First. It is evident, that the rulers of a nation may be guilty of the sin of treading under foot the holy Sabbath,by their bad example. If they allow themselves to do public or private business; if they pursue journies; if they attend on amusements and parties of pleasure; or if they fail to attend on those holy convocations which the Lord has appointed, as means to promote the sanctification of the hallowed day; their example stands in direct opposition to the command of God.

Secondly. Those rulers who belong to the legislative body, are chargeable with the sin in question, when they make laws calculated to contravene the laws of God which relate to the sanctification of the Sabbath. It will, perhaps, be said, that the legislators of states and kingdoms have only to make civil laws, and have nothing to do with the laws of God. Is it meant, that they, who are convened to form a code of civil laws, must in their legislative capacity, be ignorant of the existence of a Supreme Being? or be ignorant of this fact, that he has revealed a law, designed to regulate the conduct of his creature man? On supposition, that the legislature of this state should be composed of men, who fully believe the inspiration of the scriptures, could that body, consistent with their belief, make a single law which should stand opposed to the revealed will of the Supreme Lawgiver? Would not such a law be an indication of infidelity in that body?

We know that it is not the province of the legislature of a state or. kingdom, to enact laws to regulate the Church of God. The King of heaven has made laws to rule his own kingdom. But an earthly state or kingdom cannot be ruled, without making use of many of the same laws which rule the kingdom of heaven. There must therefore be frequent coincidences between the laws of these two kinds of government. No one will conclude, because the God of heaven has made laws to require children to submit to their parents; and laws to forbid murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and the like; that therefore human lawgivers have no right to legislate on these points, requiring and prohibiting the same things. Some may think that men have no right to make laws to enforce obedience to God. But is it not possible, that the interests of civil society should urgently demand the enactment of some laws, which require respect for the Supreme Lawgiver? Is it wrong for men to make a law which prohibits blasphemy? This sin is committed directly against God, and is a breach of one of the commands of the first table of the law. I presume it will be conceded, that a law against blasphemy is not wrong. The ground on which such a law will be defended, is this; That human society cannot exist, where "this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD," is so despised, that an oath of conformation, in which we swear by it, will have no influence to awe the mind: and it cannot be expected to have any such influence

on the mind of the blasphemer. The law, which punishes the man who blasphemes the name of God, is, no doubt, a good and wholesome law of civil society. And why may not the same reasoning apply to the statute law, which is designed to preserve the sacredness of the Sabbath? Is not a regard to the fourth commandment as closely connected with the welfare of the State, as a regard to the third? I see not why a haughty contempt of the fourth, as well as of the third, is not calculated even to destroy the solemnity of an oath. If the man who profanes the name of the Lord, is supposed to have lost all reverence for the Supreme Being; surely his reverence cannot be great, who profanes the day which He calls his own, and in which he has strictly required us to rest from our labours, even in earing time and in harvest.

The religious instruction, which is connected with a sanctification of the Sabbath, exerts such an influence, not only on the piety, but also on the civil order, morals, and happiness of a nation, as to be of higher consequence to its well being than all its fleets and armies. But when the sacredness of the Sabbath is once renounced, there is nothing to insure those important instructions which are connected with it. On the same principle, that the State, in its corporate capacity, manifests a deep concern in those schools of learning, which are designed to expand the minds and improve the morals of the rising generation, it consistently may, and it ought, to take a deep interest in the holy Sabbath, and those divine institutions and instructions which God has made the proper business of the day. If nothing be regarded farther than the temporal interests of the State, the Sabbath, with its attendant instructions, is not inferior in its importance, even to that excellent system of education, which provides at public expense the benefit of schools for all the children of the commonwealth. Why then may not a Christian nation so construct its laws, as to prevent the breaking down of those sacred barriers which the Lord has placed around his holy Sabbath?

Laws can be made to guard the Sabbath from encroachments, without doing violence to any man's conscience. It might hurt the conscience of an atheist, if he were required, on this or any other day, to join in the worship of God, since he does not believe that such a being exists; but I do not see that his conscience could be particularly injured, by being restrained from disturbing the sacred stillness of the Sabbath, enjoined, as his fellow countrymen believe, by Him who built all things. Had the king of Nineveh been as scrupulous, as some of the rulers of the earth now are, whether it came within the province of the political head of a nation, on any occasion, to enact a law requiring the subjects to manifest a regard to God, his proud capital would soon have been in ruins.

But if you should think it improper for civil government to enjoin any thing of a religious nature, there certainly can be no doubt that

it has a right so to frame its laws, as not to counteract the laws of God. No sober man will say, that the French Convention was under obligation to change the week of seven days into a decade, sor week of ten days, for the sake of obliterating the remembrance of the Lord's day. Nor can any man, in his right mind, pretend that it is the duty of those who rule over a Christian nation, to construct their laws in such a manner as to imply their ignorance of the fact, that such a religion as Christianity has existence in the world. None can pretend that they are under obligation to fix the time of convening legislative and judicial bodies, and the time for military reviews, just as though it was unknown to them, that the religion of the country made any distinction between the days of the week. This would be to "frame mischief by a law." It would be ensnaring the consciences of the people; which is a much greater evil than to take away their property, or even to enslave their persons. The Apostle, in addressing the Corinthian converts, says, "Art thou called being a servant? care not for it:-for he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman." The disciple of Jesus can therefore submit to servitude, and still keep a good conscience: but how can he consent to transgress a Divine requirement? If his religion be in exercise, he will exclaim, “How shall I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" From the view which we have now taken of this subject, it is easy to perceive, that when the framers of our laws do not make such arrangements for the transaction of public business, whether to be done by themselves or their agents, as to guard against all interference with the day which the Lord has separated to himself, they are justly chargeable with the sin of profaning it.

jesa

I have shown in what ways the legislative rulers of a nation may be chargeable with the evil in question; I would now add, that if these have done their duty by providing laws to secure the sabbatk from contempt, the sin of profaning the day may rest on the executive officers, if they refuse, or neglect, to put in execution the existing laws. This appears to have been more particularly the profanation, with which the nobles of Judah are charged in the text.. They suffered the market to be kept open on the sabbath day. They did not exert that authority, with which they were clothed, to prevent an evil, so dishonouring God and the morals of the nation.

I will now proceed to offer some reasons, why these dignified men are to be contended with, when they are found guilty of violating the law of the Sabbath.

First. They are the creatures of God, and are as perfectly ac A spirit of obedience to His comcountable to him as other men. mands is obligatory on them; and, I may add, is their highest honWithout this, they cannot please Him that accepteth not the

our.

Ru

persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor. lers, even those of the most elevated rank, will die like other men, and after death will be judged. At the judgment seat they will be placed on the right or left hand of the judge, not according to their political, but according to their religious character. If they have disregarded the commands of God, their earthly distinctions will be utterly unavailing in the great decisive day. The prince, as well as the peasant, is commanded to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; and a spirit of piety would lead the one, as much as the other, to be scrupulously exact in rendering obedience to the commandment. They both stand in equal need of the Sabbath, as a day of preparation for that rest which remaineth to the people of God.

"The honourable of the earth" are peculiarly in danger of lifting up themselves against the Lord of heaven, and of refusing to glorify "the God in whose hand their breath is, and whose are all their ways." This proud contempt of God and religion, they not unfrequently manifest by greatly polluting the Sabbath. The godly see this, and they weep in secret places for their pride and impiety. They are grieved at the dishonour which is done to God: they are also affected at seeing their fellow candidates for the retributions of eternity, exhibit such decisive proof of unpreparedness for future blessedness.

Secondly. The rulers are to be contended with, if they are found guilty of profaning the Sabbath, because their reformation may be expected to have a great and extensive influence in arresting the progress of this moral pestilence. As their bad example in this thing has an uncommonly pernicious influence, so their good example is, in an eminent degree, useful. If the rulers of a nation do no more than to exhibit a uniform example of the observance of the Lord's day, they do much good: but when we consider what a favourable opportunity they possess, by being entrusted either with legislative or executive power, to counteract the profanation of holy time, how important that in this matter both their principles and practice should be correct. If the heads of the nation can be reformed, there is every reason to hope, that the reformation will extend, and soon become universal.

[To be concluded.]

BIBLE AGENTS.-At a late meeting of the Chelsea (Eng.) Bible Association, one of the Secretaries of the Parent Society stated that 400 ladies of rank, and 32,000 other females, were at present collectors for Bibles, and that their visits to the poor average 500,000 during the year.

EXTRACTS FROM AN EXPOSTULATORY ADDRESS To the Methodists in Ireland, and a Vindication of the same, by John Walker, late Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin.

The principal concern of many among you has long appeared to be, about the increase of your own body. Numbers-numbers to be added to your Society-that has seemed to be their great object; short of which nothing satisfies them; and with which, and a strict adherence to the discipline of Methodism, they are, indeed, easily satisfied without any thing else. Hence when they deal with a person under the influence of divine grace, no evidence of its reality can content them, till he become a Methodist. Hence their representations to him, that he can never be completely right till he join in their class meeting. Hence their industrious arts to blacken in his view other Christians, to connexion with whom he may seem disposed. Hence their endeavours to entangle his conscience, by insinuating that his indisposition to become a Methodist arises from worldly fear or shame,-from aversion to the reproach of the Cross of Christ; as if that reproach were exclusively attached to their society. Hence the manifestations of affectionate attention and solicitude which are heaped upon him, while any hope remains of attaching him to their body. Hence the indifference and uncharit able surmises which succeed, as soon as that hope is done away.

But the moment any one,-however little acquainted with himself or with God, with the law or with the gospel,-gives in his name to the Society, how easily are they satisfied! Immediately he is considered as in the way of salvation; and if he only continue to speak the language, and observe the forms of Methodism, all is well.

I pass to another evil among you, closely connected with the former; and that is an idolatrous attachment to men, and submission to human authority, in matters of religion. I conceive some of you already startled, lest I should touch the reputation of Wesley or of Fletcher. Brethren, to them it is of little consequence what you or I think of them. But it is of the utmost consequence to you to remember that divine rule, " call no man master or Father, upon earth: for one is your master, even Christ-one is your Father which is in Heaven." I do think that the Methodist society has awfully forgotten this rule; and under the mask of following these men as they followed Christ, has set them up in the place of Christ, implicitly adopting their sentiments, and regulating its faith and practice by theirs. The more any of you are shocked or offended at this observation, as derogatory to their character, the more is the justice of the observation evinced. Even though they were less deeply erroneous than I think they were, yet it would be surprising if men who had written so much, and done so much, had not erred. But will Methodists, in general, bear the idea of imputing error to