xiv. 12, the fourteenth day of the month is called the first day of unleavened bread, which it could not be if it ended at sunset. The passover was to be eaten in the evening of the fourteenth day of the month. And no leavened bread was to be eaten afterwards for seven days Ex. xii. 15, 18 The fifteenth day was therefore properly the first day of unleavened bread, Lev. xxiii. 6. Numb. xxviii. 17. But as they began to eat unleavened bread after, or with the passover, Ex. xii. 8, that evening, if the fifteenth day did not begin till midnight, was a part of the fourteenth day. Hence the fourteenth day might be called the first day of unleavened bread. But if the fourteenth day, on the evening of which the passover was eaten, ended at sunset, it could not with any propriety be called the first day of unleavened bread, because unleavened bread was not eaten until the beginning of the fifteenth day. And yet Matthew and Mark both call the fourteenth day, the first day of unleavened bread. As therefore unleavened bread was first eaten in the evening following the fourteenth day, they manifestly reckoned that evening as belonging to the fourteenth day. Luke says it was the day "in which the passover must be killed." But as it was killed in the evening, it was not in that day if it ended at

sunset.

4. The account of the burial of Christ furnishes evidence that the Sabbath did not begin at sunset. It was in the evening when his body was put in the tomb. For "the evening was come when Joseph went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus." The evening here could not mean the first evening which began at noon, but the second, which began at sunset. For 1. Jesus had been rada, a long time dead, though he did not expire till after three o'clock, Mark xv. 44. That this is the meaning of raha, παλαι,

see Matt. xi. 21, Luke x. 13, 2 Pet. ii. 3. 2. The expression, "when the even was come,' Matt. xxvii. 57, and Mark xv. 42, in other places means at or after sunset, Matt. vii, 15, compared with Mark i. 32. Matt. xx. 8, ix. 12. Matt. xxvi. 20, compared with Deut. xvi. 6, and John vi. 16, 17. 3. The evening generally means at or after sunset. Josh. x. 26, 27. 2 Chron. xviii. 34. Ezek. xii. 7. Ps. civ. 23. 4. Those who hold that the Sabbath begins at sunset, say that in Gen. i. 5, Lev. xxiii. 32, Matt. viii. 19, and Mark i. 32, the evening means sunset. 5. If the expression, "when the even was come,' does not mean the second evening or sunset, no one can tell what it does mean, or what time had come.

It is therefore manifest, that it was sunset when Joseph "took the body of Jesus." And then he and Nicodemus, having "a mixture of myrrh and aloes about an hundred pounds weight," embalmed the body" as the manner of the Jews was to bury," John xix. 39, 40; which must have taken a considerable time. And as it was full moon, it was sufficiently light to do all they did, without inconvenience. And after the body was put in the tomb" the women which came with him from Galilee and beheld how the body was laid, returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Can any believe that it was not after sunset when they had prepared their spices and ointments? And yet, after they had done this, they "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment,' which required

that no work should be done on the Sabbath. And therefore the Sabbath did not begin at sunset. And if it had begun at sunset, Christ's prediction must have failed that he should be three days and three nights or a part of three days (according to the Jews' man

Often they cannot get their work out of the way by sunset. When on a journey, they may not be able to get home by that time. When getting in their hay and grain, they may be hindered by showers and otherwise so as to be detained at work till after sunset, and thus obliged to encroach upon the Sabbath if it begin at sunset. And there is so much to be done in families to prepare for the Sabbath, that when they profess to keep Saturday evening, they are apt to tresspass upon what they consider as holy time. And after they have been hurrying to get their work done, and their bodies are fatigued, and their minds filled with worldly cares, from which it is difficult immediately to disengage their attention, they will be poorly prepared to enter upon the sacred duties of the Sabbath. But if the Sabbath does not begin till midnight, people will have time to get their business out of the way, to banish worldly cares, to compose their minds, and prepare for "the solemn day." And their bodies and spirits, being refreshed by the repose of the night, they will be better fitted to enter upon the holy duties of the Sabbath. And in the evening of the Sabbath they will be more likely to reflect upon what they have heard and read, and to derive benefit from it, than if they felt that the Sabbath was ended, and they were at liberty to think and talk about, and attend to the world. Such a persuasion has a tendency to divert the attention from serious things, and to permit "the cares of the world to choke the word," and make it "unfruitful." And where Sabbath evening is not considered as holy time, young people and others, being already dressed in their best, will find it a very convenient time for visiting and amusement, where the conversation and employment will be such as will be directly calculated to divert the attention from the

solemn truths, which they have heard during the day, and to banish all serious reflection. If then, "the Sabbath was made for man," for his benefit, it is rational to conclude that that evening would be appointed to be kept, which would be most convenient, and conducive to his spiritual interest and improvement. And now will not these considerations, and these numerous texts, adduced in favor of keeping Sabbath evening, outweigh, in the view of a candid mind, the three passages supposed to favour the keeping of Saturday evening? Two of these are in the Old Testament, and only one in the New, recorded by different evangelists, and not one after the institution of the Christian Sabbath. But as God reckons the evening succeeding the day as belonging to the day, and as the apostles observed that evening, if others are not satisfied that it belongs to the Sabbath, it fully satisfies the mind of MINIMUS.

WE cheerfully give the following inofficial review a place among our Religious Communications. It is in itself an acceptable miscellany, while its main object seems to be, to do justice to the memory of an injured name. What the unpleasant "circumstances" were, to which the writer, in the course of his remarks, takes occasion to allude, we have no distinct information; nor do we know what grounds might or might not have existence, to both he and the biographer of Doctor justify the evil surmises" of which Parish complain, as so injurious to their deceased friend. It is a history with which we neither are, nor are solici tous to be, acquainted; and therefore we can have neither prejudice nor prepossession respecting it. But we cannot help expressing our surprise, that the author of such discourses as the Remarker introduces to our notice, should ever have fallen under "the

suspicion of being a Unitarian." Indeed, had he merited this name, he had certainly deserved a worse one;

for the man who could leave behind him, prepared for publication with his own hand, sentiments so opposite to his real faith as the doctrines contained in these sermons are opposite to Unitarianism, is something more than a common errorist-he is a death-bed hypocrite, and a posthumous dissembler. If suspicion then be groundless, how deep is the wound which is thus causelessly inflicted.

An earnest zeal for the truth and a wakeful jealousy of error, in the church, are doubtless very desirable. They are necessary watchmen on the walls of Zion. They indicate a healthy tone of feeling in the religious community. But when this godly jealousy becomes bereft of candour, and gets the better of Christian charity; when it suffers itself to degenerate into mere suspicion, individiously or heedlessly scattering ambiguous voices to the injury of worthy names, and spreading the blight of prejudice over the field of a public man's usefulness-then it becomes a spirit worthy of the severest reprehension.

We can conceive of no situation more embarrassing than that of a public man who has conspicuously fallen under the theological jealousies of the times. Some one has whispered a suspicion that he secretly favors this or that heresy. The whisper becomes a rumor and the rumor runs through the land-travelling faster than contradiction can follow after, and spreading its mists farther than the fullest refutation can ever come to dissipate them. In the mean time, the subject of suspicion is going on in the quiet discharge of his duties, having never heard perhaps, or having heard with a smile, of his defection from the faith. All eyes are towards him. Is he a theological professor? The citation of an unorthodox expositor, the relinquishment of an untenable dogma, the adoption of a novel phraseology, the accommodation of a statement in theology to the improved philosophy of the age-these are "confirmations strong" that the man is indeed far gone in heresy. Is he a parish minister? His regard to the common courtesies of life, in his intercourse with the unsound of faith who are his neighbors, nay his very freedom from bigotry, his Christian candor, are dark signs against him. The mischief is less extensive than in

the former case, but not less unhappy for the subject of it. He is surprised to see that his brethren begin to assume a strange reserve towards him; his affectionate parishioners, even his own begotten in the gospel, stand apart and wear a doubtful look, and he perceives at length with grief that his reputation, his usefulness, and his peace of mind, are, for a time at least, at an end.

These ohservations might profitably be extended into a lengthened essay on the importance of Christian candor in an age like the present, but they would be out of place here. We will only remark further that if an uncommon boldness or prevalence of error calls for a more than ordinary vigilance in the defence of the faith once delivered to the saints, it also peculiarly demands the exercise of that charity which thinketh no evil.

REMARKS ON PARISH'S SERMONS.*

WHEN a person takes up a book, almost the first inquiry is, by whom and for what purpose has it been prepared for the public. And this is by no means an unimportant inquiry, for the character of the author, and the motive of his publishing, are a necessary glossary to the words and phrases which are used in the book. An elderly and very respectable divine was, with myself, present at the delivery of a discourse by one of reputed liberal sentiments. After retiring from the house of worship, he observed that he long had his fears of such a one, but could never have supposed he had so far gone off from the truth as he now perceives him to have done. I asked him to what he objected in the discourse--whether there was any word or sentence which he would hesitate himself to

use.

Upon reflection, "No," he replied, "but words in the mouth

*Sermons, Practical and Doctrinal, by the late ELIJAH PARISH, D.D., with a Biographical Sketch of the Author. Boston. Crocker & Brewster. 1826.