the peculiar Sabbath of the Jews, but all to the original decree of God to the foundation of the world, and to God's rest from the works of creation. The conclusion which might have been perhaps expected at the end of the 4th verse, "therefore God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it," is omitted in the writer's concise elliptical style, as well known to his readers, who were Jewish converts. If this commentary on the passage in Genesis be not deemed satisfactory in destroying all notion of a prolepsis, I have nothing more to offer, since after it every thing must be of inferior weight and authority. I proceed therefore to my second proposition.

SECT. II.

If to keep holy the seventh day be a law which is obligatory on all mankind, how, it is asked, could that law ever have been a peculiar sign between God and the Israelites? "Verily (says the Almighty by Moses) my Sabbaths shall ye keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." Exod. xxx. 13. And again, "The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, and observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant." v. 16. But what particular distinction could that give to the Israelites which was common to the whole world? The answer to this is-that it was not the mere keeping holy a seventh day, as in times past, which distinguished the people of Israel, but the peculiar manner in which they kept it holy; for every species of labor on that day was prohibited under the penalty of death. Bear in mind then the true meaning and definition of the Sabbath, and you will find it in the strictest sense of the word a sign.

Moreover, in the very institution of this Sabbath we may remark how clearly the lawgiver refers to two distinct ordinances. In the first notice of a Sabbath no reference whatever is made to any peculiar rites, but simply to the Lord's rest; and again at its solemn insertion into the Decalogue, as I have before observed, the people are reminded of the antiquity of that primitive ordinance which gave birth to the new institution. But at the rehearsal of the law, their deliverance from Egyptian bondage is given as a reason for that strict Sabbatical rest, which was thenceforth to continue a sign and covenant between God and themselves, until that great Deliverer should arise, who would free them from the burthen of ceremonial rites. As we cannot suppose any contra

1 Deut. v. 15.

diction to exist in these two statements of the inspired lawgiver, so neither will there be any ambiguity, if we keep in view that distinction which is to be made between the two ordinances, as well as the situation of the Jews themselves. They were to keep the seventh day holy, as it were, under a double injunction. As a portion of mankind they were to hold it sanctified in memory of God's resting from his work, and in obedience to his primeval command: as God's peculiar people they were to keep it as a Sabbath, or sign, by which they recognised his mercy in their temporal deliverance, and his covenant to grant them a future and more excellent rest. That this idea was also entertained by the best informed of the Jews themselves, we may gather from the writings of Philo and Josephus, who sometimes refer the sanctification of a seventh day to the creation of the world, and at other times confine it to the Jewish ordinance. I cannot therefore but dissent from those persons, who, in advocating the same side of the question with myself, endeavor to account for the Sabbatical sign by analogies drawn from the rainbow, or from the rites of circumcision and family marriages; the first of which existed as a natural phenomenon, and the two last as rites, before they were converted into signs and covenants. The case of the Sabbath is not at all analogous to the one, nor strictly so to the others; for these received no change or addition, like it; and the comparison serves perhaps to confound the Jewish ordinance with the original patriarchal institution, instead of preserving that peculiar definition of the Sabbath which is necessary for our argument. So far indeed the two last-mentioned cases may be usefully introduced, as they show that all the ordinances of the Mosaical law were not new ones. These rites existed long before the giving of the law, and were by Moses adopted into it. The Sabbath also was adopted by him, but it was also adapted to the peculiar circumstances of his nation.

SECT. III.

I now come to the third proposition, which is generally considered to contain the greatest difficulties: the principal part of these however will be removed, as I think, by placing the original ordinance of a seventh day's sanctification on a firm and sure foun dation. If this ordinance be coeval with the creation of the world, addressed to, and obligatory on all mankind, its relation to all mankind cannot be altered either when it is adopted into the Levitical code under certain modifications, or when those modifications are afterwards abrogated. To do away with the universality of the original command, you must show where it has been repealed: but

this is by no means shown when you cite St. Paul as reckoning the Sabbath days amongst the other ceremonial ordinances abolished by Christ. When the Apostle speaks thus, he means only that which was ceremonial or political, and therefore strictly Jewish, in the institution; all that related to their delivery from Egyptian bondage, and to their separation from the rest of mankind, by the ceremonial law of Moses. That law was strictly one of separation. The gospel, on the contrary, is a comprehensive scheme which opens the arms of God's mercy to the Jew and the Gentile alike, if they obey its laws. It becomes us therefore to consider the nature of these laws.

The laws of the gospel then are, 1, those which it promulgates as peculiarly its own; 2, those which it adopts from the original moral laws or positive ordinances of the Creator. Now it may be said that all of these latter are recognised by the gospel, even in its silence respecting them; yet whenever doubts are raised concerning the actual existence of an ordinance in the Old Testament, it is very satisfactory to find those doubts removed by the special adoption of that ordinance in the New Testament. Apply this to the case in question. I assert that God originally sanctified the seventh day, or set it apart to be kept holy by all to whom the knowlege of his word should come, in memory of his sacred rest. You deny this position, and assert that the institution of the Sabbath in the wilderness was the first separation of a seventh day, to be kept holy by the Israelites only, as a sign between them and their Deliverer. In the mean time both of us acknowlege that the ceremonial law was but a shadow of good things to come, and that its ordinances, amongst which the Sabbath is reckoned, were abolished by the manifestation of the Messiah. This being the case, if it be shown that the custom of keeping holy a seventh day was continued without any interruption under the Christian dispensation, and sanctioned by its highest authority, is it not at the same time proved that the original institution was revived, or rather continued in the spirit of the gospel? The rite is evidently not the Jewish one, for that was declared to be abolished; neither is it entirely a Christian one, or else it would have been so specified either by Christ or his disciples. But that it was adopted into the Christian scheme there is abundant evidence. On the very day that our Saviour rose from the grave his disciples were met together, and Jesus appeared in the midst of them. On the same day in the following week, i. e. the first, (or after eight days, as it is expressed in the gospel) they were also met together in conclave, when Jesus took that opportunity of again appearing to them, and convincing Thomas of his personal identity. After his ascension, on the same day of the week, the Holy Ghost descended visibly VOL. XXVII. Pam. NO. LIII.

on them, and endowed them with the miraculous gift of tongues. That the custom of assembling together on this day continued thenceforth in the Church, we have the testimony of St. Paul; who, in the 16th chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians, advises each person to bring in his offering or alms on the first day of the week: we have also that of St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (chap. xx. 6), who confirms the opinion that it was customary to meet on that day for the purpose of religious worship, for expounding the Scriptures, and for breaking of bread, i. e. partaking of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. That the custom continued in full vigor throughout the Apostolic age, we feel assured by the remarkable expression of St. John, who, in his book of Revelations, calls this day the Lord's day, from the notoriety of its ordinance, and the veneration in which it was held. That the same was religiously kept up in succeeding generations we have a host of witnesses, whose testimonies, as they have been collected by many writers, need not be repeated here: it will be sufficient to state that Justin Martyr, who florished in the third century, declares that on this day, which was then called Sunday (τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ), all Christians used to assemble together from town and country, for the purpose of reading the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, hearing sermons instructive and exhortatory, offering up prayers to God, partaking of bread and wine and water, and making collections to assist their indigent brethren. There is no necessity therefore for going with you to Constantine for the origin of our Sunday ordinances, though he certainly made some regulations concerning them; for the very preamble to one of these regulations shows at least the prevalence of the Apostolic customs, although certain irregularities might have crept in by time. "Sicut indignissimum videtur, diem Solis, veneratione sui celebrem, altercantibus jurgiis et noxiis partium contentionibus occupari," &c. With respect to the change of day, from the first to the last day of the week, under the gospel scheme, if any change were made at all, (for some learned persons have thought that the change was made at the institution of the Jewish Sabbath, and the right order of the seventh day restored in the Christian scheme,) this change was made by the inspired Apostles of Christ, sanctioned by the approbation of their Lord and Master, consecrated by the descent of the Holy Ghost, and continued by the practice of the Church until its final establishment under an imperatorial edict. This, I think, is sufficient to satisfy the tenderest conscience; and here I might close my argument, if I did not think it right to give a more detailed answer to the objections which you have urged against this part of the subject.

! Vid. Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 18. and Sozom. i. 8.

"Some well-meaning persons (you observe), looking about for any thing which might aid them in support of the early prejudices of their nurseries and education, have fancied that they could find a Sabbath in the practice of the Apostles, of meeting together on the first day of the week. This question we will now examine, and see whether they, on that day, did meet, and if from these meetings a rite of such prodigious importance as the renovation of the Jewish Sabbath can be inferred." p. 25.

On this point I admit the conclusion to which you would arrive, though I deny the premises by which you would make your way to it. I willingly agree with you in referring to the prejudices of a nursery education every notion drawn from the meetings of the Apostles, concerning a renovation of the Jewish Sabbath: but I will not shelter myself under this subterfuge: let the term, "primæval institution," or any other to denote God's original ordinance of a seventh day's sanctification, staud in the place of "Jewish Sabbath," and the argument proceed. You say that "there are only three passages in the New Testament which make mention of the Apostles' being assembled on the first day of the week. The first is on the day of the resurrection," John xx. 19.

"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst of them."

"Jesus Christ is described to have risen that day before day-light in the morning; and after all the various events which in the course of the first part of that eventful day had happened to several of them, it was very natural that they should assemble together as soon as possible, to confer respecting them, and to consider what was the proper line of conduct for them to pursue. It is absurd to suppose that this assembly could be held to celebrate the rites of the religion, before the Apostles were all of them satisfied that he had risen, and that his body had not been stolen, as it is stated that some of them at first suspected."

"But it is necessary to observe, for the information of such persons as have not made the Jewish customs and antiquities their study, that the computation of time amongst the Jews was very different from ours; and it is evidently necessary to consider the words of the texts with reference to their customs, not to ours. Our day begins at or after twelve o'clock at night, theirs began at or after six o'clock in the evening. In Genesis it is said, And the evening and the morning were the first day. If the day had begun as ours does,

I am not sorry, however, to have an opportunity of quoting the passage, as a specimen of what (I repeat it) at least two thirds of your arguments turn on, viz. a confounding of the Jewish Sabbath with God's original ordinance, or with its revival in the Christian institution of the Lord's day.