to promote piety and moral virtue. But when one particular day is selected in preference to another, and to all ap pearance, in direct opposition to an express command of God, it naturally leads the mind to enquire, how far the Christian religion justifies our keeping holy the first day of the week instead of the seventh.

The first mention of the Sabbath is in Gen. ii. 1, 2, 3, which is by some called a "creation law." This however does not seem to establish the point in question, for these verses appear not to convey any such idea as that of a law. Now if Moses, or any other person appointed by him, wrote the account we have of the creation, how much it was to his purpose to insert here what was so analagous to the law given at Mount Sinai, respecting the observance of the seventh day as a day of rest. They are in such exact agreement, that I am apt to think the history of the creation did not precede the promulgation of the fourth command

ment.

The circumstances of the Jews, and their being so addicted to idolatry, required and justified the appointment of such a day to be observed among them. But the great question to be considered respecting such a subject is thishave we any Christian law whereby we are authorized to set apart one day in seven for religious purposes? Our Lord gave several commands to his Apostles, and in particular these two, " that they were to go and preach the gospel to every creature, and that they were to love one another." Is it not surprising and extraordinary, that he should neg→ lect a command, enjoining the observance of the first day of the week, in lieu of the seventh, if that was needful to commemorate his resurrection? Nor will it in the least invalidate the argument by imagining that such a command was unnecessary, in his circumstances, he being a Jew; since it would have been a direct violation of the divine command. Hence, if what is called the creation law is still in force, and expressly enjoined by our Creator, it will be a point of the first importance to those who think so, to prove their authority for departing, in this instance, from the original institution of the supreme lawgiver.

By our Saviour's frequent attendance on the Jewish Sabbath, one would conclude that he supposed himself obligated to conform to it. But then, the question returns, what is the reason the day should be changed? Our Lord and his Apostles well knew, that the gospel was of such a nature as required no such a law, but was a rule of life to all who embraced it; and was to be publicly taught, and

practised oN ALL DAYS, AT ALL TIMES, AND UPON ALL

OCCASIONS.

Our great master says to the cavilling Jews, "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." If so, is it not a proof that he did not lay much stress upon the mere observance of it? Paul appears to have had the same or similar views, when he stated, "Let no man therefore JUDGE you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath." On the other hand, we are exhorted by the same Apostle not to "forsake the assembling ourselves together, as the manner of some is," which advice I would wish to see fully practised. But is it not remarkable, that he does not insist upon their assembling together on one particular day? This I can account for upon no other grounds, than that he had no authority to impose such an obligation.

Considering the great importance of religion to mankind, both here and hereafter, it was undoubtedly necessary, in the first instance, to adopt such methods as appeared the best and most effectual, for accomplishing the object they had in view.

For this purpose the first Christians formed themselves into societies (churches), and met together for religious worship and edification, as often as they could. From their history we learn that (Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Col. ii. 16.) they came together on the first day of the week, to keep alive in their hearts the remembrance of their beloved master; yet there is no reason to believe, that this day was exclusively made use of for their religious devotions.

Considering also the indisputable fact of our Lord's resurrection from a state of non-existence, and how much his apostles and followers were interested in it, was it not very natural for them to unite upon the day that such an extraordinary event took place? We may conclude that in time this became the common practice; and afterwards it was considered by Christians, in analogy with the Jewish sabbath, as an injunction of the Lord Jesus Christ; and consequently they esteemed it as one of those fundamental rites of the Christian religion, which they were obligated, as they thought, to observe.

From these observations the following inferences, I appre hend, are deducible.

1. That Jesus Christ never commanded the first day of the week to be kept as a sabbath day.

2. That his example is in direct opposition to such a practice.

3. That the pure and practical nature of his religion did not require it.

4. That the practice of the apostles and first Christians is a proof that they did not consider the law respecting the seventh day as binding upon them.

5. That the great importance, general utility, and beneficial effects, of the Christian religion, required the most effectual means to propagate it among mankind.

6. That the first day of the week was selected for this purpose, as also to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

7. That this seems to be a leading means of perpetuating Christianity in the world, and hence claims our sanction and support.

8. That upon all other days, as occasion requires, we are not debarred by our profession, from publicly avowing our belief, and edifying one another by religious instruction.

These, Mr. Editor, are the reasons for my keeping the first day of the week employed in the services of religion; and as the observance of this day arises from choice, so is it grounded upon a conviction of its great practical tendency, in connection with those memorable words of my lord and master, "MY YOKE IS EASY, AND MY BURDEN IS LIGHT." Your's, &c. Tenterden, Dec. 20, 1812.

ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine,

SIR,

T.

THE question of Catholic Emancipation being expected ere long to occupy the attention of the Legislature, it. may not be improper to make a few remarks upon two subjects; in the discussion of which the emancipation of these dissenters is materially interested. They are, CIVIL GOVERNMENT and RELIGION.

First, Civil Government.-Mankind, as they are united in society, live under a mutual relation to and dependence upon each other; and all the happiness they are capable of is in a manner social, and derived from mutual good offices and reciprocal assistance. To this every man, as a member of society, must be indebted, for his comfortable subsistence; for the enjoyment of his natural rights and propertiesand this at least is undeniable-the most despotic monarchs depend entirely upon their subjects and vassals for that very

dominion they exercise over them; consequently there cannot be such a thing as independence among men.

Men endued with the same faculties, deriving from nature the same affections and passions, and having an equal claim to the same rights and properties, must be naturally equal; and whatever superiority or dominion one man has over another, this must be the result of mutual agreement, or the exercise of policy or force. In case of the latter, this must give every man an equal right to the same dominion, if he possess policy or force sufficient to enslave the rest; but if the latter, then the institution of government, being the result of mutual agreement, must have in contemplation mutual advantages, and be productive of reciprocal benefits. The head of such an institution would not be a tyrant, armed with arbitrary power, but an equitable magistrate-"a terror to evil doers, but a praise to them that do well." In case a member of such a society neglects to perform the social duties, or invades the property or rights, or injures the persons of his neighbours, members of the same community, the injured party is indebted to the institution of civil government for the protection of his person or property, or for the execution of exemplary justice against him who has injured the one or the other. And no man willingly suffering himself to be deprived of any part of his goods, much less of his liberty or life, the magistrate is necessarily armed with the power of the whole community, in order to the punishment of those who have violated the rights of others. In a society thus formed, each individual has an equal right to all and every the advantages, immunities, and privileges, resulting therefrom; none can have any equitable claim to exclusive privileges; nor could any difference in the religious sentiments of the members of such a society, justly, deprive any individuals who differed from others, even from the majority, of all or any part of their civil rights and privileges. Should the magistrate join himself to one religious sect, this would not give that sect any right to particular emoluments at the expence of another sect, or to deprive the members of that sect of any of their honours and privileges; but this will more evidently appear from a brief view of the nature of religion.

Religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind, and the conforming the life and conduct to such persuasion. Faith is not faith without believing. Whatever we profess, or to whatever outward worship we conform ; if we are not satisfied that the one is true, and the other

66

well pleasing to God, our profession and practice cannot promote, but must prevent our salvation. Destitute of the inward persuasion of the mind, nothing that we perform can be acceptable to God. The care of every man's salvation is a care of his own, which, in proportion as he attends to or neglects it, he himself, and not his neighbour, must take the consequence. No man can answer for his brother, but every one of us must give an account of himself to God." Religion then being under the government of God only, and he having appointed rewards or punishments for the observers or transgressors of his laws, he has taken the whole matter upon himself, and no where has he authorized any man or set of men to act as his deputies; consequently, for the magistrate to inflict any fine or punishment, and to deprive any man or body of men, of all or any the smallest part of their civil rights, on account of their religion, is to transgress the bounds of his duty, to invade the prerogatives of God-it is "to judge and misuse the servants of another master, who are not at all accountable to him."

Let any man not totally destitute of the powers of reason; let any man, whose judgment is not totally perverted by prejudice and superstition; let any man who possesses a single spark of virtuous sentiment, or an atom of generous feeling towards those who have been the victims of arbitrary power in any part of the world; ask himself, after applying the above remarks to the case of Catholic and Protestant Dissenters, whether they can justly be deprived of all or any of their civil rights and privileges, on account of their religious sentiments or modes of worship!

If the above remarks mèrit a place in your Magazine, their insertion will oblige

A FRIEND TO CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. Dewsbury, Dec. 19, 1812.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGAZINE.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

FROM

ROM the cast of mind which your correspondents evince in their theological enquiries, there can be little ground for supposing that any publication avowing itself the advocate of catholicism should attract their attention. The political activity of this body of men seems to have called forth their exertions, and caused them to establish a new vehicle for the purpose of defending that nearly worn out religion, which is now sunk to such a very low ebb, and so