with stones, and he died." As the inspired historian has not informed us either of the object which the man had in gathering sticks, or the motive which influenced him to it, it is idle to indulge in conjecture concerning the specific nature of the offence. Nor is it necessary for us to know more than that it was a breach of the sabbatical rest which it pleased the Almighty to visit with the severe, but just penalty, which he had threatened against those who violated that commandment.

It has been maintained, particularly by the Rabbins, that war is to be classed among the works prohibited on the sabbath by the Levitical statutes; but Michaelis, in opposition to this, argues with great force, that it is inconceivable how a state could subsist under such a law, as it would neither be secure against invaders, nor against the disturbers of the public peace on the sabbath; that the word "service" (ay) gives no handle for even thinking of war; that if they had held warlike operations unlawful on the sabbath, we should frequently have read in their history, of their enemies having availed themselves. of the advantage of attacking them on that day, whereas we hear of no such thing in any of their wars previous to the Babylonian captivity; and that, if an individual by the law of nature might defend himself against an assault, it would be absurd to suppose the Deity would prohibit a nation

from exercising the same right upon which life or death, liberty or slavery, depended. These reasons seem to vindicate satisfactorily the lawfulness of military operations on the sabbath; but the Jews, after their restoration from captivity in. Babylonia, construed the law so strictly, as to forbid, not only all offensive warfare, but even selfdefence on that day. In the age of the Maccabees, 1000 persons suffered themselves to be slain without making the least resistance; upon which Mattathias and his followers, foreseeing the inevitable destruction which would ensue if they acted upon this principle, came to a general determina tion to repel by force any attack that was made: upon them on the sabbath". To this determination they adhered when Jerusalem was attacked. by Pompey, who abstained from all hostilities on that day, and employed his army in carrying on: the works for a siege, to which the Jews made no opposition; and, in the opinion of Josephus, the city was captured in consequence of this stratagem. On several occasions besides these, as is shewn by Michaelis and others, the Jews acted upon the notion, that offensive war was unlawful

Michaelis, Comm. on the Laws of Moses, Art. 196.

1 Macc. ii. 39-41; Josephus, Antiq. lib. xii. cap. vi. § 2, 3. Josephus, Antiq. lib. xiv. cap. iv. § 2.; Prideaux, Connexion, lib. vi.

on the sabbath, though they appear in this, as in other instances, to have construed their law with a superstitious rigour.

*Notwithstanding the strictness of the sabbatical command, it would be unreasonable to suppose it designed to exclude works of necessity and cha rity. The Jewish code, it is acknowledged, contains no express statute relating to such works; but the former must, in the nature of things, be exempt from punishment, because devoid of criminality; and no human legislator, much less the King of kings, would, upon any occasion, forbid the performance of the other. It cannot be believed that a Being of infinite benignity would ever consider his laws violated by actions proceeding from motives of pure benevolence, and which at the same time administered to the good of a fellow-creature. The numerous exhortations in the Old Testament, to the exercise of all the kindlier dispositions, and particularly of mercy to poor, sufficiently prove how acceptable are

the

Mr. Sumner argues that, as the sabbatical enactments rendered the Israelites, in every human view, an easy prey to their enemies, no legislator, acting upon his own authority, would have endangered the state by such a law, and that this law consequently proves both the necessity and existence of a superintending Providence; (Records of Creation, chap. iii. sect. 4.) but if the law did not forbid war on the sabbath, the foundation of this reasoning will be subverted. It is at least very unstable ground.

actions of that description in the sight of God. "Blessed is he that considereth the poor :" "Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it :" "He that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he "" He that hath pity on the poor, lendeth to the Lord; and that which he hath given, He will repay him :" "The just man is he that hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment." In these, and a multitude of other passages, charity is required universally, at all seasons, without limitation; and surely the Divine Being, by whose inspiration they were uttered, could not be offended with a charitable deed, because it was performed on the sabbath day. The Jews, however, at the time of our Saviour, appear to have misconstrued the law in regard to this subject, for they accused him of profaning the sabbath, by performing miraculous cures upon it.

Ps. xli. 1. Prov. iii. 27.-xiv. 21.—xix. 17. Ezek. xviii. 7. Compare also Ps. cxii. 9. Prov. xi. 24, 25.-xiv. 31.-xxii. 9.xxviii. 27. xxix. 7. Eccles. xi. i, Isa. xxxii. 8.-lviii. 6—12.

བ་

↑ The Rabbins maintain the lawfulness of works of charity, but with certain restrictions, which, often are productive of great cruelty. (Leusden, Hebræo-Mixtus. Diss. xxxvi. § 10. p. 259.) They clearly allow works of necessity. (See Mishna, Tract. Sab. cap. xviii.; Maimonides, cap. ii. § Buxtorf, Synag. Jud. cap. xvi. p. 365.; Ikenius, Antiq. Heb, P. i. cap. xx. § 27.) Whatever may be the opinions of the Rab

23.; Leusden, ibid.

With respect to recreations, no express permission is found in the law of Moses, but that they were, at least to a certain extent, allowable, máy be inferred from several considerations. As a total abstinence from all amusement would render it a day of gloom and sadness, productive of melancholy rather than of religious comfort, no such enactment, it may be presumed, would be promulged by a benevolent Deity. It did, indeed, assume an aspect of this forbidding appearance, in consequence of the minute and scrupulous observances of the Pharisees, so strongly reprobated by our Saviour; but the law of God does not prohibit those relaxations, without which the sabbath would be more toilsome to the body, more depressing to the spirits, than the six days' labour. The design of the institution was to afford an hebdomadal respite from toil, not only to the Israelites, but to servants and strangers, that they might " be refreshed;" and something to amuse and recreate is indispensable for this purpose. In some cases the seventh day was appointed by statute to be

bins, we are assured by infallible authority, that works of necessity and eharity are allowable and right on the sabbath. Matt. xii. 1-13. Mark ii. 27. Luke xiii. 15.—xiv. 3-16. John

v. 8-18.-vii. 22.-ix. 14.

Exod. xxiii. 12.