by the premature 
 exhaufting of the ftrength and vital powers 
 of the greater part of our manufacturers ; 
 though it is not denied that the intemperance 
 of many of them contributes to the fame 
 effect. Like our horfes, their lives are fhor- 
 tened, and made wretched, by fatigue. 
 
 4. If the /awe did not provide intervals of reft 
 from labour, the labourers themfelves would 
 not fail to do it; and the intervals of their^ 
 own providing would have a worfe effect than 
 the prefent. Our annual feafts, in every 
 town and village in the kingdom, are far 
 more mifchievous then Sunday fpent in the 
 word manner. For no ideas of religion 
 being now annexed to them, licentioufnefs 
 has no reftraint. 
 
 5. If it were left to every individual to 
 chufe his own time for public worfhip and 
 inftruction (if fuch a cuftom could be called 
 public) many would greatly abridge, and 
 
[ ii9 3 
 
 many would negledt it altogether ; as we fee 
 to be the cafe with family worfhip, even 
 where the obligation and ufe of it are ac- 
 kowledged. The confequence would be 
 that fecular concerns would engrofs their 
 whole time, and the very appearance and 
 profeffion of chriftianity would be in danger 
 of difappearing among us. But on fuch 
 topics as theie I forbear to enlarge, as it 
 has been done fufficiently by Philander 
 and Subsidiarius. 
 
 That much evil arifes from the manner in 
 which Sunday is now fpent by many, both 
 of the lower and higher ranks in the com- 
 munity, cannot be denied ; but I hope it is 
 not without a remedy, and I am fully per- 
 fuaded that the abolition of the obfervance 
 -of Sunday would be attended with much 
 greater evil. 
 
 I am, Gentlemen, 
 
 Your's, &c. &c. 
 
 HER M A S. 
 
[ 121 ] 
 
 n» « W i »-i «- n iw mwju ' «nuKH i ninw ' W. WWt ' WIfflm '> "vl»^- ' » JUWJI 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Dr. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 TTAVING, in the laft letter I fent to your 
 •*•"*■ Repofitory upon the fubjed: of fabbatiz- 
 ing, or ceaiing from all worldly bufinefs upon 
 the firft day of the week, under the lignature 
 ofEuBULUs, produced the cleared evidence 
 that the chriilians of the fecond century nei- 
 ther obferved nor knew of any fuch cefTation 
 inftituted by the firft and only authoritative 
 teachers of the religion of Jefus Chrift, I per- 
 fuaded myfelf I had fatisfactorily fhewn, that 
 fuch a fabbatical inftitution, univerfally ob- 
 ferved by preferred chriftians of later times in 
 pretended honour of the Lord Jefus, is not a 
 religious ordinance of his gofpel; butafuper- 
 ititious practice gradually introduced in the 
 third and fourth centuries by the Fathers of 
 the predicted apoftacy : and (like all the reft of 
 that irrational, abfurd fyftem of baneful fuper- 
 flition which is the peculiar object of the gofpel- 
 prophecies), eftablifhed partly by the Emperor 
 Conftantine, and more completely fo by his 
 fucceflbrs in the civil power, throughout all 
 the nations of Europe. And having repeat- 
 edly obferved that in the cafe of an inftitution 
 
[ 122 ] , 
 
 fo very important in its con Sequences as the 
 ceiTation of all manufactures, agriculture, and 
 commerce, and an univerfai idlenefsof all ranks 
 of people every firft day of the week, certainly 
 is, it? advocates as a religious observance did 
 not! ing to the purpofe, u»leis they produced, 
 from the authentic records of the gofpel, an 
 exprefs command to obferve it, as plainly de- 
 livered as that for the fabbath under the old, 
 or for the Lord's Jupper under the new cove- 
 nant, (which we all know to be abfolutely 
 impoihble) I looked upon the argument as 
 at an end. And being fully convinced that 
 every the moil important queition refpecting 
 either the faith or precepts of the gofpel of 
 Chrift, as preached by Jefus and his apoftles, 
 is determinable by the common fenfe of any 
 candid, unprejudiced mind, and therefore 
 thinking all prolix, theological controverfies 
 as uieleis and unneceffary, as they have long 
 been unsatisfactory and difgufting to the pub- 
 lic, lam forry to find myfelf again called forth 
 into the lifts of polemic divinity by a writer of 
 your juffly acquired, exteniive celebrity, whofe 
 very name muil give considerable weight to 
 whatever opinion he efpoufes, and greatly dif- 
 parage the contrary perfuaiicn. But the caufe 
 of truth , of rational religion and of nigral 
 virtue, is too important to be given up in com- 
 pliment to the perfonal dignity of any cha- 
 racter, howfoever great and refpeclable. 
 
 When, induced by the motives mentioned 
 in my firfl letter, I ventured to offer to pub- 
 lic notice my objections againft the modern. 
 
[ 12 3 1 
 
 fabbathvi profelTed chriftians, I was well aware 
 that fo hardy a ftcp in behalf of rational chrif- 
 tianity, againfl mere error and fuperflition,' 
 would offend the prejudices of the great bulk 
 of mankind, who are led blindly on by habit 
 and popular cuftom, an-J. in religious matters 
 efpecially, far from ufmg their reafon with 
 freedom and candour, fcarc'e ever think at all. 
 It was eajy alio, for very obvious reafons, to 
 forefee that it wonid be peculiarly difpleafing 
 to the Clergy of ail the various fects. But I 
 confefs I did not ex peel: that your philofo- 
 phic mind, in the inveftigation of an import- 
 ant truth, could have yielded to the bias of 
 habitual or profeflional prejudice. Yet, with- 
 out fuppofing that to be the cafe, I cannot 
 account either for your folicitude to infer the 
 neceffity of different orders oiminifters, main- 
 tained folely for the performance of religious 
 offices, from the appointment of Elders and 
 Deacons mentioned in holy fcripture, nor for 
 your uncandid manner of pretending to con- 
 trovert my argument, whilff. you really change 
 the queftion in debate, without attempting to 
 mew the falfehood or fallacy of what I had a- 
 lleged as abfolute demonferation. 
 
 With refpecl: to the modern minillersof the 
 gofpel, I have too great a diflike of theolo- 
 gical controverfy, as it is ufually carried on, 
 to fuffer myfelf to be drawn into a frefh dif- 
 pute on their account. Every civil govern- 
 ment has a right to appoint fuch officers as it 
 judges neceffary, or beneficial to the communi- 
 ty, and to provide for their- maintenance at the 
 
C 124 ] 
 
 public charge. And the individuals of particular 
 ibcieties have the undoubted liberty of difpofing 
 of their own private property in whatever way 
 they approve. So long, therefore, as either policy, 
 pride, ovfuperftitious error, (hall induce mycoun- 
 trymen tomaintain theminifters of their religion 
 as an order of men fecluded from all fecular oc- 
 cupations, and as much diftinguimed and fepa- 
 rated from the reft of the people as the leviti- 
 cal priefthood under the law of Mofcs, I 
 fhall never take upon me to object to their 
 doing fo. Much lefs am I inclined to blame 
 the clergy of any feci: themfelves, for preferring 
 otium cum dignitcite, genteel eafe and honour- 
 able leifure, accompanied, in all cafes, with a 
 fecure and certain competence, and, in fome, 
 with opulence and the higheft honours, to the 
 uncertain acquirements of their own active 
 induftry in the more obfeure and lefs refpected 
 employments of commerce or the various arts. 
 But, as an impartial inveftigator of truth in 
 the very important fcience of revealed re- 
 ligion, I muft have leave to fay, that there is 
 nothing in the nature or precepts of the 
 gofpel, nor in the practice of the apofrolic 
 age, to induce any one to think fuch a pe- 
 culiar appropriation of an order of men, to 
 the fole purpofe of teaching chriftianity to 
 chriftians themfelves either necefTarv, or in- 
 tended by the great author of our religion. 
 
 It is true, that Overfeers or Bimops, El- 
 ders or Prefbyters, by contraction Priefts, and 
 Deacons are fpoken of in the New Tefta- 
 ment. And you fay DeaconefTes too : I fup- 
 
C > = 5 ] 
 
 pofe, alluding to the foliation of Bhebe in the 
 church of Cenchrea, by whom the epiftle to 
 the Romans is faid to have been fent. And 
 if you are fatisfied from that orany other circum- 
 ilance, that female ministers were appointed in 
 the chriitian churches, even in the times of the 
 apoftles, you mull allow that it makes an crder 
 oi Clergy women, as Sterne calls them, amongfl 
 both Papiirs and Protellants equally neceffary, 
 as the mention of the former does orders of 
 Clergymen. The fame fcriptures however, 
 which mention thofe male officers or minii- 
 ters in the apoffolic age, mention alio the na- 
 ture of their office and the reaion of their ap 
 pointment : and teach us, that they were 
 ordained on account of the exigencies of the 
 little chriffian communities of thofe early times, 
 which do not exifl amongft us. And even then 
 teaching the chriftian religion, was fo far from 
 being the peculiar office of thofe original Priefts 
 and Deacons, that many of them never at- 
 tempted it, whilfl many others, and thofe the 
 moff authoritative preachers of the gofpel, were 
 not, and indeed could not be either of one order 
 or the other. 
 
 The man whofe mind is perplexed and en- 
 tangled in that myfterious complicated web 
 which the bigotted prejudices and corrupt paf- 
 fions of erring men have, from time to time, 
 fpun out of Judaifm and Pagan fuperftition, 
 is fo far from being capable of teaching the 
 gofpel of Jefus Chrift to others, that he does 
 not under/land it himfelf. But he who views 
 the religion of the new covenant in its native 
 
[ ,26 ] 
 
 plainnefs, purity and undifguifed simplicity, 
 fo peculiarly charadtenflic of that gofoel which 
 was avowedly preached to the poor, and ad- 
 dreiied to the underiianding of the moft illite- 
 rate, well knows, that there is nothing in the 
 genius, the precepts or the intent of chriftiani- 
 ly, which he cannot, in the fpace of a fingle 
 hour, explain fully and intelligibly even to the 
 meaneft- intellectual capacity. The teaching 
 fuch a religion as this can never beafufficient 
 employment for any perfon's whole time and 
 attention. And, indeed, the incelTantpurfuits 
 of your own active, indefatigable mind in the 
 various refearches of natural and experimental 
 philofophy ; the laborious talk of educating 
 youth, which fome of the clergy and the con- 
 stant round of diffipated idlenefs, which others 
 are feen to make compatible with all the 
 functions of their miniftry, prove that it is not 
 fo, even under the complex fyftem of doctrine 
 which is adopted more or lefs by almofl every 
 religious fociety of the prefent day. 
 
 When thenrft heaven-commiffioned preach- 
 ers of the gofpel were obliged to leave their 
 ufual occupations and abode, and to travel into 
 diftant countries, it was highly reafonable, it 
 was necefTary, that they fhould be maintained 
 in their peregrinations by thofe they taught. 
 But even in this instance, St. Paul both by ex- 
 ample and precept*, difcouraged the making 
 ufe of fo juir. and reafonable a claim upon the 
 difciples, except in cafes where they could not 
 by their own industry maintain themfelvcs. 
 
 * See 2. Theff. iii. 6*~i:> and Tit. iii. 8 and 14* 
 
C «7 ] 
 
 And whatever compensation may be fuppofed 
 to have been made to the Elders, or Priefts 
 and Deacons, or miniftring fervants of each 
 congregation, for their extraordinary trouble 
 and lofs of time, I find not the flighted: rea- 
 ibn to believe that any rejidcnt preacher of 
 the gofpel was maintained as fuch, at the ex- 
 pence of his fellow chriftians before the latter 
 half of the third century ; when corruptions 
 multiplied apace, and the fatal predicted apof- 
 tacy advanced with large and hafty ftrides. 
 Thelanguageof ChrifVs apoftles, is, if any man 
 wMl not work, neither Jhould he cat. And 
 indeed, my good Sir, his gofpel is much too 
 perfect 'a fchool of moral virtue, either to 
 lurnifh to any let of men a pretence for fpend- 
 ing their whole lives, or, to his difciples in 
 general, the ieventh part of their lives amidft 
 the fnares of idlenefs and inactive leifure. 
 
 But enough, perhaps you will fay too much, 
 upon a fubject which in whatfoever light it 
 may be viewed by others, is certainly quite dif~ 
 ftinct and different from the queftion of debate 
 propofed in thefe letters. 
 
 That queftion, Sir, is fimply whether the 
 keeping the firft day of the week as ufabbath, 
 that is, as a day of general reft and ceffation 
 from all fecular occupations, which is the only 
 meaning of the word Jabbath that I am ac- 
 quainted with, be an inftitution either ap- 
 pointed by the precepts of the gofpel, or ob- 
 ferved by the chriftians of the apoftohc and 
 Jiext fucceeding ages. 
 
 In my reply to Philander y I produced the 
 
L m ] 
 
 clear exprefs teftimony of the moft refpectable 
 writer of the latter half of the fecond century; 
 to prove^ that the chriftians of that century 
 did not obferve and confequently had not received 
 any fuch institution from the apoftles and their 
 immediate fucceflors. And fince you have 
 been pleafed, in aid of Philander and his for- 
 mer aftiftant, to undertake to invalidate this 
 proof and eftablifh a perfuafion, that the iirffc 
 day of the week has been obferved, even from 
 the times of the apoftles themfelves, much in 
 the fame manner as chriftians obferve it now, it 
 was abfolutely neceflary, that you mould have 
 fhewn the testimony I had produced to be 
 either falfe, or at leaft, irrelevant and ineffici- 
 ent^ and alleged contrary evidence from the 
 fame or other writers of that century. For, 
 as to the writers of the third century, were the 
 paifages you have quoted from them, much 
 more to your purpofe than they really are ; 
 did they expreffly declare that on the Lord's 
 day as they then affecled to call the firft day of 
 the week, they really fabbatized or abftained 
 from all worldly bufinefs; ftill fo long as there 
 remains irrefragable demonstration that the 
 chriftians of the fecond century obferved no 
 fuch inftitution, they would be fo far from 
 affording any prefumptive proof that fuch a 
 practice had defcended to them from the apof- 
 tles, that an impartial mind attending duly to* 
 the great prophecies of the gofpel, could regard 
 the obfervance only as one er7ec~t of the pre- 
 dicted, gradually increafing fuperftition and 
 apoftacy from genuine chriftianity. 
 
[ >29 ] 
 
 . But the writers you have quoted afl'ert no 
 fuch thing ; fpnie of them quite the contrary : 
 and none of them except Auftin, who lived 
 many years after Conftantine had commanded 
 the obfervance of the modern fabbath, prove 
 any thing more than, that tbejirjl day of the 
 kveek, as it was called by the difciples of the 
 apoftolic age, Sunday as Juflin Martyr calls it, 
 or the Lord's day, as it was denominated in the 
 third century, was the day on which their re- 
 ligious aflemhlies were chiefly and moft gene- 
 rally held. A fact which I am fo far from con- 
 troverting, that I myfelf had remarked it in 
 p. 21 of my firft letter. And in my reply to 
 Philander, p. 92, I referred to the very paf- 
 fage in Jujiiris apology, which you have quo- 
 ted at full length as containing information 
 that I was unacquainted with or fuch as op- 
 pofed my argument. 
 
 In my firft letter, p. 21, I obferved, that it 
 feemed' necejfary fome jlated time foould be Jixed 
 for the purpofe of celebrating the Lord's fupper 
 in particular, and I neither made, nor could 
 have the leaft objection to its being fixed on 
 the firft day of the week. All that I have con- 
 tended for is, that on whatever day or days of 
 the week the religious affemblies of chriftians 
 are appointed to be held, there is nothing in 
 the gofpel of Jefu's Chrift, or in the practice of 
 his earlieft difciples, that enjoins or counte- 
 nances a ceffation from the ordinary occupa- 
 tions of life during the intervening hours of 
 fuch day or days : and that therefore every con- 
 sideration of prudence and good policy requires. 
 
[ *S° ] 
 
 that the hours appointed for fuch afTemblies, 
 after the example of the two (I might fay, 
 three) firft centuries, lliouid be fixed io as not 
 to interfere at all, or as little as poffible, with 
 the ufual hours of labour and worldly buiinefs. 
 But (ince ycu have been pleafed to infer from 
 Juftin, that the religious affembliesofchriftians 
 in his time were held in mid-day, and took up 
 a conjiderable part of every funday ; and to af- 
 fert with Mr. Bingham, that they met for 
 morning fervice at our nine in the morning ; and 
 to tell us that funday was /pent by chrijlians of 
 that age> as far as circumjtances would permit '; 
 in the fame manner as it is generally fpent now, it is 
 neceifary to examine, particularly, the feveral 
 paflages you have quoted from the early chris- 
 tian writers as teftimonies in favour of your 
 argument. 
 
 The two firft of thefe are from the apocry- 
 phal writer of the epiftles called Ignatius's. 
 And as the former only forbids the feparating 
 from the general fociety of chriftians, and, 
 perhaps, the withdrawing into hermitages and 
 iblitary places, for the purpofes of religion j 
 and enjoins their aflembling all together, as 
 one body in one common place of worfhip, to 
 all which I neither do nor ever did make the lead 
 objection ; I can have no concern with it. The 
 latter, even allowing the very unwarrantable 
 liberty which you and other critics are pleafed 
 to take with the original, expreflly contradicts 
 your aflertion ** that they (pent funday as 
 *" chriflians fpend it now ;" and dire&ty con- 
 firms all that I have advanced upon the fubjec> # 
 
C '3' ] 
 
 For it declares that profefled chriflians of the; 
 writer's time did not keep aii'j ifdbhafks. And 
 therefore let what will be meant by the words 
 keeping the Lord's day, as you tranllace them, 
 they certainly cannot mean keeping it as a day 
 of reft and ceffation from all buiincfs, as chris- 
 tians keep it now. For then the author's words 
 would run, " no longer obferving fab baths, but 
 " obferving every Lord's day as a jab bath ,". an 
 abfurdity too great to be attributed to any writer. 
 But pray, good Sir; by what rules of conflruc- 
 tion do you tranfiate £wts$ Kara,, keeping f The 
 only meaning of thoie two greek words, that 
 I am acquainted with, is living according to. 
 And if the word J^'v be allowed to be part of 
 the original Sentence, the phrafe living accord- 
 ing to the Lord's life, viz. the Spiritual life 
 he now lives in heaven, is perfectly intelligi- 
 ble and much of the fame kind with what we 
 meet with in feveral places of the canonical 
 epiftles, particularly in that to the Coloffians, 
 c. 3. But, if the phraSe living according to the 
 Lord's day, has any meaning at all, it is en- 
 tirely beyond my comprehenfion. 
 
 Your next authority is the well known re- 
 lation of all that was transacted in the reli- 
 gious afierriblies of chriftians, in the Second 
 century, contained in Juftin's firft apology to 
 the Roman Emperors, of which you have 
 favoured us with a tranflation. And you are 
 pleafed to remark upon it, that it is vcryjhm- 
 lar to the account that any p erf on would ww 
 give of chrifiians f pen ding the Lord's day; that 
 nothing is faid of this bu/imfs being t ran failed 
 
[ J 3* j 
 
 in the morning or evening only; Jo that uii 
 cannot but conclude, that it was done in mid- 
 day ; and it mujl have taken up a conjidcrable. 
 part of it. What different inferences and 
 conclufions do different perfons draw from the 
 fame premifes ! Juflin's account informs us of 
 only one religious meeting held on Sunday by 
 chriftiansof his time, whereas, in our times, they 
 affemble twice and fome three times on that 
 day. The bufinefs tranfacted there, he tells 
 us, was, i ft, reading either the hiftory of the 
 apoftles or the writings of the prophets, ac- 
 cording as the time permitted ; an expreffion 
 which appears plainly to intimate, that no 
 long time was employed in it. 2dly, A dif- 
 courfe of the prefident of the fociety upon the 
 lecture they had jufl heard, explaining the 
 prophecies and exhorting them to the imita- 
 tion of fuch good examples. 3<ily, Their 
 flanding up all together and praying to God, 
 not vicarioufly by the mouth of another, but 
 by their own. And 4thly, The receiving the 
 Eucharijl or Lord's flipper. Far from tak- 
 ing up a confiderable part of the day, I fee 
 nothing here that can be reafonably fuppofed 
 to have ufually taken up more than an hour 
 and half at the utmoft. The preacher's dif- 
 cburfe was limited to the expoiition of the 
 portion of fcripture read, and a few practical 
 comments upon it : very different from the 
 practice of any religious affembly of modern 
 times, that I am acquainted with. Here was 
 no pfalmody or fpiritual concert of voices, 
 either alone or mixed with initruments,which,in 
 
[ *33 3 
 
 after times, when religious meetings were made 
 the chief and indeed the only bulinefs of the 
 whole dav, were introduced both toroufethe 
 flagging attention of the audience, and agree- 
 ably to occupy no fmall part of that time, 
 which it was then thought right to while a- 
 way in thole ailemblies*. You, Sir, indeed 
 have tranilated Pliny s letter to Trajan, fo as 
 to make him represent the chriilians as meet- 
 ing folely for the purpofe of iinging hymns. 
 But you knew, Sir, that the wprd carmen does 
 not always fignify a fong, but very frequently 
 a prayer. And what Pliny intended to relate 
 to the Emperor was merely his own erroneous 
 conclufion, that the christians />r#)W to Chriir. 
 as to a God. Pliny, it is to he obferved, dif- 
 fering from ynjlins account, mentions two 
 religious meetings of christians on the fame 
 day. But it mult alto be remembered, that, 
 at the date of his letter, the fevere perfec- 
 tions they laboured under, compelled them 
 to hold their afTemblies by Health, and, in or- 
 der to efcape the notice of informers, they 
 appear from Pliny's account, to have divided 
 the ufual bulinefs of thofe afTemblies, and to 
 have met ante hicem before break of day, be- 
 fore the ordinary occupations of the day were 
 begun, for the purpoles of instruction and 
 
 * It was common for fuch as had good voices and mufi- 
 ral talents, to fing hymns and iacred fongs, at the love 
 feails, which, in limes of tranquillity, ufually followed the 
 celebration of the Lord's iupper, as the only kind of mirth 
 and pleafurable entertainment, that thole banquets of religi- 
 ous benevolence could with propriety admit. But it doth 
 not appear that mufic, in the earlieft ages, ever made a. 
 part of chriilian devotion. 
 
C *34 3 
 
 prayer; ami to have reatfembled in the even- 
 ing to partake of the Lord's fupper. As to 
 the time which the congregation fpent in 
 offering up their own prayers as mentioned by 
 Jtijiiriy when we coniider the very concife 
 model of prayer given them by Jeius Chrift 
 himfelf, his repeated cenfures pafTed upon long 
 prayers and vain repetitions •> and his teaching 
 his difciples that to think they fiould be heard 
 of God J or their much f peaking, was a fuper- 
 flitious idea fit only for the ignorant heathen, 
 we cannot fuppofe it to have been confiderable. 
 And there is nothing furely in the celebration 
 ©f the Eucharift which could occupy any great 
 length of time. 
 
 This circumftance alfo of the Lord's fup- 
 per conftantly making a part of the bufinefs 
 of their weekly religious meetings, is certainly, 
 Sir, very far from being Jimilar to the pra- 
 ctice of modern chriftians, at leaft, I know 
 ©f no feci: amongft whom it is fo obferved. 
 Give me leave likewife to remark upon this 
 particular of the Lord's /upper, that dire&ly 
 contrary to your conclulion, that the arTein- 
 bly defcribed by Jujlin was held in mid-day, 
 it very clearly afcertains the time of holding it 
 to have been in the evening. For from St. 
 Paul's epiftles, Pliny's letter, and even from 
 the parTage you yourfelf have quoted from that 
 father of the * Romifh Church, Cyprian, iris 
 
 * The phrafe offcre cbrijlum,- which yoiv have thought 
 fi"t to render partaking of the Lord's /upper, fhews that 
 Cyprian patronized the Roman Catholic idea ctf the mafe-. 
 
[ '35 3 
 
 evident, that during the three firffc centuries, 
 the evening was the only time of celebrating 
 the Euchai ill or Lord's flipper. Such a meet- 
 ing therefore could Lot at all interfere with 
 the ufual bufinefs of the day. 
 
 Having mentioned your quotation from 
 Cyprian, that I may avoid the neceflity of 
 repeating hereafter any remarks upon a paf- 
 fage of (q little importance to the queftion in 
 debate between us, I will here juft obferve, 
 that though he fpeaks of two religious meet- 
 ings as common in his time, he is very fir from 
 agreeing with you, that either of them was 
 held at our nine in the morning, or at any 
 hour which would have occaiioned it to in- 
 tempt their ufual daily occupations. Heex- 
 preflly fays the firft was held mane early in the 
 morning, as indeed it mull have been, to make 
 it properly commemorative of the time of our 
 Lord's refurreclion, for St. Luke informs us, 
 that had taken place in the very obfeureft 
 part of day- break. From the reafons Cyprian 
 gives for holding their religious aflemblies at 
 fuch times, it appears, that, in the latter end 
 of the third century, fuperftitious motives had 
 induced them to adopt the very fame practice 
 to which cruel necefiity compelled their pre- 
 deceilbrs in the reign of Trajan, But not the 
 leafl hint is given, that the intervening hours 
 of the day were pafTed in fabbatical reft and 
 idlenefs. 
 
 Your next quotations, Sir, are, from the 
 lpurious, fanatick epiftle of Barnabas •, which 
 refers us, for the only iabbaths acceptable t.o 
 
L 136 ] 
 
 God, to thofe which he hath ordained ' Jhall ta&e 
 place in another world, where the week (he 
 ieems to imagine) is to confift of eight days 
 inftead of feven • from Tertullian ; from a 
 letter quoted by Eujebins -, and from Clem£7is 
 Alexandrians. This laft writer, by the way, 
 in both the paftages you have quoted from him, 
 declares that the only fabhatical reft of chrif- 
 tians, is, a reft jrom evil thoughts and evil ac- 
 tions, according to the command of the Go/pel. 
 A command which extends equally to every 
 day ofaman's whole life; and by the performance 
 of which, a true chriftian, in Clement's fenfe of 
 the expreffion, makes not Sunday only, but 
 every day of the week - , the Lord's day*. 
 
 But why do I wafle my own and the reader's 
 time in remarks upon pailages which have no 
 reference to the only queilion that I am at all 
 concerned in, viz. Whether the keeping funday 
 as a fabbath, or day of reft from all worldly 
 buiinefs, be an institution of Jefus Chrift, or 
 his Apoftles, and, confequently, the religious 
 duty of a chriftian ? The only inference which 
 you yourfelf, Sir, deduce from them, is, that 
 the firft day of the week, or as you are pleafed 
 to denominate it, the Lord's day, had not the 
 appellation of a /ab bath, or day of reft, but was 
 always called ajefiival - y and on feftivals, you 
 tell us, both the Heathens and Jews were 
 at liberty to work if they pleafed. Surely this 
 
 * You have thought fit to tranflate Clement as faying that 
 a true chriftian glorifies the ' refurretlion of Chrift, on that day. 
 But you muft have known that tv aviu could not refer to »/x£p»i ; 
 and that therefore the words of Clement were not on that day, 
 but either therely or in kimfelf. 
 
C 137 ] 
 
 is granting every thing that I contended for f 
 For nothing can be more evident, than that if 
 the apoftles of Jefus Chrift had, by their ex- 
 ample and precept, enjoined upon their dif- 
 ciples a ceiiation from all worldly labour on 
 that day, as Philander, and Subfidiarius, and 
 yourfeif, in other parts of your letter, main- 
 tain, to keep it ftrictly as a fab bath muil 
 have been an indifpenfable duty, and no chrif- 
 tian could have been at liberty to work on 
 it, though he had wiihed to do fo. And, 
 therefore, if even the chriftians of the third 
 century did not call it a fabbath, but only a 
 feftival, a day on which men were at liberty 
 to work if they pleafed, it is a demonftration 
 that they knew of no apoftolic ordinance of a 
 ceilation from worldly labour on that day. And 
 all the writers of the third century, quoted by 
 you, concur with thofe of thefecond, referred 
 to by me, in proving that the fabbatical ob- 
 fervance of funday, is not an inftitution of the 
 gof el of Chrift. 
 
 Indeed, Sir, to me who have no interefted 
 caufe to ferve by thedifcuHion, and no habit il 
 prejudices of any religious fed: to fcoth and 
 gratify, and whole fole motive in this and every 
 other theological enquiry, is the inveftigation 
 of truth, and detection of iUperftitious error.; 
 which muft ever be beneficial to the cauie of 
 rational chriftian Piety > and, _onkquently, of 
 Humanity, it is matter of amazement and 
 concern to fee a phiioibpher of your diftin- 
 guifhed eminence, contending again ft an ob- 
 vious truth (which he himfelf, is, after all, 
 s 
 
t.tfi ] 
 
 forced to admit) with an inconfiderate precipi- 
 tancy and a confufedinconfiftericy of argument, 
 equally unworthy the importance of the point 
 in queftion, and the uncommon talents and 
 juftiy acquired fame of Dr. Prieftley. 
 
 Yet in one page of your letter you inform 
 us, that the primitive chriftians obferved the 
 firft day of the week much in the fame manner 
 in which chriftians cbfrve it now, when not 
 only from a general opinion of religious duty, 
 but by the exprefs command of the legiflature, 
 men are compelled to red from worldly labour 
 of every kind. And when your own particular 
 friends, the DifTenters, obierve the fabbatical 
 reft of that day, after the example of their 
 predeceflbrs the Puritans, with much more 
 rigid ftriclnefc than the members of the legally 
 eftablifhed church. And in another page you 
 tell us, that with the chriftians of the three 
 firft centuries, it was not afabbath or day of 
 reft from worldly bufinefs, but a pleafurable 
 fefiival -, and that, as on other feftival days, they 
 did not held thorf elves abjolutely obliged to. re- 
 frain from labour on Sundays-, that they probably 
 worked .in the f elds in time of harvejl, and that 
 yon fee no good reafon why we fiould jcruple to 
 do this. To which I beg leave to add, nor 
 I neither. 
 
 You obferve, further, that it is not probable 
 that Conftantine intended an abfolute cejfation 
 from all labour on the Sunday, becaufe his order 
 refpecled Friday as much as Sunday. Had you 
 not written too precipitately to allow yourfelf 
 time to confult the order of Conftantine itfelf, 
 
[ *39 ] 
 
 vou would have (een, that notwithftandin? the 
 groundless criticiim about the original reading 
 of an expreflion in Euiebius, that order had 
 not the lead refpecl: to friday, and that it was 
 not probable, but certain, that Conftantine, 
 with a prudent policy, which ought to put the 
 modern iegiflators of chriftendom to the blulh, 
 gave his fubjecls the mod: unreftrained per- 
 miffion to follow the bulinefs of huibandry on 
 funday ; not only in harvelt time, but in every 
 feafon of the year-}-. Let all fudges y fays the 
 Emperor's edict, and towns-people, and the oc- 
 cupations ofalj irades reft on the venerable day of 
 the fun. But let thoje who are fttuated in the 
 country, freely, andatfullliberty, attend to the 
 bu/ine/s of agriculture ; becaufe if often happens, 
 that no other day is fo jit for f owing corn, or 
 planting vines, left the critical moment k$mg let 
 flip, men (hould lefe the commodities ^ri.urJ them 
 by the providence of heaven. Upon thj|S im- 
 perial order, which is the firit •^ithontai.wc 
 institution of a fabbatical obfervance of funday, 
 I mud beg leave to remark, that tue partial 
 manner in which Conftantine enjoins a ceffa- 
 tion from their ordinary bufinefs upon his iub - 
 jects, demonflrates that he knew of ao pre- 
 vious ordinance of fuch an obfervance derived 
 from the apoflles of Chrift \ for that, like 
 
 f Omnes judices urbana?que plebes et cunclarnm artium. 
 officiavenerabili die fobs quiefcant. Run tamen pofitiagroruni 
 cultural libere licenterque inferviant, quoniam frequenter 
 evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta fulcis aut vines fcro- 
 bibus mandentur, ne occafione momenti pereat comrnoditas 
 coelefti provifione ccmcefia. Dat. Nonis Mart. Crifpo n. 
 et Conitantino u. Conff. 
 
 Corp, Jur. Civ. Codicis Lib. iii. Tit. i: 
 
C 14° ] 
 
 all other ordinances of the gofpel, mull have 
 been equ :Ily obligatory on allchriftians what- 
 soever ; and, therefore, he could have had no 
 more right, in that cafe, to have remitted the 
 obfervance to his country fubjects from motives 
 of good policy, than any Ruler of the Jews 
 had todifpenfe with the obligation of the 4th 
 commandment of the Mofaic law in favour of 
 the Jewim hufbandmen. 1 
 
 In one part of your letter you tell us, from 
 'Tertullian, that chriftians were allowed to in- 
 dulge to corporeal or carnal pleafure (carni 
 indulgendum) every feflival of the Lord's day ; 
 and, in another, that they were far jrom 
 f pending the Sunday in the rigid and gloomy man- 
 ner in which it was objerved by the old Puritans. 
 And that they adopted the Pagan cuitom of 
 adorning their doors with lights and laurels 
 on that day, more generally than the heathen 
 themfelves did on their kitivals. I fuppofe to 
 denote to all the world their joyous, pleafurable 
 feftivity And yet, in the very next page, you 
 tell us, it is evident bdwev-er that the jejiivity 
 oj the primitive chnjiians did not con/ft injports, 
 but in fingirigpfahm and other expr<Jji07?s of reli^. 
 gious joy or m. chi-a«'jul joaety. What meaning 
 you may have, Sir, in the words chearful fo- 
 ciety, 1 do not prefime to determine; but as 
 far as feitivity confifts in exprefiing religious 
 joy, by hymns and devout erfuiions of praife 
 and fcbankfgiving to heaven ; I am fatisfied the 
 old Purtians were quite as kftive as the primi- 
 tive chrifiians could be. And f cannot fee the 
 propriety of making their /hops and gates jhine 
 
L H* 
 
 j 
 
 ■with lights and laurels, becaufe they were in- 
 dulging themfeives in the carnal pleafure of 
 pfalm-iinging. Serioufly, Sir, the iubjecl: of 
 debate between us is of furricient importance 
 to have demanded of you an attentive and ma- 
 ture confideration of whatever paffage you 
 chofe to quote in arguing upon it. And iuch 
 a man as Dr. Priejlley, mould read no author 
 fo imperfectly, nor write on any fubjecl: fo 
 haitily, as to be in danger of mifrepreienting 
 and perverting the authority he quotes. 
 
 Te7 tiilliatz, in the paragraph which you have 
 quoted from him, is not talking of the manner 
 in which the chriflians of his time fpent the 
 Sunday ; but is pointedly arraigning them of 
 the guilt of idolatry, for partaking of the feaiis 
 made by their pagan friends, in honour of their 
 falfe Gods, and for adopting the very rites in 
 ufe amongft the heathen, as infignia of the 
 celebration of their idolatrous feftivals. To 
 obviate one plea again/l the firft part of his 
 charge, their affifting at the pagan feafts, viz. 
 the natural defire of fometimes enjoying better 
 cheer thin their ordinary fare, he fays, " If any 
 *' indulgence muft be allowed to the corporeal 
 *' appetite," (which as a rigid montanijl he 
 was inclined to doubt) " you have frequent 
 " opportunities of gratifying it, for to you 
 *« every eighth day is a feaft-day," manifeftly 
 alluding to the love feafts, which, as you right- 
 ly obferve, were heid on Sunday evening. To 
 another plea for their thus living in common 
 with the heathen*, that it afforded them an 
 
 * Sed luceantj inquit, opera veftra : At nunc lucent ta- 
 
[ I 4 2 ] 
 
 opportunity of fulfilling the Evangelical pre- 
 cept of letting the light of their works mine 
 before men, he replies, " But now," (inftead 
 of our works) " our mops and gates mine, 
 " you will now find more doors of the heathen 
 " without lights and laurels than of chriftians." 
 As the heathen could never have been expected 
 to hang out lights and laurels in honour of 
 the Lord's day, I mould have imagined it 
 impoffible for any man to understand, even 
 from this firft fentence of Tertullian's argu- 
 ment, that he was talking of rites pradtifed by 
 chriftians on Sundays ; but if you had allowed 
 yourfelf time to read only one line firther, his 
 very next words would have put it out of your 
 power to have fo ftrangely misapprehended and 
 mifreprefen ted him. " What," (adds Tertul- 
 Jian) " muft be thought of fuch a fight as that 
 " alfo ? If it is an honour paid to the Idol, 
 " without doubt honouring an Idol is idolatry. 
 <f Ifitisdoneon account of man, let us-recol- 
 " ledt, that all idolatry is on account of man. 
 <( Let us recollect that all idolatry is a refpect 
 " paid to men, (ince it is granted even by the 
 
 bernaeet januas noftrae: pluresjam invenies ethnicorum fores 
 fine lucernis et laureis, quam Chriftianorum. De ifta quoque 
 fpecie quid videtur ? Si idoh honor eft, line dubio idoli honor 
 idololatria eft. Si hominis caufa eft, recogitemus omnem 
 idololatriam in hominis caufam efle, recogitemus omnem 
 idololatriam in homines efle culturam, cum et ipfos deos na- 
 tionum homines retro fuiffe, etiam apud fuos conftet. Ttaque 
 nihil intereft, fuperioris an hujus feculi viris fuperftitio ifta 
 
 prasftetur. Accendant igitur quotidie, lucernas ; quibus 
 
 lux nulla eft, adfigant poftibus lauros poft modum arfuras ; 
 quibus ignes imminent ; illis competunt et teftimonia tene- 
 brarum, et aufpicia prenarum. Tu iumen es mundi, et 
 arbor virens fern per. 
 
 De Idololatria, feci. 15. 
 
C *43 ] 
 
 '* heathen themfelves, that their gods were 
 " formerly men. And therefore there is no 
 " difference whether that fuperftitious cere- 
 *' mony be performed from a refpecl to men 
 " of a former age or of the prefent." To the 
 fame purpofe, he continues to argue at fome 
 length again ft this culpable practice of pro- 
 feiled chrillians upon the feflivals of the hea- 
 then Gods, in compliance with the cuftoms of 
 their pagan friends and neighbours, and hav- 
 ing contrafted it with the oppofite conduct of 
 the three jewifh brethren, under Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, and of Daniel under Darius, concludes 
 his argument thus, " Let them therefore daily 
 " light up candle, who have no light in 
 ** themfelves. Let them fet up, before their 
 *' doors, boughs of laurel which muff, foon after 
 ff be thrown into the fire, who are themfelves 
 •* doomed to the flames. Such rites are fuit- 
 ** able to them as being both an evidence of 
 " their darknefs, and an omen of their future 
 " puniihment. But thou (chrifiian) art the 
 " light of the world, and a tree ever flourifii- 
 " ing with verdure." 
 
 But the inconfiderate haflinef- with which 
 you have entered into the public difcuilion of 
 a queftion of great importance, that has betray- 
 ed you into fo grofs a mifreprefentation of 
 Tertullian, is not the only thing that I com- 
 plain of, and am truly i'orry to obferve in fuch 
 a writer as Dr. Prieftley. In your mode of 
 arguing you have (hewn a want of candour, 
 on this occaflon, which I know not how to 
 account for in a liberal, phiiofophic mind, and 
 
I 144 ] 
 
 an avowed friend to the inveflieation of re- 
 ligious truths. 
 
 The only point in debate between us, I 
 mull again repeat, was, whether the apoftles 
 of Jefus Chrifl inflituted, or their immediate 
 difciples and the chriftian churches, previous 
 to the orthodox church established by Conftan- 
 tine, obferved a fabbatical reft from all worldly 
 occupations on Ca^ firil day of the w eek* as 
 all feels of nominal chriflians do at preient. 
 That they did not, I had demon ftrated by the 
 cleared: and moil incontestable evidence. And 
 you yourfelf give up the whole that 1 ever con- 
 tended for, by allowing that the primitive 
 chriflians of the three firft centuries were at 
 liberty to work on. funday, as well as on the 
 other days of the week, if they pleafed. Yet 
 ftill, Sir, you undertake, at the beginning of 
 your letter to prove, that thofe fame primitive 
 chriflians fpent funday in the fame manner as it 
 is generally Jpent now. And to effect this, you 
 quote fome paflages from early writers tolhew, 
 firft, that funday was the day on which they 
 ufually held their religious aifemblies, a fa<ft 
 which I never attempted to controvert. Though 
 both you and I know, that with a great many*, 
 thurfday and friday were held asfacred as fun- 
 day ; and that, by all, faturday was a day as 
 generally ufed for holding their religious af- 
 femblies as the Lord's day itfeif. Nay, when 
 the Judaizing difpofition to fabbatize one day 
 in the week, prevailed in the fourth century, 
 many years after the edicl of Conftantine, fa 
 
 * See U^ofheim Scec, 2. Par. 2. c. 4. fe£t £« 
 
t Hi ] 
 
 much more reafonable did it appear to many 
 to keep the fourth commandment of the Mofaic 
 law completely, than to keep the fpirit of it, and 
 tranfgrefs it according to the letter,- that the 
 Council of LaodicCa* thought fit to publim an 
 anathema againft the practice. And that even 
 that epifcopal denunciation was inefficient to 
 prevent it, the feci of fabbatarians which fub- 
 fiftst o this day, is a living evidence. A varie- 
 ty of practice and of opinion, refpecting the 
 reafon for preferring one day of the week for 
 their religious meetings before another, which 
 muft convince every impartial mind that the 
 meetings on the firft day of the week record- 
 ed in the Acts of the apoftles are mentioned 
 merely by accident, toafcertain the date of fome 
 other eircumftance; and that the apoftles them- 
 felves, whofe duty St. Paul informs us was to 
 preach the gofptl infeafon and out of feaj'on, 
 and who therefore could not confine their teach- 
 ing chriftianity to any one day in the week, far 
 from ordaining any day to be obferved as a 
 Jewifh fabbath, did not even prefcribe any 
 particular day for the holding their religious 
 aflemblies. 
 
 The fecond object of your quotations is to 
 mew that in the very latter end of the fecond 
 or beginning of the third century, Sunday was 
 diftinguifhed from the other days of the week, 
 not by being accounted a fabbath, which 
 the fide you have been pleafed to take in the 
 difpute required, but by its being, in fome 
 
 T 
 
 *• Condi. Laod. K. 29. 
 
C .46 ] 
 
 fenfe or other, called a feaft or feftival day. 
 And in order to accompliih even this inligniri- 
 cant purpofe,you have quoted writers whole au- 
 thority youyourfelfcannotallow. For you have 
 not only produced a quotation of Eufebius from 
 Dionyiius of Corinth, as if it might be as fe- 
 curely depended on as the work of the author 
 himlelf, although the fame Eufebius informs 
 us (Lib. 4. c. 23.) that Dionyfius himlelf 
 complains of the alterations and interpolations 
 made in his letters in his own time, and the 
 ecclefiaftical hiftorian is notoriously ib little 
 cautious and accurate in diftinguifhing fpuri- 
 ous writings from genuine, that he has attri- 
 buted to Juftin Martyr the quefttons andanfwers 
 to the orthodox, a book which refers to cir- 
 cumftances that did not take place till after 
 Juftin's time: but you have alfo quoted paf- 
 tagesfrom theepiftles of Ignatius and Barna- 
 bas, writings which, I believe, every competent 
 impartial judge is now fatisfied, belong to very 
 different authors and times from thofe to whom 
 they have been fo long attributed : but whole 
 authority you, Sir, as an unitarian aftertor of 
 the proper manhood of Jefus Chrift, and as a 
 Prefbyterian niuft difallow. For they both 
 expreffly affert the pre-exiftence of Jefus Chrift 
 in heaven, Ignatius as God * and Barnabas as 
 
 *- Even in the firlt paflage you have quoted from him, 
 Ignatius ftyS, ofrt Jefus Cbvijl, 'tbatt Ivbbfo there is nothing grcattr, 
 3» every ka'-ruBd readef will perceive, in the margin of your 
 lettar ;. although, with a prudent caution (confidering your 
 own avowed religious principles, and that you were quoting 
 his authority to prove what was the religion of the apoftolic 
 age) you have entirely «nine4.tho4t wotcJ* in your tranflation. 
 
[ 147 ] 
 
 the fon of God, before his appearance upon 
 earth. And the pretended Ignatius, in the 
 paragraph preceding that which contains one 
 of trie fentences yon have quoted from him, 
 inftead of agreeing with you, that the office and 
 authority of a Prefbyter is equal to that of a 
 Biihop, exalts the latter to fo much higher a 
 degree, that whilit he compares the Prefbyters 
 to the council of the apoftles, he refembles the 
 Bifhop to almighty God himfelf. Jtfow, Sir, 
 whatever weight the teftimony of fuch writers 
 as thefe may be of in determining the doclrineand 
 difcipline of the apoftolic church, reflecting 
 the obfervance of Sunday* or, as it was deno- 
 minated, in the third century, the Lord's day, 
 it mud certainly be of equal weight to deter- 
 mine the doctrine and difcipline of the fame 
 church, refpecting the divinity and pre-exift- 
 cncQ of Jefus Cbrift, and the fuperior pre- 
 eminence of the order of Bifhops above that of 
 Prefbyters. And I appeal to yourfelf, whe- 
 ther it be not a mode of arguing in the higheft 
 degree uncandid and difingenuous, to urge any 
 authority whatibever in favour of fuch opini- 
 ons as you approve, and to reject the very fame 
 authority in fuch cafes as you difapprove and 
 condemn. 
 
 The truth,however,is,as any impartial perfbn 
 will be convinced, who attentively reads the 
 A5is of the apoftles and the epiftles of Paul, par- 
 ticularly that to the Galatians and the writ- 
 ings of Juftin Martyr and Irena?us, thsX Jcaft 
 days or J eft tva/s, were abfolutely incompatible 
 with the genius of the chriftian religion ; as 
 
[ i4» 3 
 
 taught by the apoflles and their immediate 
 fucceflbrs, and the very term unknown in the 
 church for far the greateft part of the two firfl 
 centuries. But becaufe the Jews had not only 
 been themfelves the firfl perfecutors of the 
 chriflians, but, after their own power was at 
 an end, continued to inftigate the Pagans to 
 perfecute them alio; in order to reconcile their 
 religion, in fome degree, to the habitual pre^- 
 judices of the Jews, and to lcflen their invetera- 
 cy againfl them, the chriflians in the cloie of 
 the fecond century, forgetting or difregarding 
 all the timely admonitions of St. Paul, againfl 
 this very perverfion of the religion of the gof- 
 pel, adopted the annual feflival feafons of 
 Eailer and Whitfuntide, in refemblance of the 
 Jewifh feftivals of the PafTover and Pentecofl. 
 And, as the Jewifh fabbath was accounted, a 
 weekly feflival, they alfo by celebrating their 
 love-feafls every firfl: day of the week, in pre- 
 tended commemoration of our Saviour's refur- 
 rection, inflituted a kind of weekly feflival 
 amongft chriflians alfo, and changed the name 
 of it to the Lord's day. . 
 
 Thefe were the firfl: practical corruptions 
 introduced into the difcipline of the chrifiian 
 church. But they did not flop here. For 
 early in the third century after the perfecution 
 under the emperor Decius, with a fimilar view 
 of reconciling themfelves to their perfecutors, 
 by making the public inflitutions of their re- 
 ligion refemble thofe of Paganifm itfeif, they 
 began to adopt alfo the feftivals of the heathen 
 gods, and even to celebrate them with the 
 
[ H9 ] 
 
 fame feflive rites and ceremonies that the hea- 
 then themfelves did, only under the name and 
 in pretended honour of our Saviour or his apof- 
 ties, or of fome diftinguifhed chriftian faint and 
 martyr, And, to complete the refemblance, the 
 fimple commemorative rite of the Lord's fup- 
 per, which they celebrated on their new fefli- 
 vals, was reprefented as an actual facrifice offer- 
 ed to Almighty God. 
 
 Thus every heathen feftival in the Roman ca- 
 lenadr was, by degrees, transferred into the ritual 
 of the church. And this mode of affimilating 
 their manners and religious cuiloms, to thofe 
 of the Pagans around them, was found to an- 
 fwer the purpofe of diminifhing the odium, that 
 till then had attended thechriftian name, far bet- 
 ter than thofe fabulous corruptions of the doclri- 
 nes of the gofpel which had been introduced in 
 thefecond century, in refemblance of the mytho- 
 logical origin of Minerva, Hercules and Mf- 
 culapius. For, as Sir Ifaac Newton hathjuftly 
 remarked, from that time proferTed chriftians 
 increafed greatly in numbers, though they de- 
 creafed as much in virtue. And the riches that 
 flowed into the church, through the channel 
 of their ufual charitable collect ions, from the 
 continually increafing multitude and wealth 
 of the converts to this new religion, being at 
 the difpofal of the elders and minifters of the 
 feveral congregations, and fupplying them with 
 the means of living in eafe and indolence, un- 
 known and impracticable to the teachers of 
 genuine chriftianity, foon prompted them to 
 arrogate to themfelves an exemption from all 
 
t >5° ] 
 
 the laborious or careful occupations of civil 
 life ; and, in imitation of the Levites amongfl 
 the Jews, to claim an entire feparation from 
 the reft of the people ; to aftume a diftinc- 
 tion of drefs and title, calling tbemfelves 
 Clergy, men peculiarly allotted to the fervice 
 of God j as if the Gofpel of Chrift knew of 
 any other fervice of God beiides a virtuous,, 
 benevolent, and holy life ; or as if all ranks and 
 orders of real chriftians were not equally or- 
 dained, and bound to a faithful, conftant dif- 
 charge of that fervice. 
 
 In this heterogeneous medley of religion, both 
 in difcipline and doctrine, derived partly from 
 Judaifm, but much more from Pagan fuper- 
 ftition, and retaining in it nothing chriftian 
 befides the name, the great object aimed at was 
 not fo much the reformation of mens' lives, 
 the fokpurpofe of Chrift 's gofpel, as theefta- 
 bliihing a commutation with Almighty God 
 in behalf of his creatures, for their wilful and 
 habitual tranfgreflions of the plain precepts of 
 the gofpel. For this irrational, this criminal 
 purpofe, profefled chriftians were taught and 
 enjoined to do much more than the Deity has 
 commanded in many cafes, in order to attone 
 for their difregard of what he has actually com- 
 manded in others. The merit of the perfect 
 obedience of Jefus Chrift himfelf was held up 
 as a complete fatisfaction for thedifobedience of 
 his difciples . The times and feafons of auftere ab- 
 ilinence and mortification, introduced by fuch 
 iuperftitious enthufiafts as Montanus, were a- 
 dopted by the church. And its members 
 
C «** 3 
 
 fondly believed, that the devout obfervance of 
 fading days, made amends for the intemperate 
 excefies of the newly eftabliihed feftivals ; and 
 the abftemious penance of lent, for all their vi- 
 cious irregularities during the reft of the year. 
 Such, Sir, was the origin and abufe of both 
 feaft and fa ft days in the orthodox church. And 
 fo little reafon is there for your afTerting, that 
 in the apoftolic and primitive church of Chrift, 
 the firft day of the week was a/ways called a 
 feftival. 
 
 But it is curious to obierve how gradually, 
 even in this depraved ftate of the church as it 
 exifted in the third and fucceeding centuries, 
 the myftery of iniquity y as the apoftolic prophet 
 calls it, worked its way in the fuperftitious 
 adoption of a Jewim fabbath upon this weekly 
 feftival of the Lord's day, and how long it was 
 before it could fully accompliili it. 
 
 When mens* minds were once reconciled 
 to the ideas of recommending themfelves to 
 heaven, by an extraordinary degree of fancfity 
 and devotion, difplayed on particular days and 
 feafons, it could not be difficult to perfuade 
 them, that by remitting all attention to the 
 concerns of the prefent world one day in every 
 week, an inftance of pious confidence in di- 
 vine Providence enjoined upon thejews by God 
 himfelf, in the fourth commandment, and 
 fpending the feftival of the Lord's day wholly 
 in frequenting public worfhip, or other devout 
 occupations, they would mew a piety highly 
 acceptable to God, attone in fome degree for 
 their tranfgreffions of the other fix days, and 
 
derive a bleffing upon their affairs in general.' 
 And to the clergy themfelves, who had now 
 no other employment befides the parade of 
 thofe external rites and ceremonies which had 
 been adopted by the newly transformed church; 
 and the preparing for an oflentatious difplay 
 of their learning, and rhetorical abilities from 
 the pulpit, it muff, have been particularly de- 
 finable, and almoft neceifary, in order to main- 
 tain that Levitical diftincfion, and Pontifical 
 dignity and importance, to which they had 
 elevated themfelves, that there mould be one 
 day in the week, at leaft, in which the Laity 
 as all chriftians but Ecclefiaftics were now hu- 
 miliatingly denominated, fhould have their at- 
 tention taken off from all worldly bufinefs, 
 that they might be at full leifure to attend to 
 the ingenuity or brilliancy of their oratory, and 
 the pomp with which they now affected 
 to perform the ministerial functions of their 
 religion. Yet, to oppofe their attempts of 
 this kind, even in the third century, frequent 
 remonffrances were made again ft this fpiritof 
 Judaizing, fo it was then called, as being in- 
 confiftent with the religion of the gofpel. Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria, in the very book you have 
 quoted, fays, -f* " We are commanded to wor- 
 *' fhip God through Jefus Chriff , not on cho- 
 "fen days as fome others do, but continually 
 
 " through our whole life." Wherefore a 
 
 61 well informed chriffian worfhips God not in 
 " any ftated place nor chofen temple, nor on 
 " any fejlivals and appointed days, but through 
 
 f Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. 7. p. 85 1. 
 
C '53 ] 
 
 e< his whole life, in every place, whether he 
 " chance to be alone or in company with 
 il other believer's." And fome copies of that 
 epiftleof fgnatius to the Magnefrans, which you 
 liave thought ht alio to quote, have the follow- 
 ing fen tence*, " Therefore let us not keep fab- 
 *' baths in the Jewifh manner, as if we de- 
 " lighted in idlenefs, for according to the fa- 
 ie cred oracles, whofoever doth not work 
 " fhould not eat, and in the fweat of thy face 
 " fhalt thou eat bread. But let each of us fab- 
 " batize in a fpiritual fenfe." This paiTage, 
 indeed, is by fome critics fuppofed to be an 
 interpolation. But, however that be, it af- 
 fords an undoubted proof that the keeping any 
 day as a day of reft from worldly labour, was 
 disapproved and publickly cenfured in the time 
 of the writer. And though Conftantine, from 
 motives of the fame interested policy, which 
 induced him to eftabliih the new religion, was 
 without doubt deurous to gratify the wifhes 
 of the clergy, they could not, as we have {een, 
 prevail with him in the fourth century to ordain 
 more than a partial ceiTation of worldly bufi- 
 nefs on that day. So that it was not till near a 
 century and half afterwards, that, in obedience 
 to a fecond imperial decree, in the reign of 
 Leo-f*, profefTed christians [pent Sunday in the 
 fa?ne ?namter as it ts generally fpent among ft us, 
 
 u 
 
 * Vide Bohmerr Differt. i. Sett. 18. 
 
 f Dies feftos majeftati altiffimae dedicatos, nullis volumus' 
 voluptatibus occupari, nee ullis exaclionum vexationibus pro* 
 fatjaii. pominicnm icaque diem ita iemper bonorabiler,-. 
 
[ *54 J 
 
 And fincc, in confequence of the divition of 
 the empire, the decrees of the eaftern emperor 
 Leo did not bind the chriftians of the weft ; 
 we find the council of Orleans, in the fixth 
 century, in their 28th canon, decreeing as fol- 
 lows*, " Eecaufe people are perfuaded that 
 " they ought not to travel on the Lord's day 
 " with horfes, oxen and carriages, nor to pre- 
 ** pare any thing for food, nor to employ them. , 
 " felves in any way conducing to the cleaning 
 " and adorning their ho ufes or perfons, aper- 
 " fuafion which is proved to be fitter for Judea, 
 '* than for the obfervance of chriftians, we ordain 
 
 decernimus, et venerandum, ut a cunctis executionibus ex- 
 cufetur: nulla quemquam iirgeat admcnitio : nulla fide juffionis 
 flagitetur exaftio, taceat apparitio : advocatio delitefcat : fit 
 ille dies a cognitionibns alienus : praeconis horrida vox filefcat: 
 refpirent a controverfiis litigantes et habeant foederis interval- 
 lum : ad fefc fimul veniant adverfarii non timentes, fubeat 
 animos vicaria prenitudo : pacta conferant, tranfactiones lo- 
 cvuantur. Nee hujus tamen religiofi diei otia relaxantes, ob- 
 frcenis quemquam patimurvoluptatibus detineri. Nihil eodem 
 die iibi vindicet fcena theatralis, aut circenfe certamen, aut 
 ferarum lachrymofa fpeelacula : et fi in noilrum ortum aut 
 natalem celebranda folemnitas incident, differatur. Amiifionem 
 roilitioe, profcriptionemque patrimonii iufiinebit, fi quis un- 
 quam hoc die feiro fpe&aculis interefTe, vel cujuscunque judicis 
 apparitor prstextu negotii publici feu privati, htec quae hac 
 lege ilatuta funt credederit temeranda. Dat. Id. Decemb. 
 Conftantinop, Zenone et Martiano ConfiT. 
 
 Corp. Jur. civ. Cod. lib. 3. Tit. 12. 1. 11. 
 
 * Quia perfuafum eft populis die dominico cum caballis et 
 bobus, et vehiculis itinerare, non debere neque ullam rem ad 
 viclumpraparare, vel ad nitorem domus, vel hominis pertin- 
 entem, nullatenus exercere qua? res quia ad Judaeam magie 
 quam ad obfervantiam Chi iftianam pertinere, probatur id ftatu- 
 imus die dominico quod antea fieri licuit licere. De opere ta- 
 men rurali, i.e. agricultura, vel vinea, vel feftione, vel meffione, 
 vel excuffione cenfuimus abiiinendum, quo facilius ad eccle- 
 liam venientes orationis gratia vacent. 
 
 Concil. Aurel. lii. c. 28, 
 
fC that thole things are lawful to he done, as 
 " as they have heretofore been lawful." With 
 ideas indeed very different from thole of Con- 
 ftantine, the council proceeds to determine, 
 that people fhould abihin from thofe works 
 of hufbandry which ufually occupy the whole 
 day, " that they might be at leifurc to come 
 " to church for the purpofe of public prayer." 
 But that religious duty performed, they are 
 left at liberty to employ the reft of the day as 
 they pieafed. In. no nation of Europe there- 
 fore, except our own, nor even in that till iince 
 the reign of Charles II. has the iunday fabbath 
 been kept in the rigid manner in which the 
 emperor Leo decreed, and the Puritans of 
 later years preached up its obfervance. Yet, I 
 perfuade myfelf, you will readily agree, that it 
 were better for the morals of the people, that 
 they mould be occupied in their ordinary la- 
 bour than in frequenting fports and pailimes. 
 
 As to the inffances I produced from St. 
 Paul's firft epiftie to the Corinthians, and the 
 A<fts of the apoftles, to fhew that St. Paul him- 
 felf neither kept the firft day of the week as a 
 fabbath, nor had any idea of enjoining fuch an 
 obfervance upon his difciples, they ftill appear 
 to me clearly conclufive of the point I intended 
 to prove. And if the arguments deduced from 
 them in my former letters are not fufficiently 
 intelligible, as I muff, fuppofe from your man- 
 ner of replying to them, 1 have to regret that 
 it is not in my power to make them more fo. 
 But I would as foon mifpend my time in at- 
 tempting to prove that the fun (hone at noon 
 
[ «5« ] 
 
 day, to a perfon who mould perfift. in affirming 
 it to be then midnight darknefs, as I would 
 contend with any one who will affert, that an 
 exprefs precept for a man to lay by money, in 
 his own cuftody, fignifies that he fhould depofit 
 it, in the cufiody^qf another per/on : or, who well 
 knowing that, in the times of theapoflles, the 
 hour of affembling together, both for their 
 ordinary chief meal, and for the celebration of 
 the Lord's fupper was in the evening, at the 
 beginning of the Jewiili day, perfiffs in main- 
 taining, 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 aflembled for thofe purpofes. I will, 
 therefore, only remark, on the latter ihftaiice, 
 that I am forry to appear fo ignorant to Dr. 
 Prieftley, as not to have known, that amongft. 
 the Jews, as in every other nation, the word 
 day was ufed fometimes to denote the periodical 
 revolution of twenty-four hours; at others, 
 to exprefs daylight, in oppolition to darknefs 
 or night. I am fure, the force of my argu- 
 ment required that it mould be founder flood. 
 And I only quoted the beginning of Acts iv. 
 to convince Subfidiarius, whole head feemed to 
 be prepofTefTed with modern Englifh ideas, that 
 though the word morrow, or morning, in our 
 language fignifies the next civil day, becaufe 
 bur evening and fubfequent morning are in 
 different days, yet, amongft. the Jews, when 
 oppofed to the preceding night or evening, it 
 meant the fame civil day, becaufe, with them, 
 the evening and following morning were in the 
 fame day. 
 
[ i si 1 
 
 With refpect to the p Adage quoted from the 
 Cpiftle to the Corinthians, 1 mud obferve, that 
 though I doubt not St. Paul's exhortation 
 in this inftance, being miiunderftood by the 
 chriftians of after times, gave rife to their week- 
 ly collections both for charitable purpofes, 
 and the defraying the necefiary expences in- 
 curred in the ceconomy of their feveral afTem- 
 blies ; yet, in the times of the apoilies them- 
 felves, no luch cuflom was instituted. And 
 the collection, propofed by St. Paul, was not 
 an ufual practice, as Mr. Locke and you, Sir, 
 feem to imagine ; but an extraordinary con- 
 tribution, which St. Luke tells us (Acts xi. 29) 
 tf the di/ciples, every man according to his 
 ** ability, determined, to fend," to relieve the 
 chriftians of Judea, unde rthe preffure of that 
 famine which the prophet Agabus had pre- 
 dicted would happen ; and " which came to 
 ft pafs in the days of Claudius Cscfar." And 
 fo far was the apoltle from fuppoiing, with 
 you, that their deftined contributions were 
 depouted weekly in a charity-box, or in the 
 hands of a treafurer, that in his fecond epifVie, 
 c. 9. written a full year afterwards, he mentions 
 fame charitable contribution, hopes they are the 
 ready with it, and exhorts them to contribute 
 liberally and chearfully. And fo delicate was 
 he in money matters, that he tells them, 
 1 Cor. xvi. 3. when he comes he will not take 
 charge of their liberality himfelf ; but will fend 
 it to jerufalem by luch perfons as they (hall 
 approve ; and if there be any neceffity for his 
 own going, thofe perfons mall accompany him, 
 
[ '58 } 
 
 undoubtedly, as witneffes of his dinnterefled 
 integrity. Accordingly, St. Luke informs us, 
 in the Ads, that the money was fent to the 
 elders at Jerusalem, " by the hands of Barnabas 
 ,c and SauL ' 
 
 Of my obfervation that all focial pleafur 'able 
 inter courfe with each other, was prohibited by 
 the Jews upon the fabbath day, you are pleafed 
 to fay that I am miftaken in the affertion. And, 
 in the clofe of your letter you affirm, that you 
 have Jhewn the idea of iuch a prohibition to be 
 a mifapprehenfion of mine. I cry your mercy, 
 Sir, for my dulnefs, but i am unable to difcern 
 any thing like demembration in the cafe. You 
 tell us indeed that the Jews, in all ages, gene- 
 rally made choice of the fabbath in preference to 
 all other days, for their focial entertainment. 
 And if you, Sir, are not deceived, and the fad: 
 could be as you ftate it, that the Jewifh fab- 
 bath was in all ages, a day of joyous, focial feajl- 
 ing and indulgence, then I mufl fay, that the 
 Almighty himfelf could not have devifed an 
 inftitution more effectually tending to corrupt 
 and deprave the morals of fuch a creature as 
 he hath made man ; and that all blame and 
 punifhrnent of that people, for their immorali- 
 ties, and particularly for their pollution of the 
 fabb iths, would have been unreafonable and 
 unjufl. But, I am perfuaded, you are too can- 
 did an arguer to expect that your bare affir- 
 mation of fuch a fact fhould pafs for proof. 
 And the only two teftimonies of it, which you 
 have thought fit to allege, feem to me very 
 inadequate to fupport fo paradoxical a conclu- 
 
I ! 59 ] 
 
 Fion. In my prefent iituation, I have not the 
 means of recurring to Mr. Reland's book it- 
 felf, which I muft. own I rather regret, after 
 the fpecimen you have given me of your quo- 
 tation from Tertullian ; becaufe as the cuftorn 
 amongil the jews, of wearing their heft ap- 
 parel, and eating and drinking of the beft they 
 had -in every family, inihonour of their fpoufe, 
 the fabbath, are mentioned, from the Jewifli 
 doctors, both by Calmet and the authors of 
 the Univerfal Hiftory, I cannot help thinking 
 that iieland, and every other writer upon the 
 fame fubjecl, muft, like them, have mentioned 
 other circurnftancesalfoabfolutely incompatible 
 with that convivial mode of keeping it which 
 you afcribe to them in all ages. But even the 
 iingle fentence you produce, from his Anti- 
 quitates Sacrce, does not fay what you are pleaf- 
 ed to infer from it. Epulando has by no means 
 the force of Convivando, which it lhould have 
 to imply the cuftom of making focial enter- 
 tainments on that day ; nor does he fay, as 
 you reprefent him, that they ufed every ex- 
 ' frejjion of joy -, for he muft h?ve known that 
 the moft common expreffions of joy, mufic, 
 dancing, ringing, and the like, were never ad- 
 mitted by the Jews on the fabbath day. He 
 only fays, that they gave many tokens of the joy 
 and gladnefs, with which they were required 
 to honour the fabbath, by making the beft 
 cheer at their tables that each particular per- 
 fon's circumftances could afford. A mode of 
 expreffion, which feems almoft to limit the 
 ufual participation of the good cheer hefpeaks 
 
L '6° ] 
 
 of, to the members of each particular family J 
 for at feafts and great banquets, the good 
 cheer of the gueils is fuppoied to be propor- 
 tioned to the circumftances of the inviter, and 
 not to thofe of edch individual houfekeeper. 
 
 I n the fourteenth chapter of St. Lukeit is laid , 
 that our Saviour went into the Pharifee's houfe 
 to eat bread on the fabbath day. A mode of 
 , phrafeology, which feems calculated to denote 
 only the fimpleft ordinary repair, of the day, 
 and as unexpreffive of his going to a feaft, as 
 can poiTibly be imagined. From which, and 
 from our Lord's mentioning a dinner as well 
 as a fupper, in his admonition to the Pharifee 
 who had invited him, it appears moil probable 
 that this was not a fupper, as all the enter- 
 tainments of the Jews, which can with pro- 
 priety be called feafls were, but a dinner, a 
 meer morning or mid-day refremment after 
 their return from the fynagogue. Why there- 
 fore you mould fay it may well be called a feajl,, 
 I cannot comprehend, unlefs you infer it from 
 the multitude of the gueits invited ; for you 
 tell us, it is evident that the compa?iy was large, 
 Jro7?i their chufing out the chief rooms. Surely, 
 Sir, you did not write this with fuch precipitate 
 hafte, as to fuffer yourfelf to be milled by the 
 found of the double-meaning word rooms in the 
 Engliih tranilation, and to conclude that the 
 gueits were numerous enough to occupy dif- 
 ferent rooms or apartments in the houfe. 
 The original, you well know, iignifies only the 
 higheft places at the table. And whether, 
 that table were large or only of a moderate 
 
[ i6i ] 
 
 fize, theeagernefsof thofe who were to Tit at it, 
 to arrogate to themfelves the precedency, muft 
 be equally difcernableand equally deferving the 
 reproof it met with. For my part, I under- 
 Hand our Lord's invitation from this Pharifee 
 to take the ufual mid-day refreshment at his 
 houfe, in a very different light. Jefus was at 
 that time travelling towards Jerufalem, and 
 preaching the gofpel in every town and village 
 in his way. And the rumour that went be- 
 fore him, which his doctrine and miracles had 
 excited, we are informed was, -j- " That God 
 " had viiited his people, and that a great pro- 
 tc pbet was rifen up amongft them." Now it 
 feems very natural that motives partly of hofpi- 
 tality^artlyofcuriofityjfhould have induced the 
 chief man of the place to fupply fuch a ftranger 
 with the ufual re paft after their morning attend- 
 ance at the fynagogue : and that he mould have 
 invited fuch of his friends and acquaintance, as 
 were defirous to fee and difcourfe with fo dif- 
 tinguifhed and extraordinary a perfonage, to 
 meet him at his houfe and partake with him of 
 fuch things as according to the cuftoms of the 
 Jews, muft have been, not only prepared, but, 
 alfo, placed upon the table the preceding day. 
 And as the occafion of the meeting, being to 
 hear and converfe with the new prophet, may 
 be juftly deemed religious, it was the means of 
 their more effectually and ufefully obferving 
 the precept to fanctify and keep holy the fab- 
 bath day. But if one, orfeveral inftances, mould 
 be produced, in which the chief methodift of 
 
 x 
 
 f Luke vii. i6» 
 
[ «<l 3 
 
 a town or village has invited the late Mr. 
 Wcftley, in the courfe of his peregrinations to 
 dine with him on a Sunday, and afked Come of 
 his friends and neighbours to meet him ; would 
 it be juftice to that fed: of profeiled christians, to 
 infer from it, that, Sunday was in all ages gene- 
 rally made choice of * by the methodifts, in pre- 
 ference to all other days for their facial entertain- 
 ments and joyous feojling f Yet it is far lefs 
 probable, nay, as it appears to me, impoffible, 
 that it lhould be true of the Jews refpecling 
 the fabbath, whilft they obferved either the 
 fpiritor letter of the law given them by Mofes. 
 By that lav/*, it was commanded, that no man 
 fhould "go out of his place on the feventh day." 
 Aprecept,which induced me,in my formerletter 
 to fay, and I think with fufficient reafon, that 
 with the fews, not only all travelling was pro- 
 hibited; but each family was in a manner cirewn- 
 fcribed within its own dwelling. And though 
 they interpreted this prohibition in fuch a man- 
 ner, as to make it confident with their duty of 
 going to the temple or fynagogue, and with 
 the performance of works of neceffity, fuch as 
 leading or driving their cattle to water,or walk- 
 ing abroad for their health, yet the Rabbis 
 limited the diftance they might go, even for 
 thefe purpofes, to two thouiand cubits, and 
 fome of them within itill narrower bounds. 
 This circumftance alone mufr. have rendered 
 the preferring the fabbath to all other days for 
 their focial entertainments, abfolutely imprac- 
 ticable to thofe Jews who were fituated in the 
 
 * Ex. xvi. 20. 
 
[ l& ] 
 
 .country. By the fourth commandment they 
 Were alfo enjoined to keep the fabbath holy. 
 Now, do you really think, Sir, that the way to 
 fanciiiy the fabbath was to make it a day of 
 feftive mirth and conviviality? Or could fuch 
 a practice be made compatible with the fpirit 
 of that precept ? They were io do no work of 
 any kind, nor even to light a fire in any of 
 their houfes; infomuch,that theman who pick- 
 ed up a few flicks on the fabbath day was actu- 
 ally ironed to death; and our Saviour apologized 
 by the plea of hunger and neceffity for his dii- 
 ciples who had only rubbed out, in their hands, 
 feme ears of corn on that day. The mofl 
 natural and common expreffions of mirth and 
 feftivity, as I have before obferved, were deemed 
 unlawful on the fabbath day. No victuals 
 could be dreffed, and it was neceifary, that, 
 fufficient provifion for every family, both of 
 meat and drink for the twenty-four hours, 
 mould be placed upon the table before the 
 commencement of the fabbath ; for it would 
 have been death to a Jewifli fervant to have 
 ferved up any thing afterwards. The lamps 
 or candles that were to light them at fupper, 
 their chief meal, and during the whole even- 
 ing, were always lighted before the clofe or the 
 preceding day - y and if by any accident they 
 were extinguished could not be relighted. 
 Now, Sir, is it pofhblc that the jews mould 
 have chofen for their convivial entertainments, 
 in preference to all others, a day .when no fer- 
 vant could wait upon their guests ; »when they 
 could give them only a boldcoilafcion j when ifthe 
 
L '«4 J 
 
 lamps or candles chanced to be extinguished, 
 they mufl fit in the dark ; when no amui'e- 
 ments of any kind could be introduced for 
 their entertainment; when if any fober gueil, 
 in the warm climate of Judea, had deiired a cup 
 offrefh cold water, or any of the jovial ones had 
 wanted another flaggon of wine, neither could 
 have been brought them ? — Yet this, Sir, is 
 not all ; for the fpirit and meaning of this 
 command to fandtify the fabbath, as God 
 himfelf has explained it by his prophet Ifaiah-f*, 
 forbad them the gratification of their own plea- 
 fure on that day, and even all fuch ufelefs, 
 trifling con verfation as, generally fpeaking, muft 
 be the language of the mixed company of focial 
 banquets. The prophet's words are, "not do- 
 ** ing thine own ways, nor finding thine own 
 ** pleafure, nor fpeaking thine own (or, as other 
 " interpreters fupply the epithet, vain, idle) 
 " words." Upon this authority, Sir, I thought, 
 and fUIl think, myfelfwell warranted in affert- 
 ing, that by the law of Mofes, all focial plea- 
 surable inter courfe with each other was prohibit- 
 ed on the fabbath. And, to fhew that I am 
 not lingular in this opinion, bifhop Patrick 
 fays of this fame verfe of Ifaiah, " From hence 
 " it appears, that the precept of keeping the 
 4< fabbath day holy, did not enjoin merely a 
 *' bodily reft ; but implied likewife fetting the 
 t$ day apart for the fer vices of religion." And 
 the authors of the Univerfal Hiftory § allure 
 us, from 'the Jewifh Doctors, that on the 
 fabbath, " No difcourfe about buying and 
 
 f c. lviii. v. i$i § Vol. 3. b. i. c. 7. Note ". 
 
[ *i ] 
 
 felling, or any other worldly matter, much 
 lets looie and profane talk, is to be iuf- 
 fered-p. 
 
 Having thus flated the grounds upon which 
 my ideas of the Jewiili iabbath are founded, 
 I leave it to the candid, impartial reader to de- 
 termine, whether the charge of mifapprehen- 
 fion .and mifreprefentation of that Mofaic in- 
 flitution, falls more juftly upon me or you. 
 However, viewing things in that light in which 
 alone they prefent themfelves to me, I cannot 
 forbear remarking, that when the Deity or- 
 dained the iabbath to be a iign of the particu- 
 lar covenant, made between himfelf and the 
 nation of the Jews, by the fevere and rigid 
 manner, in which he ordered it to be obferved, 
 he prevented thofe grofs abufes of that weekly 
 idlenefs, which tend inevitably to corrupt the 
 morals of the labouring ranks of people. 
 When he ordained a new and univerfal cove- 
 nant, to fuperfede the Mofaic, not only with the 
 nation of the Jews, but with every nation upon 
 earth, by the mediation of Jefus Chrifl, no exter- 
 nal, partial, diftingu idling fign of his covenant 
 could be of ufe,and therefore none is inftitutedby 
 the gofpel. But when the imperial founders 
 of the orthodox church thought fit to re- 
 ordain the obfervance of a weekly fabbath, a 
 iign of nothing but their own fuperititious 
 propeniity to patch the plain and fimple gar- 
 
 f See alfo the letter of Philander in this collection, p. 28 
 and 29. which, when compared with what Dr. Prieilley has 
 faid upon the fame fubjecl:, affords a lrriking contraft of opini- 
 on, between two champions of the fame caufe, and who mutu- 
 ally compliment each other on their lkill in interpreting 
 fenpture. 
 
[ 166 ] 
 
 ment of chriflianity with the motley rags of 
 Judaiim as well as Paganifm, being either un- 
 able or unwilling to enforce the fame rijHd 
 mode of obferving it, which alone rendered if 
 harmleis to the jew?, they not only, by a very 
 remarkable triumph of fuperftition over civil 
 policy, annihilated one-feventh of the active 
 induftry of their labouring fubjecrs ; but at 
 the fame time eflablifhed a conftant fource of 
 depravation of their morals. You, Sir, and 
 many other well difpofed perfons, able and ac- 
 cuftomed to read and meditate, and difcourfe 
 Upon moral and religious topics, may employ 
 the intervals of that leifure day both innocent- 
 ly and advantageoufly : for fuch minds, to ufe 
 the language of our great dramatic moralift, 
 
 *' Find tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, 
 " Sermons in ftones and good in every thing." 
 
 But the unreflecting minds of the ignorant and 
 illiterate, that is, oF a very large majority of 
 the lower ranks of life, areabfolutely incapa- 
 ble of this beneficial ufeof thofe weekly periods 
 of idlenefs; and, therefore, their abufe of them* 
 fome way or other, is the certain, neceifary 
 confequence. Of this the world has had the 
 experience of full fourteen centuries; and, as I 
 obferved in my firft letter, the royal proclama- 
 tions periodically repeated in our own country, 
 prohibiting, though ineffectually, thofe very 
 abufes as the certain fources of vice and im- 
 morality; and the confeffion of numerous 
 criminals at every goal delivery, are irrefrag- 
 able proofs. 
 
 Yet ftill, Sir, you, a philofopher, an ex- 
 
[ «6? 1 
 
 penmen tal philofopher, of fuch difcinguilhed 
 eminence, in oppoiition to this notorious ex- 
 perience, periift in aflerting the excellent reli- 
 gious and moral ufes of this weekly cejjaiionfrom 
 labour, and arejullj pcrjuaded that the abolition 
 of it would be attended with much greater evil 
 than arifes from its abufes. 
 
 Whenfoever, good Sir, you are able to in- 
 validate and- refute all the evidence I have 
 produced to demonftrate, that the fabbatical 
 obiervance of Sunday is not an inftitution of 
 the gofpel, but of the imperial authority of the 
 fourth and fifth centuries ; and can mew, not 
 by uncertain, disputable inferences, which, 
 however ingenious, are altogether inadequate 
 to decide a queftion of fjch great importance, 
 but, from the piain exprefs words of holy fcrip- 
 ture,that fuch an obiervance is indeed a chriflian 
 duty j you will have a right to adopt fuch lan- 
 guage. Until then, it is really faying that the 
 almighty Author of the gofpel covenant did not 
 perfect his own work, by the mediator he ex- 
 preffiy ordained for that purpofe, as he did in 
 the Mofaic covenant ; but Con flan tine and 
 Leo completed it for him : and that Jefus 
 Chriff. and his apoflles were fo far from un- 
 derstanding the genius of the religion they 
 taught and founded, that they left it, for three 
 centuries, deficient in point of an inftitution 
 of great importance to the morals of their 
 difciples ; and are at laff. indebted, for the 
 fupply of that defect, to Antichrift himfelf, 
 to that very civil power of the Roman empe- 
 rors and their fucceflbrs, who have fo fatally 
 
L '68 ] 
 
 eftablifhed all the groffly fuperflitious, pre- 
 dicted corruptions of chriitianity. Whether 
 fuch language, Sir, is becoming a christian, 
 a philofopher, or even a man of common 
 fenfe, judge you. 
 
 But the fabbatical obfervance of Sunday, 
 you tell us, greatly contributes to the civiliza- 
 tion of mankind. Has your historical erudition, 
 then, really given you caufe to think, that the 
 fabbath-keeping Jews carried civilization to a 
 greater height than any other people of for- 
 mer times ? And have you forgot that the moll: 
 civilized of the antient States, the Greeks and 
 Romans, never kept a fab bath ? How wide- 
 ly Doctors differ ! According to the Roman 
 poet, " ingennas didicifie fideliter artes, emol- 
 " lit mores nee finit effe feros." And furely, 
 " Sir, Ovidis right. The civilization of man- 
 kind is effected, not by obferviug a weekly 
 fabbath, but by the cultivation of the arts and 
 fciences ; and by an enlarged commerce with 
 the world. Turn your eyes acrofs St. George's 
 channel, to the inhabitants of thofe parts of 
 Ireland which are remote from any consider- 
 able city, and whither manufactures have not 
 yet reached : — they are all bigotted Roman Ca- 
 tholics : and as fuch they and their forefathers, 
 for many centuries, have been conftant, de- 
 vout observers of a cejj'ationjrom labour, not 
 only on every Lord's day t but on many a Lady's 
 day befides. Yet, in all that time, fo little hath 
 that obfervance contributed to their civiliza- 
 tion, that, even now, we fpeak of them by 
 the appellation of the Wild Irifh. Jn the 
 
[ i6 9 ] 
 
 north of Scotland alio, from the time of Knox, 
 at lead, the inhabitants have been flrict ob- 
 fervers of the imperial precept to reft from la- 
 bour every funday. And I beg, Sir, you will 
 compare the flate of civilization there, previous 
 to the year 1745, to wl.u it now is, fince the 
 wife policy of the late reign brake the clans 
 and introduced manufactures and commerce 
 amongif them : and judge more juftly of the 
 caufe of their improvement in that refpect than 
 to afcribe it, in any degree, to their keeping 
 the modern fabbath. 
 
 If indeed the inducing fervants and manufac- 
 turers to drefs beyond their ftations, and to 
 put on the external appearance of Ladies and 
 Gentlemen one day, at lead, in every week, 
 were to be called civilizing them, there would 
 certainly be good grounds for your obfervation: 
 but this, Sir, is one of the evils of our mode 
 of fabbath-keeping which I lament. For the 
 univerfal idlenefs of the day, affording the 
 young of both fexes amongft them an oppor- 
 tunity of difplaying their perfons before the 
 public, not only in the religious afTemblies 
 they frequent, but through all the remaining 
 hours of the day in vifits, walks orexcurfions 
 with parties of their acquaintance, even in 
 thofe who abufe the inftitution in the leafl 
 immoral degree, itcheriihes, if it does not ex- 
 cite, perfonal vanity, and a defire of orna- 
 menting their perfons by expenfive modes of 
 drefs, which are not only unbecoming their 
 
 Y 
 
[ *7° ] 
 
 humble ftations in life, but inconfiftent with 
 both the fpirit and exprefs precepts of the 
 Gofpel ; and lead many of them into fuch 
 early habits of extravagance, and unnecef- 
 farily expending all their earnings, as keep 
 them conftantly in a ftate of indigence, which, 
 inflead of the bleffings they are naturally calcu- 
 lated to be, too often renders them burthens 
 cv nuifances to the community. 
 
 As to the cafe of fome manufacturers la- 
 bouring to fuch an excefs as to injure their 
 healths, in general, that can only be owing to 
 a greedinefs of gain, excited by intemperance 
 and diffipated profufion, evils, of which, a- 
 mongfl the labouring ranks of people, the idle- 
 nefs of funday is moft commonly the caufe, 
 and always the means ; but if any regulation 
 of policy be really neceffary on that account, 
 let but all mailers of manufactures agree, or 
 the legiflature enjoin, that they fhall not work 
 by the piece, but by the day of a certain 
 number of hours ; and though they mould 
 work feven inftead of fix days in the week, 
 there would not be the leafr. danger of their 
 impairing their ftrength, or fhortening their 
 lives, by excefs of labour and fatigue. 
 
 In the fourth of your concluding obferva- 
 tions,you are pleafed to affert,that if the working 
 people were left to adopt their own intermiffions 
 of labour, they would be attended with worfe 
 effects than thofe which the law provides for 
 them. And you allege the abufes of the an- 
 nual feflivals as instances ; forgetting, furely, 
 
[ %p ] 
 
 that thofe annual feftivals are not of the peo- 
 ple's providing, but institutions of the very 
 fame ecclefiaftical fuperftition, and the very 
 fame imperial authority that have ordained the 
 cefTation from labour every Sunday. That 
 every labourer and manufacturer would fome- 
 times intermit his work, for the fake of his 
 health, amufement, or fome confideration of 
 convenience to himfelf or his friends, cannot 
 be doubted. They do fo now. But then each 
 perfon's intermiffion being determined only by 
 nis own particular circumftances or inclina- 
 tion, few of them would intermit their labour 
 at the fame time, (except in extraordinary cafes 
 which excite general attention and curio fity) 
 and they would each be occupied in thofe en- 
 gagements which caufed their ceffation from 
 their ufual work. At prefent, the greater!: 
 danger and worft of confequences arife to fo- 
 ciety, from its being known to every vicious, 
 evil-difpofed man, that on certain ftated days 
 and feafons, the whole multitude of labouring 
 people muft be at leifure to undertake any 
 thing to which they can be craftily feduced 
 and inftigated. Even the violence of that 
 democratic fury fo lately excited, at Birming- 
 ham, by the malice and infidious artifice of 
 orthodox and arijiocrattc zeal, in which you 
 Sir, andyour friends, fuffered fo unworthily and 
 cruelly, to the grief and indignation of every 
 humane mind, and the eternal difgrace of the 
 people of Birmingham and the police of this 
 kingdom, would not have been protracted to 
 
[ *7 2 ] 
 
 the length it was, but for the expectation 
 which the approaching weekly cefTation of all 
 the neighbouring works gave the rioters of a 
 large reinforcement of their numbers. 
 
 As to what you fay, in your fifth obferva- 
 tion, about every individual ckujinghis own time 
 for public ivorjbip and ' t7iJirudlion y I really do not 
 apprehend your meaning. Wherever public 
 religious afTemblies are held, it is obvious that 
 the hours of aflembling muft be fixed and pub- 
 licly known. And nothing that I know of 
 prevents that being equally the cafe whether 
 the people fpend the remaining hours of the 
 day in honeff, ufeful induftry, or in mifchief, 
 or doing nothing. In many places, the two 
 very different feels denominated Quakers and 
 Methodifts, hold religious afTemblies, not only 
 on Sunday, but alfo in the middle of the week -, 
 the firft at noon-day, the latter in the evening, 
 after the buiinefs of the day is over ; and they 
 areas regularly, and as decently, and to all ap- 
 Dearance, as devoutly attended as their ufual 
 meetings on Sunday. And fince no unpre- 
 judiced perfon can doubt but that the religi- 
 ous inflruction they receive at thefeWednefday 
 afTemblies, are as edifying to themfelves and 
 their devotion, at leaft, as acceptable to heaven 
 as it can be upon Sunday, no rational objection, 
 upon a religious account, can be made to their 
 ufefully employing the intermediate hours of 
 Sunday alfo in the fame lawful purfuits and 
 honeft occupations, which they are engaged 
 in all the reft of the week. 
 
[ i n ] 
 
 Thus, good Sir, I have endeavoured to re- 
 ply to your defence of the modern Sabbath, 
 and to vindicate myfelf againft your friend's 
 rude and fevere charge of inconfidcrate rajhnefs 
 and hoftility to the canfe of Piety and Humani- 
 ty : with what fuccefs, I leave to the candid 
 reader to determine. I perfuade myfelf, how- 
 ever, that, between us, you and I have, now, 
 inconteftably demonftrated that the fabbatical 
 obfervance of Sunday is not a religious ordi- 
 nance of Chriil and his apoftles, but of the 
 Roman emperors- Conftantine and Leo, and 
 their fucceiiors in the civil power of Chrif- 
 tendom. 
 
 No. man is better acquainted than yourfelf 
 with the unhappy corruptions of the doctrines 
 of the gofpel, which have been fyftematically 
 eftablimed in the world by the authority of the 
 fame Roman emperors, and the fame fuccef- 
 fion of civil power. And every friend of genu- 
 ine, unadulterated chriftianity mufl acknow- 
 ledge the great merit of your learned exertions, 
 to reftore that firft fundamental article of all 
 rational, true religion, the undivided unity of 
 God. To me, Sir, it appears efTentially necef- 
 fary to the reception of the pure religion of the 
 gofpel of Chrift, and to the world's enjoying 
 thofe happy effects of it, which it is moil 
 afluredly deftined to produce, that, not the 
 doctrines only, but, the pofitive inftitutions 
 alfo of chriftianity, mould be clearly difcrimi- 
 nated in the minds of men, from thofe of the 
 predicted antichriftian fuperftition, But if, 
 
C 174 ] 
 
 after all, you and others are of a different opi- 
 nion, and really experience fuch advantages 
 from the fabbatical obfervance of Sunday, as 
 induce you to think it right to adhere to it, 
 from whatfoever quarter the inftitution is 
 originally derived. We are then reduced to 
 the very fituation, in this refpe6l, in which the 
 author of the epiftle to the Romans defcribes 
 the converts to chriftianity to have been, in his 
 time : when thofe who, like St. Paul, were 
 fenfible of the perfectly free and unrenrained 
 genius of the gofpel, efteemed every day alike ; 
 whilft the minds of others unable to furmount 
 the prepoffeffion of habit and long eftablimed 
 cuftom, could not forbear ejieeming one day 
 above another. And we, aifo, mould mew the 
 fame charity towards each other that they were 
 taught to do, folicitous only that our own ob- 
 fervance or non -obfervance of fabbatical reft 
 on Sunday, may be accompanied with the faith- 
 ful difcharge of our chriftian duty to God, and 
 to our fellow creatures every day of the week. 
 
 For my part, I have not the arrogance to 
 expecl: that my feeble voice mould reach the 
 ears, much lefs attract the attention of our civil 
 governors. But had I any influence with the 
 legiilature, I allure you, Sir, it mould not be 
 ufed to induce them to oblige any perfons to 
 work on Sunday, or any other day contrary to 
 their inclination or religious prejudices. I wifh 
 only, that all men might be left to enjoy the 
 liberty, in this refpect, wherewith the gofpel 
 of Cnrift hath made them free; and, that I 
 
[ >75 ] 
 
 could diiTiiade our rulers from the impolitic, 
 unnatural, and, in its inevitable confequences, 
 immoral tyranny of compelling their fu ejects 
 to be idle. 
 
 I am, 
 
 \\ 7 ith all due reipect, 
 Dear Sir, 
 Your faithful humble Servant, 
 
 E. E V A N S O N. 
 
 GREAT-BLAKENIIAM, Suffolk, 
 Oct. 28th, 1 791 . 
 
 F I N I S. 
 
I'm I III I M h |l < S 9 .';, a .' . s ™inary- Spew L 
 
 1 1012 01115 3501 
 
 Date Due 
 
 r/touLl x. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JAI 
 
 ii r tiffi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <f>