Which belief receives great confirmation from the following arguments.

it

The fabbath is defcribed as a fign between God and the people of Ifrael: "Wherefore the "children of Ifrael fhall keep the fabbath, "to obferve the fabbath throughout their "generations, for a perpetual covenant; "is a fign between me and the children of Ifrael for ever." Exodus xxxi. 16, 17. Again, "And I gave them my ftatutes, and fhewed "them my judgments, which, if a man do, he "shall even live in them; moreover alfo I gave "them my fabbaths to be a fign between me and "them, that they might know that I am the "Lord that fanctify them." Ezek. xx. 12. Now it does not seem easy to understand how the fabbath could be a fign between God and the people of Ifrael, unless the obfervance of it was peculiar to that people, and designed to be so. The diftinction of the fabbath is, in its nature, as much a pofitive ceremonial inftitution, as that of many other feasons which were appointed by the levitical law to be kept holy, and to be observed by a strict reft; as the first and seventh days of unleavened bread; the feast of pentecost; the feast of tabernacles; and in the twenty-third chapter

VOL. II.

G

chapter of Exodus the fabbath and thefe are re

cited together.

If the command by which the fabbath was inftituted be binding upon Christians, it must bind as to the day, the duties, and the penalty; in none of which it is received.

The obfervation of the fabbath was not one of the articles enjoined by the Apoftles, in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, upon them, “which, "from among the Gentiles, were turned unto "God."

St. Paul evidently appears to have considered the fabbath as part of the Jewish ritual, and not binding upon Chriftians as fuch: "Let no man "therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in

refpect of an holy day, or of the new moon, "or of the fabbath days, which are a fhadow of "things to come, but the body is of Chrift." Col. ii. 16, 17.

I am aware of only two objections which can be opposed to the force of thefe arguments: one is, that the reafon affigned in the fourth commandment for hallowing the feventh day, namely, becaufe God refted on the feventh day "from the work of the creation," is a reafon which pertains to all mankind; the other, that the command, which enjoins the obfervation of

the

the fabbath, is inferted in the decalogue, of which all the other precepts and prohibitions are of moral and universal obligation.

Upon the first objection it may be remarked, that although in Exodus the commandment is founded upon God's reft from the creation, in Deuteronomy the commandment is repeated with a reference to a different event: "Six days fhalt "thou labour, and do all thy work; but the "seventh day is the fabbath of the Lord thy "God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, "nor thy fon, nor thy daughter, nor thy man"fervant, nor thy maid-fervant, nor thine ox,

66

nor thine afs, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy

ftranger that is within thy gates; that thy man"fervant and thy maid-servant may reft as well "as thou; and remember that thou waft a fer❝vant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand, and by a ftretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee

66

to keep the fabbath day." It is farther obfervable, that God's reft from the creation is propofed as the reafon of the inftitution, even where the inftitution itself is fpoken of as peculiar to the Jews" Wherefore the children of Ifrael "fhall keep the fabbath, to obferve the fabbath

throughout their generations, for a perpetual "covenant: it is a fign between me and the "children of Ifrael for ever; for in fix days the "Lord made heaven and earth, and on the "seventh day he rested and was refreshed.". The truth is, thefe different reafons were affigned to account for different circumftances in the command. If a Jew inquired, why the feventh-day was fanctified rather than the sixth or eighth, his law told him becaufe God refted on the feventhday from the creation. If he asked, why was the fame reft indulged to flaves, his law bid him remember, that he alfo was a flave in the land of Egypt; and," that the Lord his God brought "him out thence." In this view, the two reafons are perfectly compatible with each other, and with a third end of the inftitution, its being a fign between God and the people of Israel; but in this view they determine nothing concerning the extent of the obligation. If the reason by its proper energy had conftituted a natural obligation, or if it had been mentioned with a view to the extent of the obligation, we should submit to the conclufion, that all were comprehended by the command, who are concerned in the reafon. But the fabbatic reft being a duty which refults from the ordination and authority of a

pofitive

tor;

positive law, the reason can be alleged no farther than as it explains the defign of the legiflaand if it appear to be recited with an intentional application to one part of the law, it explains his design upon no other; if it be mentioned merely to account for the choice of the day, it does not explain his design as to the extent of the obligation.

With respect to the second objection, that inafmuch as the other nine commandments are confeffedly of moral and universal obligation, it may reasonably be prefumed that this is of the fame; we answer, that this argument will have lefs weight, when it is confidered, that the diftinction between positive and natural duties, like other diftinctions of modern ethics, was unknown to the fimplicity of ancient language; and that there are various paffages in fcripture, in which duties of a political or ceremonial, or positive nature, and confeffedly of partial obligation, are enumerated, and without any mark of difcrimination, along with others which are natural and univerfal. Of this the following is an inconteftable example: "But if a man be juft, and do that " which is lawful and right; and hath not eaten upon the mountains; nor hath lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; neither hath "defiled

G 3