of tradition and ceremonies, and to proclaim, not by precept only, but with the stronger voice of example, to the world at large."

Let us now proceed to some minor, but not unimportant considerations. How far the sabbath may be actually violated in this nation (taking in the whole extent of its manufactures and commerce) for the purposes of labour and gain, I am not prepared even to conjecture. I fear the wilful and needless infractions of the rule of rest are very considerable among us; and should feel, on my own account and that of my friends, no repugnance to suitable legislative provisions on the subject. A more striking and obtrusive breach is stated to occur, in the use of what is called recreation. Here again, being conversant chiefly with the northern precincts of the metropolis, I should be prepared merely to testify that, to my own observation, my countrymen were, in general, orderly Christians. On the south and west of London, I believe however there is a great deal of bustle and dissipation, giving occasion to a proportionate quantity of labour of men and horses, which might, were we disposed to be religious and Christians indeed, be dispensed with. I should be very sorry to see things, at London, as I have seen them on this day at Paris. But I remember, in conference with a leading member of the Bible Society, who was earnest for an Act to put down "Sunday Newspapers" to have told him and his friends, that if they would begin their sabbath regulations at St. James's, they might probable safely end them at St. Giles's; but not if things proceeded in an order the inverse of this. The quiet evening walk of the pent up artizan with his family in the suburbs, and even the provision, in small shops, of a few refreshments to be taken in his way, would seem to me far less inconsistent with Christian manners and the Divine ordinance, than the bringing forth of a burthensome equipage and a train of servants on a public promenade, by those who have ample opportunity for such recreation in the course of the week. The religious detriment in the former case is the shopkeeper's own: stricter persons may be scandalized, but can scarce plead an interruption. The interference of the Magistrate on this occasion may then usefully second the advice of the Minister, by preventing the sale of such commodities, during the hours in which the places of worship are most frequented, and for some short space before and after.

so much

And let me be suffered here without offence, again to plead the cause of the poor in the presence of the rich (See No. 3, Art. III.). The labourer is paid (let me say to his employer) at so much per week, or per day: If the former, the day of rest is included in the period for which he is paid; if the latter, still the price per day is such, for the six days, as to enable him to subsist also on the seventh; and, were he to labour on that day also and be paid for it, the final result would yield him no benefit at all. With never-ceasing toil, he would still earn but a subsistence for his family! The sabbath, then, is to the Labourer (as I have already styled it in the opening of my argument) a charter of repose, granted in his favour, as soon as his first parent had taken existence, by his Creator, the Judge of all. Do you wish to

deprive him of this, you who receive so many blessings at the bounteous hand of God? If you do not, but are disposed so to act towards him as you would that he should behave himself, in like circumstances, towards you, let it be seriously considered whether your practice, as far as it goes, and the influence of your example, which extends so much further, do not tend to break down that universal rule which God himself established for human society in its origin; and to violate the great Christian rule of equity, by depriving the labourer of his just privilege of a stated day of rest.

I have said nothing hitherto of the animal creation, to which also, so far as engaged in our service, this charter extends. The most merciful God hath not, however, passed over these our dumb slaves in his ordinance to the Jews, In it thou shall not do any work, thou nor thy son nor thy daughter, nor thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.' In ac knowledging the original institution, as binding also on us, shall we deprive it of this humane and considerate provision, added for the use of the Jews? No-let the sweetness of rest, and the renewal of his natural vigour, exhausted by the week's toil, be felt by the poor beast also! I have no doubt that the farmer actually prospers the better, from physical causes, in the labours of the week, by the practice, happily so universal in this island, of allowing to his horses, as well as to his servants, the repose of this day. Let not Britons then, who in so many things excel all nations, be found retrograde, now in the old age of our Empire, in a humane and rational treatment of the animals created for our use. "That mercy I to others shew-that mercy she w

to me!"

Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure and exact all your labours. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.. Is it such a fast that I have chosen-a day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? Is not this the fast that I have chosen-to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house-when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Isaih lviii. 4-7.

Thus forcibly and sternly did a noble of the realm (who prophesied) reprove the degenerate, yet still rich and proud powerful Israelites; threatening them with a total rejection of their prayers, for their hardness of heart and oppressive conduct towards those beneath them. May the serious consideration of the subject, under a sense of their obligations to Almighty God and to the country, prevail with our great men, to retrench (in what they may) the service needlessly and inconsiderately (as it seems) thrown on their inferiors on the sabbath, to the prejudice of the rights of these as Christians, if not of their morals

also; and thus make needless, in respect of the Rulers themselves, any coercive enactment in the case!

(To be continued)

ART. II.-An Incident, with reflections. 1812.

Walking in my garden under much depression of spirit, I was accosted by the family cat, a domestic on whose actions (unlike Montaigne) I had not been in the habit of bestowing much notice. The little creature intercepted my movements, and seemed by her own, as well as by a plaintive murmur, more than ordinarily desirous of attracting attention. I shall not stop to enquire, whether Puss in this instance was a physiognomist-whether, having discovered the marks of dejection evident in his countenance, she was desirous of expressing sympathy with her master; or whether, actuated by more selfish motives, she was merely indicating some present uneasiness in herself. Be this as it may, I had no sooner stooped down and caressed the affectionate creature, than she bounded away with every expression of delight. This little incident for the present diverted my melancholy, and I fell into a train of reflections which seemed sufficiently interesting to merit preservation.

By this act of kindness (thought I) which has cost me nothing, I have conferred upon an inferior a momentary pleasure; and it reflects a degree of the same on myself. Had the object of my attention been a rational fellow creature, I should have experienced in it a higher satisfaction. I should have been yet more pleased, had the boon consisted not merely in the expression of kindness or compassion, but in some more solid benefit-some portion of that which I possessed, and which the other had not-something, in short, which would be felt both at the time and afterwards. But certainly it would have afforded incomparably greater joy, to have bestowed upon him a blessing which should outlast the term of our present existence, and go with the receiver into Eternity.

How vast then, is the measure of enjoyment, in doing acts worthy of his station, to the noblest of God's works, his creature Man: and how may his beneficence, like that of the great Creator, embrace all, from the highest to the lowest of his kind! Were our hearts more free from the pressure of selfish and sensual desires, we could scarcely walk out among the works of God, and contemplate the sum of life and happiness which He has diffused throughout animated nature, without feeling our own share of this enjoyment—without rejoicing in His love, and magnifying His power! Ed.

ART. III. Scripture the Rule': Apocryphal scriptures; why they should not, and why they should be read.

From Baxter, Chap. xvii. Heads of agreement by the United Ministers in and about London, &c. "Art. 8. Of a Confession of faith. As to what appertains to soundness of judgment in matters of

faith, we esteem it sufficient that a Church acknowledge the Scripture to be the word of God [modern scribes are too ready to put' word' here with a capital] the perfect and only Rule of faith and practice and own either the doctrinal part of them, called the Articles of the Church of England,' [here is a second rule] or the Confession or Catechism, longer or shorter, compiled by the Assembly at Westminster [which are a third rule] or the [fourth rule, to-wit the] Confession agreed on at the Savoy, to be agreeable to the said RULE."

6

Why, friend Baxter, I had as lief have the perfect and only rule at once! For if the Scripture be, in all things pertaining to general understanding and practice (and taken as a whole, the several parts balancing and explaining each other) the word of God in the lower sense, and a perfect, nay the only rule, what need of a second, a third, a fourth Rule, besides-in the shape of Articles, Catechisms and Confessions of faith? Nay, what right hath any Church, after making the acknowledgment with which we began, to impose such forms on us, and require our assent and subscription to them? This is an inconsistency which seems to have escaped the notice of the Divines at Westminster; though it did not that of George Fox and his friendsGeorge Fox says in his Journal, under date 1658, Before this time the Church faith (so called) was given forth, which was said to be made at the Savoy in eleven days. I got a copy of it before it was published, and wrote an answer to it: and when their book of Church faith was sold up and down the streets, my answer to it was sold also. This displeased some of the Parliament-men so, that one of them told me, they must have me to Smithfield. I told them I was over their fires, and feared them not. Reasoning with him, I wished him to consider, Had all people been without a FAITH these sixteen hundred years, that now the priests must make them one? Did not the Apostle say, that Jesus was the author and finisher of their faith? And since Christ Jesus was the author of the Apostle's faith, of the church's faith in the primitive times, and of the martyr's faith, should not all people look unto him to be the author and finisher of their faith, and not to the priests?'

But it is not by additions only that the priests have been willing to make the rule conform to their own opinion and way. They attempted it (as early after the Reformation) by taking away from it what did not so well please them. The same persons who were busy making creeds and articles, in the hope of surpassing those of the Prelatic Establishment, took it into their heads that the Bible would be better and more perfect minus the Apocrypha, and rejected it accordingly. And they gave such reasons as the following for their conduct.

From the grounds of Nonconformity of the ministers ejected 1661: "They must consent, thirdly, to read Apocryphal Lessons in the public churches; which they would not agree to, because of such fabulous legends as Tobit and his dog, Bell and the dragon, Judith and Baruch, &c. These they found were not only to be read wholly and entirely, morning and evening [till gone through] but all of them,

also, under the title and notion of Holy Scripture. For so in the whole lump together they are styled in the order, without any note of discrimination, to make a distinction betwixt one and another. In the mean time, in the same order (as appears by the Kalendar) some books of the Sacred canon are wholly left out, and many of them mutilated and curtailed as to several Chapters. This was what they could not by any means approve of. For though they could freely own there were many valuable things in the Apocryphal books, with all their faults, yet they could not have such a degree of respect for them as to think them fit to be read in Church, in the room of the Holy scriptures.

66

They were herein confirmed by finding even the most celebrated bishops and doctors of the Church owning there were many relations inserted in them, which were false and fictitious. And they were afraid of contributing to the misleading of a great many weak and ignorant people (of which there are but too many in the nation) to fancy them of equal authority with the Holy scriptures: of which there is therefore the more danger, because in the order of reading the Lessons the title of Holy scripture and Old Testament is given to the Apocrypha."

"Mr. Hoadley (Calamy adds here, in a note) cannot see that it is unlawful to read books in the churches, in which there are many useful and excellent things, as well as some few relations suspected to be fabulous-And adds, that the Church has sufficiently distinguished between Apocryphal books and Canonical scripture: That some Canonical chapters may be improper and unintelligible; and many Apocryphal lessons are of more use and edification:-And affirms that we cannot prove any one was ever led, by the Order about reading the Lessons, to equal the Apocryphal books with the Canonical; and never knew or heard of any one instance."-Here Calamy says, “I give Mr. Hoadley an instance, of one who in the surprising storm of wind in 1703, being affected, was for reading a chapter, and fixed on one in the Apocrypha; and being reproved by a grave minister (from whom I had the passage) freely told him, that he took the Apocrypha to have been as truly the Holy Scripture, as any that was bound up in the Bible." [I am sure I would have let him read, and then go his prayers. I suppose he had been suddenly made a sort of Christian of, by that memorable and most destructive tempest-such a Christian, as that many things in the Apocrypha would have been quite good enough for him—but who probably had not had much of the help and direction (not to say reproof) of grave ministers like this, in his whole life before!]

to

"I shall only add " continues Calamy "that the reading Apocryphal lessons was contrary to the antient council of Laodicea, Canon 59, which prohibits their being read in the Church."

Non oportet legere-says the Canon: but what would the doctor have said, had the term used been the Oportet' without the Non?' I suppose he would at once have passed it over, as well as the authorities of those 'most celebrated bishops and doctors of the