admit; then it follows that the apostles met on the same day for religious worship, and they met eight days afterward-and they met on the day of Pentecost-and they met at Troas (Acts 20: 7) on the same day. If this is not a chain of evidence, then there is no such thing to be found in the Bible. Nor will it invalidate the force of this reasoning, to say, as the Sabbatarians do, that from the day of Pentecost to the meeting of Troas, twenty-six years had elapsed; for the length of time between the two points, only shows the uniformity of the practice to greater advantage. Some ten or twelve years after the outpouring of the Spirit at Jerusalem, we are told in Acts 13: 14, that Paul preached at Antioch in the Jewish synagogue on the Sabbath, i. e. on the seventh day. This was quite natural; it is hardly to be expected that a congregation of wicked and prejudiced Jews (such as the last part of the chapter shows those of Antioch to have been) would worship on the Christian Sabbath. Paul availed himself of the opportunity afforded by their coming together on the seventh day, to proclaim Jesus to them. But is there any thing said about the breaking of bread at Antioch? The meeting at Antioch was a Jewish, and not a Christian meeting, and as every rational man would suppose, was held on the Jewish Sabbath. The same may be said of the meeting by the river-side, at Philippi.

Now let us look at 1 Cor. 16: 2. Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, Upon the first day of the week, not upon one of the Sabbaths. "That there be no gathering when I come." The Corinthian Christians were in the habit of meeting on the first day of the week. They were heathen converts, and evidently kept the first day, and they must have done it at the instigation of the apostles, who planted the Christian church among them. Human tradition is here out of the question. If the example and instructions of the inspired apostles are human traditions, then are we guilty of "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Dr. Mosheim, Ch. His., vol. i. p. 45, says: "In the first century all Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship

This pious custom, which was derived from the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who themselves consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally, as appears from the united testimony of the most credible writers. The seventh day was also observed as a festival, not by the Christians in general, but only by such churches as were principally composed of Jewish converts." This quotation proves the very point we have been endeavoring to establish. Dr. G. F. Seiler, one of the most learned and impartial writers of Germany, says in his Tabellen, Cent. I., " Yan feyerte den Sabbath fast an den meisten orten nech mit den Juden wenigsten in Palastina bis auf die Zerstorung Jerusalems. An den Tagen des Hern hielten die Christen aber auch feyerliche Zusammen kunfte." This was no doubt the true state of the About twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, John, in Rev. 1: 10, says, "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." Every Christian in those days knew what day was intended. It was the holy day on which all Christians worshipped God; it was the day spoken of by David as the "day that God hath blessed;" it was the day on which the Lord arose from the dead; the day on which the apostles first met their risen Saviour; the day on which Thomas had thrust his hand into the wounded side of his Lord and his God; the day on which the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the infant church; the day on which the disciples habitually celebrated the Lord's supper; the day on which the Corinthian church regularly met for divine service.

case.

In the apostolic age, the propriety of celebrating the first day was never called in question. Now as other matters of less importance often caused bitter contentions, such as the eating of meats, circumcision, the keeping of Jewish festivals, (Rom. 14: 5,) etc., and as no difficulty ever arose about the Sabbath, the strong presumption is, that this matter was settled by the Lord himself, and the apostles had nothing to do but to keep the first day in honor of Christ's resurrection, and teach all that loved the Saviour to do the same. That the

first day was sacredly observed, and observed too as the Sabbath, in the age immediately following that of the apostles, is abundantly proved by the writings of the ancient church Fathers. Thus Ignatius, (Epis. ad Magnes.,) about A. D. 100, just six years after the death of St. John, says: "Let every friend of Christ celebrate the Lord's day." He uses the same expression that John had used, tv xvqiazýv. This day, i. e. the first day of the week, he calls "the Lord's day—the day consecrated to the resurrection-the queen and prince of days." We quote from Prof. Stuart. Caius Plinius Cæcilius Secundus was born 62, A. D. His letter to Trajan was written 107, from Bithynia, just seven years after Ignatius, and eleven after John was in the spirit on the Lord's day. One of the erimes laid to the charge of the Christians in Bithynia and Pontus was, that they were "wont on a stated day to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn unto Christ, as to God." Now that this stated day was the Lord's day, i. e. the first day of the week, is, we think, conclusively proved above. But it may be asked, what does this prove? Why, it proves that the Christians in Bithynia and Pontus did not keep the seventh day. That the Jews, both in Jerusalem and in Pontus, met on the seventh day for divine worship, was well known both to Pliny and Trajan; and if the Christians had met upon the same day, the great probability is that Pliny would have said so. Justin Martyr, who was born about this time in Neapolis, says, "On the Lord's day all Christians in the city and in the country meet together, because that is the day of our Lord's resurrection; then they who are able and willing give what they think proper for the orphans and widows." This quotation is from Calmet, and throws a flood of light on Cor. 16: 2 and Rev. 1: 10. Irenæus, a disciple of Polycarp, 167, says, "On the Lord's day, every one of us Christians keeps the Sabbath." This is a strong testimony in favor of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. The fact is, there is no getting over it. Theophilus of Antioch, 162, says, "Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord's day, seeing on that

day it was that our Lord Jesus Christ completed his resurrection from the dead." Dionysius of Corinth, 170, says, "Today we celebrate the Lord's day." Tertullian, 192, says, "The Lord's day is the holy day of the Christian church."

This is enough. We do not wish to come down to a later period. From these quotations, it appears evident that the Christians in the first and second centuries did invariably observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath. If we, who observe the first day, are wrong, we err in good company. If we are wrong, we have been led into error by the holy apostles and martyrs-by the united testimony of all the best men that ever lived in the Christian church. That we keep the day that meets the approbation of the great Head of the church, may be inferred from the fact that he causes his blessing to rest upon those who most religiously keep it.

These hints are thrown out to induce some of your more learned correspondents to take up the subject, and give it a more thorough examination.

ARTICLE IX.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

1.-Life of Godfrey William Von Leibnitz. On the basis of the German work of Dr. G. E. Guhrauer. By JOHN M. MACKIE. Boston: Gould, Kendall & Lincoln. 1845. pp. 288, 12mo.

THE Lives of eminent men are matters of general interest, and when faithfully recorded, become monuments of the providence of God. Mr. Mackie has done the English public good service, by presenting them with so good a memoir of so celebrated a man. Leibnitz is one of the stars in the galaxy of scientific men, which illumined the close of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. He was evidently a man of original research and of superior attainments in science. He is probably entitled to wear the palm as the discoverer of the differential calculus, although England claims the honor for her own immortal Newton. If the fluxional calculus be considered essentially the same as the differential, then probably Newton is to

be regarded as the first who sought it out. Yet, so almost simultaneously did these two great men arrive at the same results, that the nations which, respectively, gave them birth, may well be content to divide the honor.

Leibnitz early became a man whose society was sought by the great ones of the earth, and whose opinions on scientific, and even on theological questions, were regarded with interest. Yet he was not without his hobbies: e. g. his universal language of philosophy, and his plans for the union of the Roman and Protestant churches. The former he never developed; the latter he failed to accomplish. Then he exerted his powers to effect a union of all the Protestant churches in opposition to Rome, but with no better success. This object is becoming one of importance now again, and movements of a similar kind are made on the Continent of Europe. And we think there must be some sort of expressed unity among the different evangelical denominations of Protestants in order to meet the unity of Romanism, and be prepared for the mighty conflict with organized error which is fast approaching. We cannot say much for the piety of Leibnitz, and must close our notice with our thanks to Mr. Newman of this city, for the neat volume which has furnished the occasion for these remarks.

2.-A Manual of Ancient and Modern History; comprising, I. Ancient History; II. Modern History. By W. C. TAYLOR, LL. D., M. R. A. S., of Trinity College, Dublin. Revised, with a Chapter on the History of the United States. By C. S. HENRY, D. D. . New-York: D. Appleton & Co. Phil.: Geo. S. Appleton. 1845. pp. 797, 8vo.

A good Manual of History, sufficiently comprehensive, has been, for some time, a desideratum. The volume before us, although not perfect, is in advance of Tytler and the other Compends, which have been so long in use. We think it is quite minute enough, candid on the whole, historical in the style, and well adapted to use as a textbook in colleges and in our more advanced schools.

In this edition, revised by Prof. Henry, the remarks on Calvin and the ecclesiastical government of Geneva, in connection with Servetus, ought to have been qualified and made more conformable to truth. Any representation of that portion of the history of the Reformation, which attributes the death of Servetus directly to Calvin, or to the government on account of his obnoxious views on the doctrine of the Trinity, does injustice to both, and ought to be erased from every history which pretends to any character, and especially from Manuals intended for the hands of the young.

Notwithstanding this passing criticism, we consider it the best text-book of general history yet accessible to us, and cheerfully commend it to the attention of instructors in our academies and colleges.