"In the only subsequent passage where the first day of the week is named, 1 Cor. xvi. 2, the same gentleman has shown, that if any interference is to be drawn from the words contained in it, they go against the observance of it as a Sabbath, and imply that a man on that day was to settle his accounts of the week preceding, that he might be able to ascertain what he could lay up in store against Paul came."

Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

"How can any one see in this verse, a proof that the first day of the week was to be kept by Christians as an obligation, as a Jewish Sabbath? It is well known that at first the Christians strictly kept the Jewish Sabbath; therefore they could not make a weekly settlement of their accounts till the day after the Sabbath, which was the first."

"The texts here cited, being disposed of, it is only necessary to observe, that there is not the smallest evidence to be found, either positive or presumptive, that the Apostles or disciples of Jesus considered the first day of the week in any way whatever different from the following five."

I have extracted these copious extracts, in order that I might not run the least hazard of misquoting your words or misrepresenting your opinions. I now proceed to make some remarks upon them. In the first place then, I see no reason to agree with you in supposing that Christ appeared to his disciples on the second day of the week, contrary to the Apostle's express declaration. It being granted that Sunday began at six o'clock

C

on what we call Saturday evening, and ended at six o'clock on the next evening, what is there in the passage quoted from St. John, which authorizes you to say that Jesus appeared to his disciples after six o'clock on that latter evening? The expression is "the same day at evening;" (ovons óvías) an expression which is used by St. Matthew xiv. 15. and 23. Having undertaken to comment so learnedly on the text, you should have known that the word via had two meanings a among the Jews, by the first of which the ninth hour of the natural day, about the decline of the Sun, or 3 o'clock in the afternoon was signified, and by the latter the eleventh hour, or 5 o'clock. Without this distinction you will find it impossible to reconcile the texts of St. Matthew just quoted ",

a The sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb was required to be made between the two evenings. "See marginal reading to Exod. xii. 6. The time is accurately explained by Josephus. Οἱ δ ̓ ἐνστάσης ἑορτῆς, πάσχα καλεῖται, καθ ̓ ἣν θύουσι μὲν ἀπὸ ἐννάτης ώρας μέχρι ενδεκάτης, κ. τ. λ. De Bell. Jud. Cap. ix. Sect. 3.

b He expresses the two evenings by the same phrase, ovías yevoμévns. By this the former evening was meant at the commencement of the miracle, as we learn from St. Luke, who on the same occasion observes, "the day began to decline," Chap. ix. 12.; but the latter evening must be understood, when our Lord dismissed the multitude; for St. John who uses the same phrase "when it was evening,” adds in the next verse, "and it had been already dusk," to mark the time when the disciples embarked. Chap. vi. 16, 17.

but with it you will easily remove all difficulty both from them and from the text in question. This point being established, you will see that our Lord may easily be supposed to have appeared to his disciples on the first day of the week. But even if this point were granted to you, and it were admitted that he appeared to them after 6 o'clock, I see not what you would gain by it: at any rate his disciples had assembled together on the first day of the week (or Sunday,) and it was their Lord's re-appearance to them on the first day of the week following, (or the next Sunday,) without mention being made of any intermediate appearance, which gave his sanction to the day. But you deny that this re-appearance took place on the Sunday following, being misled by your own interpretation of the phrase "after eight days" (ueľ nμéρas óктw). This expression might perhaps be more correctly rendered "on the eighth day after" or "eight days after" including the two extreme days. It is fully explained by a comparison of St. Matthew xxvii. 63. with xvi. 21. where the Jews had not the least idea of misrepresenting the words of our Lord, when they declare that he said "After three days I will rise again," though his expression was, that "he should be killed and be raised again the third day." So the rite of circumcision is prescribed to take

place when the child is "eight days old," in Gen. xvii. 11. and "on the eighth day," in Levit. xxii. 3. Thus Jesus is said to have been circumcised, "when eight days were accomplished." (Luke ii. 21.) but John the Baptist" on the eighth day." (Luke i. 59.) Josephus uses the same phraseology, of which more instances might be selected from the New Testament: but it is not a Hebraism, as some learned persons have supposed; for it is found in the best Greek and Latin authors".

I now come to consider the passage in which you attack St. Paul. In the first place I might defy you to prove that it was the practice of the Christians to observe the day according to the Jewish manner, that is, to consider it as beginning at 6 o'clock on the preceding evening. It is much more probable that they considered the day and night as we do, without any respect to the Mosaic law. Our Lord's resurrection took place very early on what we call Sunday morning. John xx. 1. It is also certain, from John xx. 19.

a A remarkable exemplification of the usage is seen by the comparison of a passage of Theophrastus, with a corresponding one of Pliny. The former (Hist. lib. iv. c. 3.) speaking of the Egyptian Thorn says, ὅταν δὲ κοπη, μετα τρίτον ἔτος, εὐθέως αναβεβλάστηκεν, which the latter renders by-cæsa, anno tertio resurgit. N. H. xiii. 9.

that the first assembly of the disciples was on that Sunday afternoon. It is also most likely, though it cannot be proved, that the meeting of the next Sunday, as well as the vast assemblage of persons on the day of Pentecost, came together in the day-time of Sunday, not on Saturday evening. Add to this, that although the Jewish Sabbath began on Friday at even, the Sabbatical service was in the day-time of Saturday: more than all the Sunday's service is commemorative of our Saviour's resurrection from the grave. Is it not then contrary to all reason that his resurrection should be commemorated on Saturday evening, at which time it had not taken place? You see therefore how every probability is in favour of the notion that the religious assembly in Acts xx. took place on Sunday afternoon, and that St. Paul had travelled on the preceding Jewish Sabbath, whereby the transfer of the day consecrated to religious purposes, from the last to the first day of the week, appears plainly indicated. But here again I might grant your assertion "that the preaching of Paul did take place on the Saturday night, after 6 o'clock, and that the Apostle did travel on the Sunday," without any prejudice to my own argument. As far as St. Paul's preaching goes, even upon your own shewing, it proves that the disciples had met