as given at the creation. It is thus easily accounted for why certain Jewish authors claim the Sabbath as peculiar to their nation, although it had really been in existence from the beginning of the world; but on the supposition that the Sabbath had no existence whatever until it was given to the Jews, and that it was then originated as one of the peculiarities of Judaism, to be of no greater extent in its obligation and duration than the system of which it formed a part; allowing, for the sake of argument, that this was as notorious as some in these. later ages have imagined, no reason can be assigned why any of the early respectable Jewish writers should ever have thought of such a thing as the universal obligation of the Sabbath. It cannot be divined why the learned Philo, for instance, when treating expressly on the creation of the world, should maintain that the Sabbath is 'a feast, not of one city, or country, but of the whole world;' that it is 'the world's birthday,' and the festival of all people.' Such arguing as this is altogether inexplicable, on the supposition of its being undoubted matter of fact that the Sabbath received its first institution in the desert, and was intended for the Jews only. It can only be explained on the principle, that while other writers, and themselves too perhaps at other times, speak of the peculiar character of the Sabbath among themselves, and claim it under that character as exclusively their own, they are, on the occasions referred to, maintaining the understood fact that the Sabbath itself had an earlier origin than the founding of their nation; and that, in its original form, it was given to all mankind. The evidence of the Jewish writers is thus decidedly in favor of the early institution and universal obligation of the Sabbath.

Adverting to the New Testament, the question of the early appointment of the Sabbath is involved in the general argument of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews; the whole of the apostle's reasoning in that chapter being founded on the principle that the Sabbath was instituted at the creation, It is not, however, necessary to pursue the inquiry farther. The rules of sound criticism imperatively require us to adopt the conclusion that the narrative in the second chapter of Genesis represents the Creator as appointing the Sabbath immediately on resting from His work, and this conclusion will receive additional confirmation in the successive stages of the inquiry.

The reappointment of the Sabbath under the Jewish Dispensation.

The first recognition of the Sabbath which we meet with in the history of the Jews, is when God marked out the sacred day by the regulated falling of the manna, Exod. xvi. Now, according to those who regard the Sabbath as peculiar to the Jews, this was its first institution. But the narrative itself affords evidence to the contrary. Two things are always to be looked for in the formal appointment of a new religious ordinance ;- -an announcement of the reason for which it is given, and directions as to the manner in which it shall be observed. God had already given to the Jews two new institutions,-circumcision, Gen. xvii, and the passover, Exod. xii; and whoever examines the sacred record respecting them, will find those two particulars clearly and fully stated. The rite of circumcision is said to be VOL. IV.-October, 1833. 33

ence.

given for a seal, or confirmation, of the covenant which God made with Abraham; and the reason assigned for the institution of the passover is, that it might serve as a memorial of the preservation of the Jews, when God destroyed the first born of Egypt; and in both cases there is a very full and particular description of the manner in which the two ordinances are to be observed. After the reader has carefully examined the account of those two new institutions, let him turn to the narrative respecting the falling of the manna, and mark the differInstead of that express announcement of the reason for which the Sabbath was given, and that detailed account of the manner of its observance, which the former narratives would lead him to look for in a new institution, he will find an entire silence maintained on those two important points; and the only conclusion to which he can fairly come, from a consideration of this silence, and the familiar manner in which the Sabbath is spoken of, is, that the Sabbath was not then first given, but that it was an old and known institution, which God was pleased thus to recognize and honor, for the purpose of impressing it afresh on the minds of the Israelites. We may gather enough from their history to convince us, that they needed something impressive to. lead them back to a proper observation of the Sabbath. The Prophet Ezekiel charges the Israelites with having been guilty of idolatry while they were in Egypt, Ezek. xx. The Sabbath had, no doubt, then been neglected by them, while they forgot that God, whose institution the Sabbath is. And, had we no notice of their idolatry in Egypt, we might have concluded that their tyrannical masters there had not allowed them to observe the Sabbath with any thing like regularity. There existed, then, a necessity for some such striking admonition respecting the Sabbath as the Jews received on the falling of the

manna.

But this was not the only recognition of the Sabbath under the Jewish dispensation. It was, moreover, formally reappointed on Sinai. The terms in which the fourth commandment is expressed clearly show that it is the re-enactment of an old law. 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day,' is language which supposes that the Sabbath,' and what is meant by keeping it holy,' were already known.. The question, then, for consideration is,-Of what law is the fourth commandment a re-enactment? The very terms employed to express the reason why it should be observed, refer us to the account in the commencement of Genesis, and show that it was the original law of the Sabbath at the creation, which was re-enacted and explained on Sinai.

The two additional passages which are adduced in support of the opinion that the Sabbath received its first institution among the Jews must, however, be noticed. The former of those passages is contained in the ninth chapter of Nehemiah:-Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant : and gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst,' &c. This passage

has been interpreted as speaking of the first appointment of the Sabbath on the falling of the manna, a sense which it can never be made consistently to bear. The precepts, statutes, and laws, here enumerated, were all given, not at the time of the manna, but when God came down on Sinai. The 'making known' of the Sabbath must then be referred to the same period, and not to the following verse where mention is made of the manna. This passage thus renders no support whatever to the opinion in behalf of which it has been brought forward. As Sinai is spoken of as the place where the Sabbath was made known,' its first appointment cannot be intended; for all parties are agreed that it existed previously to the transactions of Sinai. The second passage which is quoted is from Ezekiel, xx, 10, 11, 12 :— "Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them,' &c. But this affords nothing like proof that the Sabbath was first instituted among the Israelites. It is to be remarked that the number is changed by the prophet. He does not, like Nehemiah, speak of the Sabbath,' but of the Sabbaths,' which God had given them. Now the Jews had other Sabbaths beside the seventhday Sabbath. They had their Sabbath of weeks, and Sabbath of years; and their great festivals, in general, were denominated • Sabbaths.' By his using the plural number it is fair then to conclude, that the prophet alludes to those Sabbaths; and this conclusion is confirmed by the consideration, that he connects with them the other 'statutes' and judgments' by which God distinguished the Jewish people from the rest of mankind. All these institutions were really given in the wilderness; and, supposing that the prophet, in speaking of the whole, does include the seventh-day Sabbath with the others, it was natural for him to adopt a common figure of speech, and speak of them all as given at one time. Unless his argument had rendered it necessary, it was not to be expected that he would introduce an additional clause to except one solitary institution. There is, however, another important particular to be noticed. The prophet is not so much speaking of the time when the Sabbaths in question were instituted, as of the purpose they were intended to answer. He represents Jehovah as saying, that he gave the Israelites his Sabbaths' to be a sign' between him and them. But when God is found giving a sign,' it is not necessary to be understood that the sign is a something which had no previous exist. ence. After the deluge the rainbow was given as a sign; but had the rainbow never been seen before that time? The philosopher would tell us, that although the rainbow was not constituted a sign between the Almighty and his creatures previous to the deluge, yet, as a common natural phenomenon, it must have been known before. Had, then, the prophet been speaking exclusively of the seventh-day Sabbath, given as a sign to the Israelites, nothing could have been deduced from such declaration in proof that the Sabbath itself was not an old institution. This passage, when fairly understood, does not, any more than the former, afford a single tittle of evidence in favor of the opinion that the Sabbath received its first institution among the Jews.

6

The examination of the sacred record, relative to the enforcing of the Sabbath on the Jews, thus leads to a conclusion agreeing with, and confirming, the result of our former inquiry. In the first instance, it was found that the Sabbath was appointed immediately after the creation; and it is now seen, as might be expected, that its establishment among the Jews was nothing more than a reappointment of the ancient institution.

Before, however, we proceed to the question relative to the confirmation of the Sabbath by the Gospel, it will be proper to subject the institution to a calm investigation, in order to impress our minds with the reasons, which such examination affords, for presuming that its Divine Author intended it to remain after the Jewish dispensation should be no more; and also to inquire, what was that character of peculiarity which, as has been already assumed, the ancient institution had impressed on it among the Jews, which character was designed to pass away from it with Judaism itself.

That the original institution of the Sabbath was intended to be perpetual, may be argued from the fact, that there is no appearance of peculiarity discoverable in the ends which it was appointed to answer.

1. The Sabbath exhibits a kind of independence of character, which marks it out as a universal institution. It was not a part of that typical system by which Christ and His atonement were shadowed forth, and came to an end when the great antitype, the Saviour, appeared in our world. Now this system also prevailed, in part, from the earliest ages. Animal sacrifice-the typical representation of that sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross-obtained under the patriarchal dispensation, as well as the Jewish; and had it been the case that the Sabbath was a part of that system, which had thus, from remote antiquity, adumbrated Christ and His redeeming work, the supposition would have been natural, that the institution was intended to expire with the system itself. But as the Sabbath was an independent provision, given while man was as yet an unfallen creature, before the preparatory system in question was introduced, or even needed, there is not a shadow of reason for the opinion that they were both designed to terminate together.

2. The Sabbath was instituted as a memorial of the creation; and what peculiarity do we discover in it, viewed under that aspect, which could render it more suitable for one nation than another? The creation is an event as truly interesting to the whole human family as to any one part of it; and not the slightest reason can be assigned why the Sabbath should be appointed to commemorate the creation during the antediluvian ages, and among the postdiluvian generations to the end of the Jewish polity, and should then expire. No cause can be assigned why such a memorial of the creation, as the Sabbath, should not be as necessary after the introduction of the Gospel, as it was during the first four thousand years of the world's existence. So far as the apparent reasonableness of the question is concerned, it might safely be concluded, that if any portion of mankind needed, more than another, a formal memorial of the creation, it would be that generation farthest removed, in point of time, from the event itself. While the creation was yet comparatively recent, the due commemoration of it might

surely have been entrusted to the memory alone, with greater safety than it could be in later ages.

3. The Sabbath was instituted for devotional purposes; but vain is the endeavor to find any peculiarity in it, regarded under this view. If God claimed, from both patriarch and Jew, one day in seven for Himself, why should He have less right to it from the Christian? If personal religion, if man's spiritual and eternal interests, previously required one day in seven for their due cultivation, why should less time be sufficient after the Christian epoch? Was it a part of the Divine plan, that religion should become a less momentous subject under the Gospel dispensation, or did the Divine mind foresee that man would then be found more naturally devotional? Unless these questions can be answered in the affirmative, no reason appears why we should conclude that the Sabbath, as a day of devotion, was designed to come to an end with the Jewish economy.

4. The Sabbath was appointed as a day of rest. But why this merciful provision for both man and beast should be requisite for four thousand years, and then all at once become unnecessary, it is indeed ' difficult to divine. Unless it can be proved that after the Jewish ages, the physical nature of man and beast was strengthened, so as to make them capable of unremitting toil, no reason can be shown why we are to suppose that the Sabbath, as a day of rest, was ordained to end with the Jewish economy. Observation, however, makes it apparent, that man's physical nature needs now, as much as ever it did, such a kind provision as the Sabbath. Dr. Farre, in his recent evidence before the parliamentary committee, placed this part of the Sabbatic question in a very interesting and impressive light-I have been in the habit,' he observed, during a great many years, of considering the uses of the Sabbath, and of observing its abuses. The abuses are chiefly manifested in labor and dissipation. The use, medically speaking, is that of a day of rest. In a theological sense it is a holy rest, providing for the introduction of new and sublimer ideas into the mind of man, preparing him for his future state. As a day of rest, I view it as a day of compensation for the inadequate restorative power of the body under continued labor and excitement. A physician always has respect to the preservation of the restorative power, because if once this be lost, his healing office is at an end. If I show you, from the physiological view of the question, that there are provisions in the laws of nature which correspond with the Divine commandment, you will see from the analogy, that "the Sabbath was made for man," as a necessary appointment. A physician is anxious to preserve the balance of circulation, as necessary to the restorative power of the body. The ordinary exertions of man run down the circulation every day of his life; and the first general law of nature by which God (who is not only the giver, but also the preserver and sustainer of life,) prevents man from destroying himself, is the alternating of day with night, that repose may succeed action. But although the night apparently equalizes the circulation well, yet it does not sufficiently restore its balance for the attainment of a long life. Hence one day in seven, by the bounty of Providence, is thrown in as a day of compensation, to perfect, by its repose, the animal system. You may easily determine this question, as a mat