was undeniably of a moral nature. This circumstance is mentioned as tending to corroborate the opinion already expressed, that the Sabbath is, in substance, a moral institution, and designed to be of universal influence. In proof of which sentiment, however, it will be noticed, that we principally rely on the preceding arguments, drawn from the nature of the institution, and its having been appointed at the beginning of the world.

A late theological writer, deservedly held in high estimation, has labored to show, that the command to sanctify the Sabbath, was published for the first time, in the wilderness, and was designed exclusively for the Jewish nation. With his usual frankness, he concedes, however, that, "if the divine command was actually delivered at the creation, it was addressed, no doubt, to the whole human species alike, and continues, unless repealed by subsequent revelation, binding on all, who come to the knowledge of it." (Paley's Mor. Phil. B. V. Ch. 7.)

I ask then, why any person, who reads in the second chapter of Genesis, that because God finished the work of creation in six days, he blessed and sanctified the seventh, should doubt that the command implied in these words, was actually given at the creation? Why should it be imagined, that Moses, when confessedly treating of the creation, should immediately, and without giving notice of the transition, inform us of something, which occurred two thousand and five hundred years after, and then resume the former subject? Why should it be imagined, that a writer remarkable for the simplicity of his manner, and directed by divine influence, should so confound the most distant events, as to lead, I might rather say, necessitate even an attentive reader to conclude, that they related to one and the same period? Why should it be thought credible, that the words of our text relate, not to an appointment, made at the beginning of the world, but to a consecration of the Sabbath, peculiar to the Jews, and first made known to them immediately after they had left Egypt. No one, it is presumed, would consider this, as the most natural meaning of the passage, nor

would any resort to it but from supposed necessity.* This supposed necessity rests on the two following reasons; first the strictness required in the observance of the Sabbath; and secondly, it is represented, as a sign between God and the Jewish nation.

We are first to consider the strictness required in the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. The day was to be distinguished by holy convocations, extraordinary sacrifices, and a rigid abstinence from all labor. It is even said: Whoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, shall surely be put to death. From the heavy penalty, by which this command was sanctioned, it is inferred that the command itself must have been peculiar to the Jewish nation, as it so well corresponds with that severe regimen under which they were placed.

Would you inculcate, it may be asked, that manual labor, though performed on the Sabbath, should now be punished with death? Or, is it to be believed, that a command so rigid, is universally binding?

I answer, that there is an obvious distinction to be made be tween the command itself, and the penalty, by which it was enforced. The Mosaic religion contained other laws, sanctioned by extraordinary penalties, and yet undeniably obligatory on all mankind. Violations of the seventh commandment, as well as of the fourth, were by the law of Moses punishable with death. (Lev. 20: 10.) Any son, who should curse his father or mother, was to be treated with the same serverity. (Exod. 21: 17.) Under the Christian dispensation, such a punishment would not be inflicted. Does it hence follow, that the commands to preserve chastity, and to honor parents are not of universal obligation? Again, we should not, under the Christian economy, be justified in putting to death the Persian, for adoring the Sun, nor the Indian for worshipping the Ganges.

* Capellus, though he entertains ideas of the Lord's day, similar to those of Dr. Paley, is far from denying, that the command in our text was given at the beginning. "Et hactenus quiden, donec meliora edoceamur in eorum sumus sententia qui affirmant Adamo fuisse a Deo datum hoc preceptum."-De sabbatho, p. 263.

Yet, when any of the Israelites worshipped the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, they were to die without mercy. May we hence infer that idolatry is no crime, and that none but Jews are bound to abstain from it?

It is true, indeed, that the Jewish Sabbath was very strictly to be observed. To kindle fire on that day was prohibited. We are unable to tell why such a restriction was imposed, and we are equally unable to tell why many other things were forbidden, or enjoined by the Mosaic institution. Allowing that the Sabbath, as we have endeavored to show, was appointed at the beginning of the world, and was designed to be observed by all nations, there is nothing more incredible in the supposition, that God, when enjoining it upon the Jews, should give to it a strictness, not inherent in its nature, than that he should appoint, as tests of their obedience, and by way of discipline, many observances, which were wholly of a positive kind.

The second objection is, that the Sabbath is represented to have been a sign between God and the Jewish nation. The children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever. (Exod. 31: 16, 17.) Again, them my Sabbaths to be a sign between me and the children of Israel forever. (Ezek. 20: 12.)

I gave

To this it may be answered, that the appointment of the Sabbath, as a sign between God and Israel, disproves neither the universality of its obligation, nor its moral nature. As a sign or token, that God would not deluge the earth, he set his bow in the cloud; that is, he appointed for a sign, that, which must have been, from the creation of the world, no uncommon appearance.

Further, that benevolence is a moral duty, and of universal obligation, will not be questioned. Yet our Saviour has ordained this, as the character or sign, by which his disciples shall be distinguished from the rest of mankind: By this shall all men know, that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

In addition to these objections, it may perhaps be said, that,

although the reason, on which the observance of the Sabbath is urged in the fourth commandment, is general, the reason proposed on other occasions, relates exclusively to the Israelites : The Lord brought thee up out of the land of Egypt through a mighty hand, and a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord thy God commandeth thee to keep the Sabbath day.

I reply, that this argument is useless by proving too much. The fifth commandment is unquestionably of moral and universal obligation. Yet was it urged for a reason, which had reference to the Israelites only; namely, that they might long possess the land of Canaan: Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee. The whole decalogue was enforced by a consideration peculiar to the Jews: Hear, O, Israel, I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt.

There does not appear, therefore, any reason, why we should doubt, that the words of our text were actually delivered at the creation, and continue binding on all, to whom they are made known. If, therefore, nothing further could be found on the subject, we should have solid ground to support our own belief, that under the Christian economy, a seventh part of the time is still to be consecrated. But,

Thirdly, we have distinct evidence on the subject. The apostles and first Christians treated with peculiar respect one day in seven, and on that held their holy convocations, or, in other words, their religious assemblies.

On this subject, I beg to be indulged with the liberty of quoting the words of Dr. Paley, not only on account of their great perspicuity, but likewise because his views of the Lord's day are known to be in some respects different from those, a defence of which is attempted in this discourse. "It was the first day of the week, that the disciples were assembled, when Christ appeared to them for the first time after his resurrection. '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 VOL. II. 28

This, for any thing that apthe day, have been acciden

midst of them.' (John 20: 19.) pears in the account, might, as to tal; but in the twenty-sixth verse of the same chapter, we read, that after eight days, that is, on the first day of the week following, again the disciples were within;' which second meeting on the same day of the week, looks like an appointment and design to meet on that particular day. In the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we find the same custom in the Christian church at a great distance from Jerusalem: 'And we came unto them to Troas in five days, where we abode seven days; and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.' (Acts 20: 6, 7.) The manner in which the historian mentions the disciples coming together to break bread on the first day of the week, shows, I think, that the practice by this time was familiar and established. St. Paul to the Corinthians writes thus Concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye; upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gathering when I come.' (1 Cor. 16: 1, 2.) Which direction affords a probable proof, that the first day of the week was already among the Christians both of Corinth and Galatia, distinguished from the rest by some religious application or other. At the time, when St. John wrote his book of the Revelation, the first day of the week had obtained the name of the Lord's day: 'I was in the spirit,' says he, 'on the Lord's day.' (Rev. 1: 10.) Which name, and St. John's use of it, sufficiently denote the appropriation of this day to the service of religion, and that this appropriation was perfectly known to the churches of Asia. I make no doubt, but that, by the Lord's day, was meant the first day of the week; for we find no footsteps of any distinction of days, which could entitle any other to that appellation."

After the apostles, it appears that the Christians constantly observed this day, meeting together for prayer, expounding and