.^ " *' *"*"■'" *«-^,, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 BV 110 .D6 1849 v. 2 
 Domville, William, 1774- 
 
 1860. 
 The Sabbath 
 
THE SABBATH. 
 
LONDON : 
 Printed by G. Barclay, Castle St. Leicester Sq. 
 
THE SABBATH 
 
 OR, 
 
 ^n |npirj 
 
 INTO THE SUPPOSED OBLIGATION OF THE 
 SABBATHS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 / 
 
 SIR WILLIAM DOMVILLE, Bart. 
 
 AUTHOR OF " THE SABBATH, OE AN EXAMINATION OF THE SIX TEXTS 
 
 COMMONLY ADDUCED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT IN PROOF 
 
 OF A CHRISTIAN SABBATH : BY A LAYMAN." 
 
 LONDON: 
 CHAPMAN AND HALL, 193 PICCADILLY. 
 
 1855. 
 
TO 
 
 ROBERT COX, Esq. 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE ABLE, ELABORATE, AND INSTRUCTIVE 
 
 TREATISE ON THE SABBATH QUESTION, 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 Sabbath Laics and Sabbath Duties, considered in relation 
 to their natural and Scriptural grounds, and to 
 the principles of religious liberty." 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The present volume realises the intention I expressed 
 at the conclusion of my former volume, — to examine 
 into the supposed obligation of the Sabbaths of the 
 Old Testament, and into the validity of the tenet 
 called the Moral Equity of the Fourth Commandment. 
 
 The two volumes comprise a Treatise on the Sab- 
 bath question in which, so far as I have been able to 
 inform myself on the subject, every topic that has any 
 essential bearing upon it has been discussed. Certain 
 I am that I have not failed to notice every such topic, 
 which I knew to have been brought forward by Sab- 
 batarians as favouring theii* views of the question, and 
 I have stated with a scrupulous regard to accuracy, 
 though of necessity but briefly, every argument which, 
 so far as I am aware, Sabbatarians have urged in 
 support of those views. 
 
 My principal object in this treatise is to prove 
 that Christians are under no religious obligation to 
 abstain from working on the Sunday. In this, how- 
 ever, I should be entirely misunderstood, if it be sup- 
 j)Osed I wish to make Sunday a working day. Far 
 otherwise. I bless the day that gives a periodical rest 
 
Vlll rilEFACE. 
 
 to the hard-working classes. It is a consolation most 
 precious to them ; and, indeed, it is scarcely less so 
 to all other classes, whose occupations oblige them to 
 give up the whole or some portion of every intervening 
 day to labour, more or less assiduous, of body or mind, 
 or perchance of both. 
 
 Again, let me not be misunderstood on a point of 
 the utmost importance. I have, I trust, succeeded 
 in proving, that the observance of Sunday, as a day of 
 assembling for public worship and religious and moral 
 instruction, is not an institution of divine appoint- 
 ment ; but I am, nevertheless, deeply impressed with 
 a conviction of the expediency and utility of its being 
 so observed. This opinion I have in my first volume 
 explicitly declared and strenuously supported.* By 
 such an observance of the Sunday the best results, 
 religious, social, and moral, are attainable, and an 
 occasional non-observance of it would not impair its 
 usefulness ; whereas, if the institution were of divine 
 appointment, every, even the slightest, neglect of it 
 would be a sin against God, and lie heavy on the 
 conscience. Wide, therefore, is the difference and 
 great the blessing to us, if Sunday observance be of 
 human origin. But whether the source from w^hich 
 it springs be human or divine, there can be no neces- 
 sity for the exclusion of recreations and anuisements 
 on the Sunday in order to render the religious ser- 
 
 * See vol. i. pp. 10.5-169, more particularly p. 169. See 
 also p. 329. 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 vices of that day profitable to piety and good morals ; 
 nor can those who contend for this exchision prove 
 its necessity either by argument or by Scripture pre- 
 cept. In the whole Bible they are able to find only 
 one text which affords them any semblance even of 
 Scripture authority for declaiming against indulging in 
 pleasurable recreation on the day of rest, the Sabbath- 
 day (Isaiah, chap. Iviii.*) ; and that text I have shown 
 to be, upon close examination, nothing to their pur- 
 pose.! 
 
 They who clamour the loudest for a day of rest to 
 the labouring classes are the very persons who at the 
 same time would deny to them on that day the enjoy- 
 ment of healthy recreation and innocent amusement, 
 thus debarring them throughout their whole lives from 
 all such enjoyment. The labourer cannot indulge in 
 it on the working days, and he must not on the day 
 of rest. Such is the discipline sought to be exercised 
 over the industrious poor, whilst the ultra-Sabba- 
 tarian who prescribes it, himself being in affluence, 
 can, if he so incline, luxuriate in all the pleasures of 
 
 * " If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing 
 thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the 
 holy of the Lord, honourable, and slialt honour him, not doing 
 thine own way?, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking 
 thine own words ; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, 
 and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, 
 and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father ; for the 
 mouth of the Lord hath spoken it" (v. 13, 14). 
 
 I In the present volume, Note B, p. 247. 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 life during six days of the week as a compensation 
 for the severe religious discipline which he imposes 
 upon himself on the seventh. 
 
 It is requisite to become acquainted with such 
 works as Dr. Stone's *' Lectures on the Institution of 
 the Sabbath," and Mr. Stewart's " Anti-Sabbatarian 
 Defenceless," referred to in the present volume,* in 
 order to form an adequate conception of the extent 
 to which the ultra-Sabbatarian school have carried 
 their notions of the duties that are absolutely indis- 
 pensable to the proper observance of their Christian 
 Sabbath. Of the benefits arising from the system 
 which they have invented with this object I say no- 
 thing, for I know of none. Of its mischiefs I could 
 say much, but shall say little. I am content to con- 
 fine myself to the mention of one only of the many 
 mischiefs which a strictly Sabbatical observance of the 
 Sunday inflicts upon the community ; it is one which 
 most injuriously affects the prime necessity of life, — 
 procurement of food. This is anqjly demonstrated by 
 the following statement relating to the fisheries in 
 Scotland, which I extract from one of our most emi- 
 nent public journals. It begins by giving a very 
 interesting account of a custom observed in the Edu- 
 cational Institution at Hofwyl in Switzerland, namely, 
 that of the master with his pupils, assisting on the 
 Sunday to gather in the harvest of the field, and this 
 
 '■'•' See p. '^58, and p. :2G'i. 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 as a religious duty in grateful acknowledgment of 
 God's bounty to his creatures. The writer then says, 
 " If when reading this account of a few Sundays at 
 Hofwyl we English had been told that in Scotland 
 the reapers of the harvests of the seas were and would 
 continue to be condemned to lose all that amount of 
 human subsistence in the critical season of the pass- 
 age of the herring shoals (being prohibited fishing for 
 two nights in the week, because the Sunday comes 
 between them), we should certainly have thought that 
 the piety of the case remained with the Swiss, and 
 the disobedience with the Scotch. We should then 
 have regarded, as we now regard, the compulsory 
 idleness of the fishermen, while the fish were swim- 
 ming away out of reach, immeasurably less reverent, 
 less obedient, and less grateful ; in a word, less re- 
 ligious, than a cheerful and thankful gathering of 
 what is wanted for the food of man. Cotton can be 
 spun and woven on all days ; therefore let it cease 
 on Sunday. Everything that is wrought or procured 
 without dependence on the weather, or accidents out 
 of human reach, may well be let alone on Sunday ; 
 but where the seasons are concerned, or the weather, 
 or the occurrence of passing shoals of fish, or any 
 conditions which are out of men's reach, it is, in the 
 view of reverent and wise men, anything but honour- 
 ing the Ruler of the World, and being grateful to 
 Providence, to refuse his gifts, under a superstitious 
 and degrading notion that he prefers the form to the 
 
XU PREFACE. 
 
 substance of worship. In the case of the herring- 
 fishers of the Scotch coast the evil is extreme, and, to 
 most minds, shocking, two nights in the week being 
 thus lost. The men may not fish on Saturday night 
 because it will be Sunday before they have done ; 
 and, of course, they dare not begin on the next night, 
 because it is Sunday still. They are more hardly 
 bound under the restriction which they are wrongly 
 told is the Christian law, than the Jews were and are 
 under the ritual law which Christianity w^as sent to 
 supersede. The Jews begin their Sabbath at sunset, 
 and their secular day begins at the next sunset. 
 The rule is the same in the States of New England, 
 where the Puritanism of the Pilgrim Fathers remains 
 embodied in Sunday observances. At sunset on 
 Saturday the sound of the hammer, the loom, the 
 steam-engine, suddenly stops ; the work-basket is 
 put away, the servants appear in their Sunday clothes, 
 nobody goes abroad, and all is still in the house. 
 After morning and afternoon service on Sunday, 
 there is some relaxation of the strictness, and the 
 young people walk, and the old people chat ; and 
 when the sun has set the piano is opened ; the needle 
 is plied again, the trader goes to his desk and the 
 student to his classics or poetry. We are apt to 
 think the Americans of the New England States 
 excessively strict — Connecticut with its constitution 
 taken bodily from the Pentateuch, and Rhode Island 
 bound by many provisions of the Jewish law, and 
 
PREFACE. Xm 
 
 Massachusetts teeming with traditions and practical 
 traces of the severity of the Puritan founders of the 
 state : but our Scotch herring-fishers would there 
 have more of the ' liberty with which Christ has made 
 us free ' than they have at home ; and nobody can 
 doubt that they would love their religion better ac- 
 cordingly. A church dignitary may have dishonestly 
 preached in one of our cathedrals from half a text — 
 leaving out the other half of Christ's saying (' and not 
 man for the Sabbath,') — but other people should be 
 humbler and wiser, and reverently accept the instruction 
 as it stands. Calvin did so ; and it really is much to 
 be wished that his Scotch disciples w^ould remember 
 this. Do they forget the fact, or refuse his teaching? 
 He thought it right to save the hay and the corn 
 while the sun shone, and when rain might come and 
 spoil the harvest ; and it was his own practice to play 
 at bowls for health and recreation after service on 
 Sundays. What the apostle of their sect did for 
 health and recreation, may not these poor hard-work- 
 ing fishermen do for the subsistence, not only of the 
 thousands of women and children who depend on 
 them, but for hundreds of thousands more who ought 
 to be fed by this abundance of the seas? We like 
 the old-fashioned and less superstitious piety better 
 than the new copy of the old Pharisees. 
 
 " We like the Christian freedom of our own moun- 
 tain districts, where — as in Cumloerland and West- 
 moreland — it is the established custom of the in- 
 
XIV PREFACE. 
 
 habitants of th{3 dales to attend to farm exigencies on 
 the Sunday, in tlie intervals of Avorship, and at critical 
 times to do more. From time immemorial, a ' priest' 
 (as the local term is) has been seen here and there on 
 occasion leading his people out to their fields instead 
 of into his chm'ch, telling them that their best obedi- 
 ence and gratitude is to use God's sunshine for the 
 acceptance of his bounty. We never heard of any- 
 body being shocked at this — we suppose because the 
 custom is antique, and therefore venerable. Eishing 
 might well be as sacred in men's eyes as the tillage of 
 the ground, and then there would be an end to this 
 injurious and disobedient superstition. There is a 
 reason, indeed, why the fishermen should be as in- 
 teresting in this matter as the husbandmen. Con- 
 sidering that those who stood nearest to hear the 
 rebuke given to the Sabbatarians in the Judean corn- 
 field were fishermen, it seems as if some of their liberty 
 might well be accorded to those of our time. If it be 
 not, the issue is clear enough. There will be that dese- 
 cration of Sunday which must arise from its being- 
 regarded as an injury, a burden, and a loss — an injury 
 and a burden which one class alone is called on to 
 bear, while to all other working men the Sunday is a 
 blessing and a boon. If the Scotch herring-fishers 
 break loose altogether from bonds thus harshly 
 tightened, and at length profane the Sunday which is 
 stretched to their ruin, the responsibility will rest 
 with those Avho lay on burdens too grievous to be 
 
prefacp:. XV 
 
 borne, whicli they themselves have no call to touch 
 with one of their fingers." — Daily News, Aug. 4, 1854. 
 This rejection of the blessings which Providence 
 offers to bestow* being attempted to be justitied on 
 the plea that the Sabbatical observance of Sunday is 
 commanded in Scripture, I invite the attention of the 
 reader to the following summary of Scripture facts in 
 relation to the first day of the week, the day which 
 we call Sunday : — ■ 
 
 It is not the day which the Fourth Command- 
 ment ordains to be kept holy. 
 It is not the day which God blessed and sanctified 
 
 at the creation. 
 It is not a day which God has at any time com- 
 manded to be kept holy. 
 It is not a day which Christ has commanded, or 
 which his Apostles, either by precept or ex- 
 ample, have recommended to be so kept. 
 Finally, It is not a day as to which Christ's acts 
 and disconrses after his resurrection afford any 
 proof that he designed, though he did not 
 command that it should be kept holy ; nor do 
 they afford even a presumption that he so 
 designed it, which is not repelled by some 
 other presumption of much greater force to 
 the contrary. 
 
 -.;: " What blessings thy free bounty gives 
 Lot nie not cast away." 
 
 Popk's Universal Prnyer. 
 
XVI PREFACE. 
 
 What wonder, then, that we find from the writings of 
 the Church Fathers that they, although they Uved so 
 much nearer to the Apostohc times than we do, never 
 attribute the origin of Sunday observance to the 
 teaching of Christ or his Apostles, nor appeal as an 
 authority for its observance to the Six Texts now 
 commonly adduced with that object from the Christian 
 Scriptures ? Yet such is the fact, as I have shown in 
 my Supplement to the first volume of this work ; and 
 as some, probably the greater part, of the readers of 
 that volume may not have seen its Supplement, I con- 
 clude with the following extract from it for their 
 consideration. 
 
 " Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three 
 centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance 
 either to Christ or to his Apostles. 
 
 " Far, indeed, are the writers of that period from 
 attributing any such origin to the religious observance 
 of the Sunday. It is, on the contrary, a most remark- 
 able fact, a fact which, from the negative testimony 
 borne to it by Mr. Holden's extracts, is indisputable, 
 and to which, therefore, I invite, though ineffectually 
 I fear, the serious attention of our Sabbatarian writers, 
 orators, and preachers, that none of the fathers belong- 
 ing to tlie first three centuries appeal to the Christian 
 Scriptures in proof a Christian Sabbath. Not one of 
 them asserts that Christ sanctioned its observance by 
 his appearance to the disciples in the evening follow^- 
 ing the morning of his resurrection, and again after 
 
I'KErACE. XVll 
 
 eight days ; not one appeals to the meeting of the 
 Apostles with one accord in one place on the day of 
 Pentecost, as proof of an intention on their part to 
 observe a Christian festival ; not one appeals either to 
 the text in the Acts, relating to the meeting at Troas, 
 or to that in the Corinthians, relating to the collection 
 for the saints, as a proof of St. Paul's sanction to the 
 religious observance of the first day of the week ; nor 
 does any one of them appeal to the text in the Reve- 
 lations, ' I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.' 
 How happens it that none of these appeals are made 
 by the Church Fathers of the three first centuries? 
 More especially, I ask, why is an appeal to the text 
 in the Revelations not to be found in any writing of 
 the fathers of that period ? The answer is so obvious 
 as scarcely to need stating. Either they did not 
 consider the phrase of 'the Lord's day' as meaning 
 there the first day of the week, or the phrase itself 
 was an interpolation made in some later century. 
 From the horns of this dilemma, Sabbatarians, you 
 have no escape." 
 
)Vt.n\r Of 
 
 PRIITCSTGv 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Page 
 
 Oil the Mosaic Sabbath l-iB 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Oil the Sabbath alleged to have been commanded at the 
 creation, and which will be entitled The Creation 
 Sabbath 47-165 
 
 Sec. 1. The sanctification of the seventh day. 
 
 Gen. ii. 3 47-63 
 
 Sec. 2. God's rest on the seventh day. Gen. ii. 3 64-67 
 
 Sec. 3. The text in Genesis proleptical 68-73 
 
 Sec. 4. No mention in Scripture of the obser- 
 vance of a Creation Sabbath 72-74 
 
 Sec. 5. Refutation of Sabbatarian reply that cir- 
 cumcision is not mentioned after the settle- 
 ment of the Israelites in Canaan, and the 
 Mosaic Sabbath not till 500 years after its 
 institution 75-81 
 
 Sec. 6. Examination whether Exodus, xvi. 23 
 (" To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath,") 
 is evidence of the Sabbath having been known 
 before the time of Moses 81-01 
 
 Sec. 7. Examination of alleged Scriptural allu- 
 sions to the observance of a Creation Sabbath, 
 and particularly of that which is founded on 
 the early flivision of time into weeks 02-lOS 
 
XX CONTENTS. 
 
 r.igc 
 Sec. 8. No mention in Scripture of the seventh 
 day having been accounted sacred, except in 
 reference to the Mosaic Sabbath. 
 
 Examination of alleged Heathen testimony 
 to the sacredness of the seventh day 102-113 
 
 Sec. 9. On the alleged improbability that man- 
 kind should be left for 2500 years without a 
 Sabbath Institution 114-118 
 
 Sec. 10. The Creation Sabbath a tenet of modern 
 
 date 119-148 
 
 Notes at the end of the Chapter 149-] 62 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 On The Moral Equity, which, it is alleged, arises out 
 of the Fourth Commandment, obliging Christians 
 to devote one day in every seven to God's service, 
 although the command may be in no other respect 
 obligatory upon them 163-260 
 
 Sec. 1. Statement of the Moral-Equity Tenet. 
 The tenet not supported by the Jewish or 
 Christian Scriptures 163-177 
 
 Sec. 2. Doing no work on the Sabbath-day ful- 
 fils the Commandment 177-195 
 
 Sec. 3. Sacrifice the only form of worship as a 
 religious duty in the time of Moses. The 
 whole people could not attend upon it on the 
 Sabbath-day 196-215 
 
 Sec. 4. Scripture reading and holy meditation 
 
 no duty of the Sabljath in tlie time of Moses 215-229 
 
 Sec. 5. Synagogue worship not essential to the 
 due observance of the Sabbath-day. 
 
 Concluding Remarks on the Moial Equity 
 tenet 230-243 
 
 Notes at the end of the Chapter 244-260 
 
 ArrEiN-mx 261-268 
 
MEMORANDA. 
 
 P. U)(). The whole of Note - is a quotation fn)iu "Brief 
 
 Remarks."' 
 P. 110. The quotation from Mr. Hughes' Pamphlet ends witli 
 
 ••seventh day " in line 13. 
 P. 152. line 8. io\\/irst vea.d/i.iid. 
 
OF 
 
 ^ RtCUOVlSBO 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 TAe Mosaic Sahhatli. 
 
 That the Decalogue, the fourth Comraaiidmcnt of 
 which enjoins the observance of a seventh-day Sabbath, 
 was at first intended for the use and guidance of the 
 Jews only, would be readily admitted to me ; but I 
 would rather prove the fact than take it upon ad- 
 mission, because that proof will be found to afford a 
 strong presumption that the Decalogue could never 
 have been intended for any other people than the 
 Jews, even in after times. 
 
 Let us begin by looking at the internal evidence 
 which the Decalogue itself contains upon the subject. 
 
 1. The Decalogue is addressed to the Jews, and 
 to them only ; the word thou, which pervades the 
 whole of it, meaning the Jewish people : this is clear 
 from the Pirst Commandment, where it is said, " Who 
 brought tliee out of the land of Egypt." Hence we 
 are inevitably led to the conclusion that the Deca- 
 logue, as a whole, was intended then and thereafter 
 for that people only, unless there be clear Scripture 
 proof to the contrary, which there is not. 
 
2 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 2. The Second Commandment, "Thou shalt not 
 make mi to thee any graven image," was particularly 
 applicable to the Jewish people, and was, we may be- 
 lieve, specially directed against their natural propensity 
 to idolatry, — a propensity which was never more strik- 
 ingly manifested tlian at the very time when the Ten 
 Commandments were given to them. For the narra- 
 tive tells us that whilst Moses was in the Mount to 
 receive from the hands of God the tables of stone 
 whereon was inscribed, as one of those command- 
 ments, the prohibition from making and bowing down 
 to idols, the people were engaged, and, strange as it 
 may appear, with the assistance of Aaron, in making 
 for themselves a golden calf, and had worshipped it 
 ere Moses had descended from the Mount. 
 
 Moreover, the reason assigned in this command- 
 ment for the prohibition from idol-worship, " I, the 
 Lord thy God, am a jealous God," stamps the com- 
 mandment with an impress exclusively appropriate to 
 the people to whom it was addressed. For the God 
 of Israel, although not different in his essence, was 
 very different in his attributes, from the God of the 
 Gospel dispensation. The God there proclaimed is 
 not, like the God of the Second Commandment, a jea- 
 lous God, whose very name is Jealous.* The God of 
 the Gospel dispensation does not, as does the God of 
 Israel, notice the existence of other gods. He owns 
 no rivals of whom he is jealous. He gives no com- 
 mand to destroy the idols of the Gentiles and break 
 
 * "Thou shalt worship no other God, for the Lord, whose 
 name is Jealous, is a Jealous God." (Exod. xxxiv. 14.) 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 6 
 
 down their altars. The spread of the Gospel effected 
 that object, but not by direct aggression. The Gen- 
 tiles were to be converted by the preaching of the 
 Gospel, and becoming converts to it, they, by neces- 
 sary consequence, abandoned their idols and their 
 altars, and heathen worship thus fell gradually into 
 decay, and at length ceased altogether wherever the 
 Gospel was made known.* With the Israelites the 
 case was the reverse of this. They were not to prose- 
 lyte the heathen nations to the worship of the true 
 God. They were expressly commanded to destroy 
 idols, altars, and groves ; but the command extended 
 no further. To have made converts of the heathens 
 would have been to lose their own privilege in the 
 worship of Jehovah, and to render vain his promise to 
 them that he would be especially their God ; and, 
 therefore, to maintain that the Second Command of the 
 Decalogue was, upon the promulgation of the Gospel, 
 
 =;= " And the same time there arose no small stir about that 
 Avay," [about the doctrine of Christianity, — Bishop Mann, in 
 D'Oyly and Mant's notes to their edition of the Bible.) " For 
 a certain man, named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made 
 silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the crafts- 
 men ; whom he called together with the workmen of like oc- 
 cupation, and said. Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our 
 wealth. Moreover, ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, 
 but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and 
 turned away much people, saying that they be no gods which 
 are made with hands : so that not only this our craft is in 
 danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the 
 great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence 
 should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth." 
 (Acts, xix. 23-27.) 
 
4 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 to become a part of the Christian code, is, in any con- 
 sistent view of the question, impossible. 
 
 3. The Jews held the name of the Lord their God, 
 Jehovah, in such reverence, that they never pro- 
 nounced it, but used instead of it the words Adonai 
 and Elohini;* and if, as some are of opinion, the 
 Third Commandment was a prohibition from pro- 
 nouncing the awful name of Jehovah, and not a prohi- 
 bition from false swearing,f — an opinion which is the 
 
 * " Archaeological Dictionarj^" by the Kev. T. Wilson. 
 Second edition. 1793. 
 
 f " It is well known that the version of the Pentateuch called 
 the Septuagint was anciently translated from the Hebrew into 
 the Greek language by certain Jews, either for the use of 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus, or of theii* countrymen residing at 
 Alexandria. When those persons came to the translation of the 
 word Jehovah, they found themselves in a difficulty, for it was an 
 acknowledged doctrine of their religion, never disputed by any of 
 their prophets or priests, that this name, by which God had 
 thought proper to designate himself in the third verse of the sixth 
 chapter of Exodus, ought never to be written or spoken upon any 
 occasion except the most awful and important ; and it is the use 
 or abuse of this particular name of God to which the Jews always 
 understood the command of the Decalogue to apply which we 
 render by the words, ' Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord 
 thy God in vain,' but which ought to be rendered. Thou shalt not 
 take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain. This word Jehovah 
 was inscribed on the golden plate on the forehead of the high- 
 priest when he entered the Holy of Holies, and also on his 
 breastplate ; and lest it should suffer any change, it was written 
 in the Samaritan letters, those in which the Pentateuch was 
 originally written, and from wliich it was translated into Hebrew 
 by Ezra after the captivity. In the time of St. Jerome it still 
 continued written, in many Hebrew and Greek Bibles, in the 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 more probable from the circumstance of there being 
 among the moral commandments of the Decalogue an 
 express , command against giving false testimony — 
 then the Third Commandment also must have been 
 designed exclusively for Jewish observance, it being 
 inapplicable to any other people, either when the 
 command was given or in any after time. 
 
 But even if the Third Commandment be not a 
 prohibition from pronouncing the name of Jehovah, 
 but merely a prohibition from swearing falsely by it, 
 this construction of the commandment would equally 
 bear evidence of its being applicable to the Jewish 
 people only. For the commandment so construed 
 would be, " Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name 
 of the God of Israel," the God who proclaims to the 
 people of Israel in his first Commandment, " I am 
 the Lord thy God." The Third Commandment, there- 
 fore, was designed for no other people. If we who 
 are descended from the heathens forbear from swear- 
 ing falsely by the name of the Lord our God, the 
 God of the Christian dispensation, we thereby act 
 indeed in the spirit of the Third Commandment, but 
 not in obedience to it. We invoke not the name of 
 Jehovah. 
 
 Samaritau character. When the Jews came to this word in their 
 translation, in order to avoid the profaneness of writing it lite- 
 rally, they adopted the Greek word Kv^ioi, or Lord, and thus got 
 over the difBculty. But this contrivance does not in any way 
 alter the nature of the command of the Decalogue." — Extracted 
 from paragraph 81 of "Horse Sabbaticae," a short but very 
 able treatise on the Sabbath question, by the late Godfrey 
 Higgins, Esq. 
 
6 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 4. The remind given to the Israelites in the Fourth 
 Commandment (in Deuteronomy), that they had been 
 servants in Egypt, and were on that account to keep 
 the Sabbath, is a strong indication, or rather, I ought 
 to say, a conclusive proof, that the Fourth Command- 
 ment of the Decalogue could not have been designed 
 for observance by any other people. 
 
 5. The reward promised for obedience in the Fifth 
 Commandment was applicable to the Israelites, and to 
 them only. It is, " That thy days may be prolonged, 
 and that it may go well with thee in the land which the 
 Lord thy God giveth thee." This land was Canaan. 
 
 Such internal evidence is there that the Decalogue 
 was intended solely for the use of the Jewish people. 
 Of the force of this evidence, in one of the instances 
 of it, our Church makes once a-week an ample, 
 though only an implied confession, by the voice of her 
 officiating ministers, when, in performing the Com- 
 munion Service, they proclaim from the altar^ " God 
 spake these words, and said, I am the Lord thy God; 
 thou shalt have none other gods but me." Now 
 these are not the words which God spake and said. 
 They are, " I am the Lord thy God, which have 
 brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the 
 house of bondage ; thou shalt have none other gods 
 but me." All that God thus said relating to his 
 deliverance of the people to whom he spake from the 
 yoke of their Egyptian bondage, is omitted in the 
 commandment as given out from the altar; and is so, 
 most assuredly, for this reason, and for no other, that 
 the suppressed passage relates only to the Jewish 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 7 
 
 people. Yet, this passage being a part of the words 
 which God spake, and occurring as it does in the 
 very middle of the sentence which God spake, the 
 officiating minister is by the forms of the Church 
 service made to say, in effect, that which is false. 
 True it is that God did s])eak the words Avhich the 
 minister repeats, but equally true is it that God spake 
 others also : and what, I ask, would be thought of the 
 witness who, in giving testimony to that which he heard 
 another person say, should state very faithfully a por- 
 tion of what was said, but for a purpose of his own 
 omit to state the whole of it ? Now the passage in 
 the commandment omitted by the minister, because it 
 relates only to the Jews, is omitted for the purpose of 
 turning the attention of the congregation aside for 
 the time from the inference which miglit otherwise 
 present itself to them, that the Decalogue was ad- 
 dressed to and intended for the Jews alone. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the consideration of the 
 external evidence on this point. In the Jewish Scrip- 
 tures we find the following : — 
 
 1. The Decalogue was proclaimed from Mount 
 Sinai, and by the voice of God, in the presence of 
 all the people of Israel, they having, by previous com- 
 mand, assembled before the mount to witness the 
 awful phenomena which prevailed while He spake 
 those words ; and into their custody were delivered 
 the tables of stone, which were subsequently made, 
 whereon those words were inscribed. The Decalogue 
 thus specially given to them forms a part of that great 
 
8 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 mass of statutes and judgments usually called the 
 Law, or Mosaic dispensation, as distinguished from 
 the Gospel, or Christian dispensation, by which it 
 was eventually superseded. 
 
 2. The Law was given to the Israelites, as being 
 God's chosen people. That the Israelites, or Jews, 
 as their descendants were called in after times, were a 
 peculiarly favoured, nation, a chosen people, the only 
 people whom God was pleased to dwell amongst and 
 to instruct in religious and moral duties, is an his- 
 torical fact so clearly apparent from the whole scope 
 and tenor of the books of the Old Testament, and 
 more particularly from the five books of Moses, that 
 no one who believes in those books denies it. Yet 
 it may be well to call to mind the strong and emphatic 
 language in which the Divine preference of the Jewish 
 people above all other nations is there recorded, and I 
 shall therefore transcribe, from the books of Exodus 
 and Deuteronomy, some of the most remarkable pass- 
 ages upon the subject. 
 
 In Exodus (xxix. 45), the Almighty declares him- 
 self as peculiarly the God of Israel : " I will dwell 
 amongst the children of Israel, and will be their 
 God." Nor is this declaration by the Almighty of 
 his intention to dwell amongst them to be under- 
 stood as referring to his omnipresence ; it refers to a 
 personal residence, specially vouchsafed to the children 
 of Israel, and never, at any time, to any other people 
 upon earth. "Let them make me a sanctuary, that 
 I may dwell amongst them," is the direction in 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 9 
 
 Exodus, XXV. 8 ; and accordingly a tabernacle was 
 made and set up, in an interior compartment of which 
 dwelt the God of Israel.* 
 
 In the book of Deuteronomy we find, that when 
 Moses forbids the Israelites from intermarrying with 
 other nations, he tells them, " The Lord thy God hath 
 chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above 
 all people that are upon the face of the earth" (vii. G). 
 
 Still more emphatically, and it might almost be 
 said affectionately, is the divine partiality for that 
 people testified in the nineteenth chapter of Exodus, 
 
 * Dr. Jennings, in his "Jewish Antiquities," when treating 
 of the form of government established over the Israelites after 
 their departure from Egypt, and which has since been designated 
 a Theocracy, has, in vol. i. 21, the following passage in reference 
 to the Divine presence of the God and King of Israel amongst his 
 people : — "He was their proper king, the sovereign of their body 
 politic, in which character he gave them judicial or political laws 
 relating to government and civil life. He ordered a royal palace 
 to be built .for his residence among them, I mean the taber- 
 nacle, in which he dwelt or manifested his special presence by 
 the Shechinah, as the Jews call it ; that is, by a bright cloud or 
 glory appearing over the mercy^-seat, betwixt the two cherubim in 
 the innermost room of that palace (Levit. xvi. 2), — on which 
 account he is said to dwell betwixt the cherubim (Ps. Ixxx. 1), and 
 to sit betwixt the cherubim (Ps. scix. 1)." 
 
 Here let me point attention to the remarkable fact (remark- 
 able with reference to the conclusion that the Decalogue was, as 
 it were, the peculiar property of the Jewish people), that the 
 mercy-seat, where visibly present dwelt the God and King of 
 Israel, rested on the ark of the covenant, the " covenant made with 
 Israel" (Exod. xxxiv. 27); and in that ark, by express command, 
 wei'e deposited the tables of stone inscribed with the Ten Com- 
 mandments (Exod. XXV. and xxxi., and Deut. ix.) 
 
10 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 where God himself is represented as calHng unto 
 Moses out of Mount Sinai, " saying, Thus shalt thou 
 say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of 
 Israel ; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, 
 and how I bare you on eagles' wings and brought 
 you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will obey 
 my voice indeed and keep my covenant, then ye 
 shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people." 
 (3-5.) 
 
 Further: in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, 
 Moses thus earnestly and eloquently reminds the Is- 
 raelites of the distinguished favour manifested toAvards 
 them by their God : " Now therefore hearken, 
 Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which 
 I teach you." (ver. 1.) "Keep, therefore, and do 
 them ; for this is your wisdom and your understand- 
 ing in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all 
 these statutes, and say. Surely this great nation is a 
 wise and understanding people. For what nation 
 is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, 
 as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon 
 him for? And what nation is there so great, that 
 hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this 
 law, which I set before you this day?" (6, 7, 8.) 
 " For ask now of the days that are past, which were 
 before thee since the day that God created man upon 
 the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto 
 the other, whether there hath been any such thing 
 as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it ? 
 Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out 
 of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, a]id live ? 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 11 
 
 Or liatli God assayed to go and take him a nation 
 from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by 
 signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a miglity 
 hand, and by a stretched-out arm, and by great ter- 
 rors, according to all that the Lord your God did for 
 you in Egypt before your eyes? Unto thee it was 
 showed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is 
 God." (32-35.) 
 
 3. As a further proof of the design to give to the 
 Jewish people an exclusive claim to those statutes and 
 judgments which are comprised in the Decalogue, I 
 shall next transcribe, omitting a verse that is merely 
 parenthetical, the preamble by which the Decalogue 
 is introduced in the book of Deuteronomy. It is as 
 follows : " And Moses called all Israel and said unto 
 them, Hear, Israel, the statutes and judgments 
 which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn 
 them, and keep, and do them. The lord our God made 
 a cove7ia7it with us in Iloreh. The lord made not this 
 covenant'* with our fathers, hit ivith us, even us, who are 
 all of us here alive this day. The lord talked with you 
 
 face to face in the mount out of the midst of the 
 fire, saying y 
 
 Such is the solemn preamble to the Ten Command- 
 ments, set forth in the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy ; 
 and so exclusively are these " statutes and judgments" 
 thereby addressed and given to the Jewish people. 
 
 4. Another proof that they w^ere intended to be 
 and to remain the possession and treasure of that 
 
 ^- That "this covenant" refers to the Ten Commandments is 
 sufi&ciently clear from the context ; but see also Deut. ix. 9. 
 
12 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 people alone is the fact that, neither in the preamble 
 above cited, nor elsewhere in all the five books of 
 Moses, is there the slightest intimation manifested of 
 the God of Israel having designed that other nations 
 should adopt and obey those statutes and judgments, 
 when they should hear of them. All that the hea- 
 thens were to do was to admire that people, who were 
 so favoured and so fortunate as to possess them : 
 " The nations w^hich shall hear all these statutes, and 
 say. Surely this great nation is a wise and understand- 
 ing people." Neither, as before remarked, are the 
 Israelites anywhere commanded to proselyte other 
 nations. The command to break their idols in pieces, 
 destroy their altars, and cut down their groves, was 
 indeed a command to put down the worship of the 
 gods of the heathens ; but it was obviously given to 
 the Israelites mainly for the purpose of preventing 
 them from abandoning the worship of their own God 
 (see Exodus, xxiii. 24, and xxxiv. 12-14). They are 
 nowhere directed to invite or to compel the heathens 
 to the worship of the God of Israel, or to the adoption 
 of his statutes and judgments. Even at the distance 
 of four hundred years after the promulgation of the 
 law from Mount Sinai, the Psalmist is able to boast 
 of the possession of those statutes and judgments as 
 the peculiar privilege of his own nation : " He showeth 
 his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments 
 unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation ; 
 and as for his judgments, they have not known them." 
 (Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20.) 
 
 5. The judgment or statute of the Eourth Com- 
 
THE MOSAIC SABHATII. 13 
 
 mandment, in particular, seems to have been spe- 
 cially withheld from all other nations, and exclusively 
 reserved to the children of Israel; for the Sabbath 
 enjoined by that commandment was to be a sign, which 
 was to distinguish them as a chosen people and a holy 
 nation. In the thirty-first chapter of Exodus we 
 read : " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 
 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying. 
 Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep : for it is a sign 
 between me and you throughout your generations ; 
 that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanc- 
 tify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for it 
 is holy unto you." (v. 12-14). "Wherefore the chil- 
 dren of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the 
 Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual 
 covenant. It is the sign between me and the children 
 of Israel for ever." (v. 16, 17.) 
 
 Now the Sabbath could not be a sign between 
 God and the people of Israel, " unless " (as Dr. Paley 
 remarks*) " the observance of it was peculiar to that 
 people, and designed to be so." It may, indeed, be 
 contended, that as the covenant, of which the Sabbath 
 was the sign, came in its appointed time to an end, 
 the sign might then cease to be peculiar to the Jewish 
 people : but the language in which the promise of the 
 sign is given is too pointedly applicable to that people 
 only, for it to become applicable to any other ; so 
 that if ever the Sabbath ceased to be a sign to the 
 Jews, it ceased altogether as a sign ; and, in conse- 
 
 * "Moral Phil." ii. 81. 
 
14 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 quence, the obligation to observe the Sabbath ceased 
 also. 
 
 But further: the language in which the promise 
 of the sign of the Sabbath is given, remarkable as it 
 is for its strictly exclusive applicability to the Jewish 
 race,* is rendered still more remarkable by the irre- 
 sistible proof to which it leads, that the Sabbath of 
 the Jews was never to become the Sabbath of the 
 Christians. The language used in regard to the 
 Sabbath is similar to that which is used in regard 
 to other Jewish festivals. The covenant of which 
 the Sabbath was to be the sign is spoken of as a per- 
 petual covenant with the children of Israel throughout 
 their generations — a sign between God and the chil- 
 dren of Israel for ever. In like manner, it is said of 
 the Peast of Unleavened Bread: "Ye shall observe 
 the Feast of Unleavened Bread ; for in this self-same 
 day have I brought your armies out of the land of 
 Egypt : therefore ye shall observe this day in your 
 generations by an ordinance for ever."t (Exod. xii. 
 
 * It would seem, from the Mosaic naiTative of the Deluge, 
 that when God is pleased to make a covenant with all mankind 
 the sign of the covenant is of a nature commensurate with its 
 pui-pose. Thus it is related, that when God declared to Noah, 
 " the waters shall no more hecome a flood to destroy all flesh," 
 he gave a sign as universal as the promise : " I do set my bow in 
 the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me 
 and the earth."' (Gen. ix. 13.) 
 
 f So, also, it is said in the same chapter as to the day of the 
 Passover: " This day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye 
 shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations ; ye 
 shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.'' (v. 14.) 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 15 
 
 17.) Yet no Christian doubts but that the ritual 
 portion of the Mosaic dispensation was superseded by 
 the Gospel dispensation, and consequently that the 
 Feast of Unleavened Bread, although directed to be 
 observed as an ordinance for ever, ceased to be obli- 
 gatory upon the Jews, and never became obligatory 
 upon Christians. By parity of reasoning, the duty of 
 observing the Feast of the Sabbath,* which was to be 
 a sign between God and tlie children of Israel for 
 ever, was, upon the promulgation of the Gospel, no 
 longer obligatory upon that people, and could not 
 become obligatory upon Christians, unless revived by 
 a new command, which it never was. 
 
 Opposed to the evidence, internal and external, 
 here adduced from the Jewish Scriptures, to prove 
 that the Decalogue was given to the Jewish people 
 only, and never designed for any other, where is there 
 any evidence to be found? Do we find it in the 
 Christian Scriptures? Do we discover there any 
 annunciation by Christ or his Apostles, or any just 
 inference from his or from their teaching, that the 
 time had then arrived when the Decalogue was to be 
 the rehgious code of aU mankind ; or that the ob- 
 servance of the Sabbath command of the Decalogue, 
 which God had solemnly declared should be a sign 
 between him and his chosen people, had become the 
 religious duty of all other people ? Counter-evidence 
 of this nature from the Christian Scriptures would, 
 
 * Levit. xxiii. 2, 3. 
 
16 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 indeed, be irresistible ; but, so far from finding any 
 such in tliem, all the evidence to be collected from 
 that source points directly the other way. 
 
 When "one came and said unto Jesus, Good 
 Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have 
 
 eternal life?" Jesus said, "If thou wilt 
 
 enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith 
 unto him. Which?" All the Ten, we may justly pre- 
 sume, would have been the answer, had Christ designed 
 that the whole Decalogue should survive the Mosaic 
 dispensation. Instead of this he replied, " Thou 
 shalt do no mm^der, Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
 Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 
 Honour thy father and thy mother, and, Thou shalt 
 love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matt. xix. 16-19.) 
 Now the Pourth Commandment is excluded from the 
 list of those of the Ten Commandments which Christ 
 enumerated as essential to be observed, and conse- 
 quently there is the strongest reason for believing he 
 intended that this commandment should not become 
 obligatory upon all mankind when his Gospel would 
 be preached to them.* 
 
 It will doubtless be objected, that if the Fourth 
 Commandment be no longer obligatory, because it is 
 not amongst those which Christ enumerated, neither 
 
 * The Tenth Commandment, ahhough a moral command- 
 ment, is also omitted ; but another moral command is substituted, 
 which has some similarity to it ; for if a man love his neighbour 
 as himself he cannot harbour in his mind any design to injure 
 his neighbour. 
 
 '1 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 17 
 
 can the three first Commandments, which describe the 
 duties to God. Do I mean to say, it may be asked, 
 that those are no longer obhgatory ? Most certainly 
 I do. Por I contend that by the course which Christ 
 adopted, when questioned upon the subject of com- 
 mands relating to the duties of mankind towards God 
 and towards each other, he clearly shows his intention 
 to be, that none of the Ten Commandments, save 
 those which he has selected, should be observed after 
 his Gospel should be preached, and that he therefore 
 purposely excludes the three first Commandments 
 from the list of commands which he enumerates as 
 essential to be kept ; and does so, because those three 
 Commandments w^ere, as hath here been sliowm, appli- 
 cable only to the Jews. 
 
 But is the Gospel code, as it regards our religious 
 duties, on this account defective ? Ear otherwise. 
 If Christians are not taught by Christ to look to the 
 three first Commandments of the Decalogue for the 
 knowledge of their duty towards God, they are taught 
 by him where they will find that knowledge. Thus, 
 when one of the scribes asked of him, " Which is the 
 first commandment of all?" instead of replying, "I 
 am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out 
 of the land of Egypt, out of the hoiise of bond- 
 age ; thou shalt have no otlier gods before me," he 
 answers, " The first of all the commandments is, 
 Hear, Israel ; the Lord our God is one Lord : and 
 thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
 and Avith all thy soul, and with all tliy mind, and with 
 
 c 
 
18 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 all thy strength. This is the first commandment."* 
 (Mark, xii. 28-30.) 
 
 Most remarkable and significant is this answer 
 from Christ. It is, when all circumstances are duly 
 considered, tantamount to an express declaration by 
 him, that the first of the three Commandments, 
 which in the Decalogue relate to the duty to God, and 
 consequently the two others, they being also passed 
 over unnoticed, were not suited to form a part of that 
 code which thereafter, under the dispensation of his 
 Gospel, was to be a rule of conduct in religion to all 
 mankind ; and were not suited for that purpose, be- 
 cause they were not, as the substituted command was, 
 of imiversal application. Let every candid Sabbata- 
 rian ask himself the question, what could it profit a 
 Christian to be under an obligation to observe the First 
 Commandment of the Decalogue ? There is no duty 
 enjoined or implied by that command which is not 
 equally enjoined or implied by the substituted com- 
 mand. There is no rehgious thought or devotional 
 feeling suggested by the First Commandment which 
 is not equally suggested, and more emphatically im- 
 pressed, by the substituted command. That command 
 far more distinctly proclaims the unity of God, and 
 it enjoins what the commandment in the Decalogue 
 does not — the Christian duty of the love of God. 
 
 It may be remarked, and I readily admit, that as 
 in the First Commandment of the Decalogue, so in the 
 
 * This command will be found in Deuteronomy, vi. 4, 5. 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 19 
 
 substituted command, it is only the God of Israel 
 that is there spoken of. " The Lord thy God " is the 
 phrase used in both these commands. It could not 
 be otherwise than that this should be the phrase, and 
 this the meaning of it in any command selected from 
 the statutes and judgments of the Mosaic law. It 
 was evidently the design of Christ, in forming the 
 religious and moral code of his Gospel dispensation, 
 to adopt, as far as they might be consistent with the 
 spirit of that code, the religious and moral precepts 
 to be found in the law of the Mosaic dispensation. 
 It cannot, therefore, invalidate any argument I have 
 adduced in reference to the phrase, "the Lord thy 
 God," to find that phrase in the command which Christ 
 has substituted for the First Commandment in the 
 Decalogue. He has transferred the command in Deu- 
 teronomy to the Gospel code, and thus " the Lord 
 thy God " becomes the Lord our God, the God and 
 Father of all mankind. 
 
 The intentions of Christ with respect to all the 
 Commandments of the Decalogue were made manifest 
 by his mode of answering the questions put to him 
 on the subject of commandments. Never, when thus 
 interrogated, did he enjoin the observance of the De- 
 calogue as a whole. For our duty to God he made 
 no reference to it, but quoted, instead, a command 
 from the general mass of statutes and judgments in 
 the old law. For our moral duties he drew his answer 
 from the Decalogue, selecting from it five of the six 
 moral Commandments, and substituting for the Tenth 
 Commandment, which is the sixth moral Command- 
 
20 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 merit, a command in Leviticus, " Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself."* Thus has he pointed out 
 to us the sources to which we may look for instruction 
 as to our religious and moral duties ; but for the ob- 
 servance of a Sabbath, he neither quoted the Sabbath- 
 command of the Decalogue, nor substituted any 
 equivalent for it from any other portion of the Jewish 
 Scriptures. To the text in Genesis, " God blessed 
 the seventh day and sanctified it," he never once 
 alludes in the whole course of his ministry. 
 
 The Sabbath-command of the Decalogue, in one 
 very material circumstance, differs essentially from all 
 the other nine — it is a positive or ceremonial law: 
 the Sabbath itself being neither an innate religious 
 duty, nor an obvious moral duty.f But supposing 
 it to be, as some maintain it is, a moral duty, or if 
 not so, a religious duty, as appertaining to the wor- 
 
 * Levit. xix. 18. 
 
 f " That law is called, positive which is not inbred, imprinted, 
 or infused into the heart of man by nature or grace ; but it is im- 
 posed by an external mandate of a lawgiver having authority to 
 command. And it hath the name positive from external imposi- 
 tion or constitution, and because it is added to the law of Nature, 
 and doth not necessarily spring from it." — " A Treatise of the 
 Sabbath-day, by Dr. F. White, L. Bishop of Ely." London, 
 1636. P. 32. 
 
 " The distinction of the Sabbath is in its nature as much a 
 positive ceremonial institution as that of many other seasons 
 which were appointed by the Levitical law to be kept holy, and 
 to be observed by a strict rest, — as the first and seventh days of 
 Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Pentecost, the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles ; and in the twenty-third chapter of Exodus the Sabbath 
 and these are recited together." — Paley's "Philos." ii. 81. 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 21 
 
 ship of God, the result is the same. If supposed to 
 belong to that class of duties which relates to the 
 worship of God, it is excluded by Christ from his 
 Gospel dispensation, together with the three first Com- 
 mandments of the Decalogue ; but it has not, as they 
 have, another command substituted in its place. If 
 supposed to belong to that class which relates to 
 moral duties, it is excluded together with the Tenth 
 Commandment ; but is not, like that commandment, 
 taught and enjoined by Christ in another form.* 
 
 * It cannot but appear at first somewhat surprising, that in 
 quoting the moral commands of the Decalogue Christ should 
 have omitted the tenth ; for it is a most admirable precept of 
 moral duty. It does not in express terms prohibit the com- 
 mission of the crimes mentioned in it, — they were already pro- 
 hibited by preceding commandments, the seventh and eighth ; 
 hut it does that which is still more effective, it prohibits the in- 
 dulgence of any wish or thought of committing those crimes, thus 
 in those instances striking at the very root of immorality and 
 vice. Now, the command to love thy neighbour as thyself, 
 which is substituted for the Tenth Commandment, although a 
 precept of the highe-^^t excellence, is not an exact equivalent for 
 it. What, then, may be the probable explanation of its omission? 
 May it not be that it has reference to two crimes only, adultery 
 and theft ; whereas the teaching of Christ extends the prohibi- 
 tion of evil thoughts to every species of crime? So prominent a 
 feature in his teaching is this useful precept in morals, that it is 
 noticed by Paley and others as an evidence of the truth of the 
 Gospel dispensation. " A second argument, drawn from the 
 morality of the New Testament" (says Dr. Paley, in his "Evidences 
 of Christianity," ii. 35) "is the stress which is laid by our Saviour 
 upon the regulation of the thoughts." (Matthew, xv. 19, 23, 25, 27, 
 and more particularly v. 28.) 
 
 Hence it may be truly said, that the Tenth Commandment, 
 
22 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 Thus, from whatever point of view we look upon the 
 Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue, it becomes 
 apparent that the Sabbath enjoined by it has not been 
 transferred by Christ to the code of Christian duties. 
 If, therefore, there be nothing in the teaching of the 
 Apostles after the death of Christ to contravene the 
 proposition that Christ by his teaching manifested 
 his intention that the Fourth Commandment should 
 not become obligatory upon the converts made from 
 the Gentiles, my proof of that proposition will be 
 complete.* 
 
 What, then, did the Apostles collectively teach on 
 the subject of the Commandments ? Expressly they 
 taught nothing, but impliedly they taught much ; all 
 indeed that is requisite as a sanction to the view here 
 taken of what Christ himself had taught. For when 
 
 ■which is the last of the six moral commandments of the Deca- 
 logue, has in effect, as the other five have expressly, heen re- 
 enacted. 
 
 * It would seem that, although Christ specifically enumerated 
 the moral commands of the Decalogue as commandments essen- 
 tial to be observed, he nevertheless intended it should be in- 
 ferred from the general tenor of his teaching on the subject of 
 commands, that all our duties, both moral and religious, are in 
 effect comprised in the two great commandments which, when 
 questioned by the scribe, he selected from the Mosaic law : " The 
 first of all the commandments," said Jesus, in reply, " is, Hear, 
 Israel ; the Lord our God is one Lord : and thou shalt love the 
 Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
 all thy mind, and with all thy strength : this is the first com- 
 mandment. And the second is like, namely this. Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself: there is none other commandnient 
 greater than these." (Mark, xii. 29-31.) 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH, 23 
 
 they were appealed to upon the question, whether the 
 Gentile converts were bound "to keep the law of Moses," 
 they met in full conclave, and after some debate 
 decreed as follows: "It seemed good to the Holy 
 Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden 
 than these necessary things ; that ye abstain from 
 meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from 
 things strangled, and from fornication." (Acts, xv. 28, 
 29.) Now, as the Decalogue was a part of the Law of 
 Moses, it appears to be beyond all doubt, that if the 
 Fourth Commandment was to be obligatory upon 
 Christians, this was the occasion when the Gentile 
 converts would have been informed of that obhgation ; 
 yet no such information was given to them. Unless, 
 therefore, it be contended, which it will not, that the 
 Decalogue forms no part of the law of Moses, the 
 decree of the assembled Apostles is conclusive on the 
 question of Christian obligation to keep the Fourth 
 Commandment, and has taught us that no such obli- 
 gation exists. 
 
 Next let us inquire. What say any of the Apostles 
 individually as to the duty of Christians in reference 
 to all or any of the Commandments? On looking 
 to their Epistles and to the history of their Acts, we 
 find that not one of the Apostles mentions the Ten 
 Commandments as a whole, and that only two, St. 
 James and St. Paul, mention any of them in parti- 
 cular ; and that they, like their great Master, notice 
 only the moral commandments. St. James, in his 
 General Epistle (ii. 11), refers to the Sixth and Seventh 
 Commandments, and in v. 8, to "the royal law, ac- 
 
24 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 cording to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself." St. Paul refers to all the moral 
 commandments. In Rom. xiii. 8, 9, he says, "He that 
 loveth another hath fulfilled the law ; for this. Thou 
 shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill. Thou 
 shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 
 Thou shalt not covet;* and if there be any other 
 commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this 
 saying, namely. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
 thyself." St. Paul, it may be observed, omits in this 
 enumeration the precept. Honour thy father and thy 
 mother; but he introduces it in his Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, making, however, such an alteration in the 
 reason given for the command, as renders it of 
 universal application : " Children, obey your parents 
 in the Lord ; for this is right. Honour thy father 
 and mother (which is the first commandment with 
 promise), that it may be well with thee, and thou 
 mayest live long on the earth." (vi. 1-3.) But fur- 
 ther, St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatiaus, earnestly 
 exhorts them to avail themselves of the liberty which 
 was given to them by the Gospel : " Stand fast, there- 
 fore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us 
 free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of 
 bondage." (v. 1.) Again, in the same chapter (v. 13, 
 14), " For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty ; 
 only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but 
 by love serve one another : for all the law is fulfilled 
 in one word, even in this : Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself." In no one of the passages here 
 * So also iu Romans, vii. 7. 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 25 
 
 quoted, nor in any other part of his Epistles, nor 
 in any of his discourses recorded in the Acts, has 
 he enjoined the observance, or borne testimony to 
 the obligation of the Fourth Commandment; and 
 it were strange if any such injunction or testimony 
 could be found in his Epistles or discourses, con- 
 sidering what he says on the subject of Sabbaths in 
 his Epistle to the Colossians : — " Let no man, therefore, 
 judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an 
 holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath- 
 days." (ii. 16.) Here he expressly prohibits the cen- 
 suring of any man on account of his not observing 
 the Sabbath-days ; and, by necessary consequence, we 
 are thereby taught by him that the Sabbath of the 
 Fourth Commandment had not become obligatory 
 upon Christians.* 
 
 Nay, more ; in this same chapter of his Epistle to 
 the Colossians, and in that very portion of it, which 
 has just been referred to, St. Paul declares, that 
 
 * St. Jerome, one of the most eminent of the Church fathers, 
 says, there is no discourse by St. Paul in which he does not 
 sedulously teach that by the grace of the Gospel all those 
 things ^vhich lay in types and figures and amongst them, " the 
 idleness of the Sabbath," had ceased : " Nullus quidem apostoli 
 sermo est, vel per epistolam vel prassentis, in quo non laboret 
 docere antiquse legis onera deposita, et omnia ilia qu£E in typis et 
 imaginibus prascesserunt, id est, otium Sahbati, circumcisionis in- 
 juriam, kalendarum, et trium per annum solemnitatum recursus, 
 scrupulositatem ciborum et per dies singulos lavacra iterum sor- 
 didanda, gi'atia Evangelii subrepent^ cessasse." — Jerome's Preface 
 to his " Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatiaus," vol. ix. 
 p. 93, of the edition of his works by Erasmus. 
 
26 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 Christ, or rather that God, through Christ, had abro- 
 gated the Sabbath ; for he says, speaking of Christ, 
 " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
 risen with him through the faith of the operation of 
 God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, 
 being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of 
 your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, 
 having forgiven you all trespasses ; hlotting out the 
 liand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which 
 was contrary to us, and took it out of the wag, nailing 
 it to his cross." (v. 12-14.) Those ordinances St. 
 Paul enumerates in the verse (v. 16), already quoted, 
 and amongst them is the Saddath. 
 
 Thus it appears that the teaching of St. Paul and 
 St. James, as it affects the question respecting the 
 present obligation of the Fourth Commandment, is 
 perfectly in accord with that of Christ himself, and 
 consequently, bearing in mind that no other of the 
 Apostles has ever noticed the Commandments of the 
 Decalogue, and that the Apostles collectively have, by 
 their divinely sanctioned decree, proclaimed the great 
 doctrine of Christian liberty in regard to the law of 
 Moses, every candid reader must incline to admit the 
 truth of my proposition, that the Mosaic Sabbath never 
 became, and therefore cannot now, be obligatory upon 
 Christians. Nevertheless, I cannot expect that my 
 proof of it will be considered as entirely satisfactory 
 unless I examine the arguments most usually advanced 
 by Sabbatarians* in support of their differing view of 
 the question. 
 
 * I shall here, as in my first volume, for the sake of brevity, 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 27 
 
 One of those arguments is, that although Christ 
 never quoted nor made any actual mention of the 
 Fourth Commandment, nevertheless, as he on several 
 occasions reproved the unwarranted strictness with 
 which the Sabbath enjoined by it was observed by the 
 Pharisees, and also as he relaxed the rigour of the 
 command itself by setting an example of the non- 
 observance of it in some particulars ; * he thereby 
 
 designate the advocates of a Sunday Sabbath as Sabbatai'ians, 
 although in strictness this is a name more properly applicable — 
 and as such it was heretofore applied — to those Christians who 
 observed a Saturday and not a Sunday Sabbath, — a sect not yet 
 entirely extinct among us. 
 
 * " The Sabbath-day under the law of Moses was required 
 to be observed with a strictness, and the breach of it was pun- 
 ished with a severity, which may fairly be regarded as appertain- 
 ing solely to the dispensation then in force. The commandment, 
 ' In it thou shalt not do any work,' &c., as interpreted by the 
 law, was far more rigid and comprehensive than it is possible 
 for us to regard it as it is interpreted by the Gospel. Although 
 our Saviour, the Lord of the Sabbath, made a clear exception in 
 favour of works of mercy and necessity, it may be questioned 
 whether such an exception (unless within narrow limits) was 
 either contemplated by Moses or maintained by his followers." — 
 " Brief Kemarks on the History, Authority, and Use of the Sab- 
 bath," by Joseph John Gurney. Third Edition, 1832, p. 43. 
 " The man who lay at the pool of Bethesda amidst a great multi- 
 tude of impotent folk, blind, halt, and withered, had been afflicted 
 with an infirmity for thirty-and-eight years. His cure was public 
 and immediate. ' Jesus saith unto him. Rise, take up thy bed 
 and walk ; and immediately the man was made whole, and took 
 up his bed and walked ; and on the same day was the Sabbath. 
 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the 
 Sabbath-day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He 
 
28 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 recognised its existence and authority as a command, 
 and made manifest his intention that it should remain 
 in full force, with the exception of such slight devi- 
 ations from it as he had himself expressly sanctioned. 
 No doubt Christ did thereby recognise the existence, 
 and did not then distinctly bring into question the 
 authority of the Commandment ; but in this there was 
 nothing inconsistent with a design ultimately to abolish 
 it. What he then did he might intend as a step 
 towards the fulfilment of that design. It is remark- 
 able that he never takes occasion to express his ap- 
 proval of the Sabbath as a religious institution ; yet 
 when accused of having " broken the Sabbath," it 
 w^ould, humanly speaking, have been both natural and 
 politic for him to profess his high veneration for it, if 
 he so regarded it, and to remark, that he intended 
 nothing more than to discountenance and censure its 
 
 answered them, He that made me whole, the same said mito me, 
 Take up thy bed and walk.' Between that caiTying of burdens 
 which belonged to the course of trade, and which was so severely 
 reprobated by the prophets as a breach of the Sabbath, and the 
 bearing away of the mattrass on which this poor man was l}ing, 
 and which might otherwise have been lost to him, the distinction 
 is too obvious to need discussion. Still, the deed was a breach 
 of the law of Moses, according to its literal exactness, and was, 
 as well as the act of healing a chronic disease, directly opposed 
 to the notions then prevalent among the Jews." — " Brief Re- 
 marks," p. 60. 
 
 "In him" (the Lord of the Sabbath) " there divelt an autho- 
 rity, which sufficed, not merely for the lenient and merciful in- 
 terpretation of the Sabbatical law, or for the relaxing of its literal 
 rigour ; but even, should he see meet, for its total abolition." — 
 " Brief Remarks," p. 64. 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 29 
 
 too rigorous observance. He seems, on the contrary, 
 to have availed himself of every opportunity of show- 
 ing, if not explicitly avowing, his disregard of the 
 Sabbath.* It was peculiarly so in the instance of his 
 healing on the Sabbath-day an infirmity which had 
 existed for thirty-eight years,f an infirmity which 
 apparently was not a painful disease, but merely a 
 lameness. It undoubtedly was an act of charity to 
 heal the sufferer on any day, but in such a case as 
 this there could be no urgency, certainly not such as 
 to call for a violation of the injunctions in the Fourth 
 Commandment, and therefore the day following the 
 Sabbath, we may presume, would have been selected 
 rather than the Sabbath-day, had Christ intended to 
 make it manifest he considered those injunctions to 
 be still of indispensable obligation. Moreover, it is to 
 be recollected, that after healing the man, Christ bade 
 him take up his bed and carry it away, which was a 
 further violation of the Sabbath, and might, as well as 
 the first violation of it, have been avoided by deferring 
 the cure one day. It was in this case, where the cure 
 performed on the Sabbath-day was neither a work of 
 necessity nor an urgent work of charity, that Christ 
 made the remarkable reply recorded in the seventeenth 
 verse of the chapter : " Therefore did the Jews perse- 
 
 * Sabbatarian writers affirm it to be a proof of Christ's 
 observing the Sabbath, that on Sabbath-days he went into the 
 synagogues. This is no evidence of his observing the Mosaic 
 Sabbath as regards its prohibition from doing any work on the 
 Sabbath-day. 
 
 f John, V. 
 
80 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 cute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had 
 done these things on the Sabbath-day. But Jesus 
 answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I 
 work." And true it is, as Origen has observed, in 
 commenting upon this reply, " We see that God is 
 continually working, and there is no Sabbath-day in 
 which God doth not work, in which he doth not make 
 his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and send 
 rain on the just and on the unjust." (Semper enim 
 videmus Deum operari, et nullum Sabbatum est in 
 quo Deus non operetur, in quo non producat solem 
 suum super bonos et malos, et pluat super justos et 
 injustos. — 23d Homily In Numeros, sec. 4. De la 
 Rue's edit, of Origen's Works; Paris, 1733.) 
 
 The saying of Christ thus interpreted, and it 
 appears to be a very proper interpretation, is equiva- 
 lent to his telling the Jews : My Father worketh on 
 the Sabbath-day, and I likewise. 
 
 But, further, if the true inference from the teaching 
 and example of Christ were, that he intended the Fourth 
 Commandment, except as relaxed by him in favour 
 of works of necessity and charity, should remain in 
 force, with whom, I would ask, was it so to remain ? 
 Most indisputably with those upon whom it was 
 already obligatory, and with no one else. It is a 
 self-contradictory proposition to say it remained in 
 force with any people who were not then subject 
 to it — with the then Gentile world, who were ig- 
 norant of its existence, and with converts thereafter 
 to be made from the Gentiles when the Gospel 
 should be preached to them. It might, indeed, 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 3l 
 
 become obligatory upon those converts, and tlierefore 
 upon Christians in all succeeding times ; but this 
 could be only by a new commandment imposing 
 that obhgation upon them, and there is no such 
 commandment. 
 
 On the supposition that the Fourth Command- 
 ment did become obligatory upon the Gentile con- 
 verts, it would inevitably follow that those converts 
 did, in obedience to the Commandment, observe a 
 Sabbath. Is such the fact ? I am not here speaking 
 of the sanctification of a seventh day by prayer and 
 religious instruction, but of a Sabbath in the proper 
 sense of the word, a Sabbath observed by entire absti- 
 nence from work throughout the day, works of neces- 
 sity and charity excepted. With this explanation of 
 my meaning in the use of the word, I ask : Did 
 the first converts from the Gentiles, the converts 
 made in the Apostolic age of Peter and Paul, observe 
 a Sabbath? They did not. This the Sabbatarians 
 know full well, and therefore never hazard a direct 
 assertion that they did. 
 
 Whether the Pourth Commandment remained in 
 force with the converts made from the Jews, is a ques- 
 tion in which we of the Gentile race are not essentially 
 concerned, yet it may deserve remark that it is ante- 
 cedently in the highest degree probable no difference 
 would be made, in this respect, between the two sets 
 of converts. But we have no need to rely on mere 
 probability. The question is decided by the indis- 
 putable fact that St. Paul, himself a Jew, did not, 
 after his conversion, believe that he continued under 
 
32 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 the obligation to observe the Sabbath of the Pourth 
 Commandment, and that, consistently with the belief 
 that he was no longer under such obligation, he, in 
 his Epistle to the Colossians, in the passage recently 
 cited from it, forbids the censuring of any man on 
 account of his not being an observer of Sabbath-days. 
 He does more ; for as we have seen {ante, p. 26), he 
 declares the Sabbath to be one of those ordinances 
 appertaining to the Mosaic dispensation which had 
 been utterly abolished. 
 
 Another argument with Sabbatarians is that which 
 they draw from the fact, that the Ten Commandments 
 were proclaimed to the children of Israel by the voice 
 of God himself, and amidst the most awful display 
 of his power and greatness, whilst all the other statutes 
 and judgments were communicated only by Moses. 
 Hence it is argued that the Ten Commandments were 
 of superior sanctity, and on that account destined to 
 be of perpetual duration, although all the rest of the 
 ordinances comprised in the Mosaic dispensation were 
 in due time to come to an end. But for this opinion 
 we find no warrant in Scripture. Not the slightest 
 intimation of any such intended distinction and pre- 
 ference is there to be traced. It is a fancy of modern 
 theorists, and nothing more. As well might they 
 argue that the tables of stone on which the Ten Com- 
 mandments were inscribed, and which " were the 
 work of God, and the writing was the writing of 
 God," * would endure for ever ; yet they perished in 
 
 * Exod. xxxii. 1(5. 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 33 
 
 a day, broken by the hands of man. Why then may 
 we not beheve that the Commandments "graven upon 
 the tables" were Hke all the other statutes and judg- 
 ments of the Mosaic law intended to endure but 
 for a season, except such as were expressly or im- 
 pliedly re-enacted by the Founder of the Gospel dis- 
 pensation, by which the Mosaic dispensation was 
 superseded ? 
 
 What essential difference, in point of authority or 
 sanctity, can be rationally imagined to exist between 
 a set of laws proclaimed by the voice of God to the 
 people of Israel, and another set proclaimed to them 
 at his command by the voice of Moses? — between 
 those statutes and judgments which were proclaimed 
 from the mount and those which were dictated in the 
 mount ? All that was spoken by Moses to the people 
 was prefaced by a declaration that it came from God. 
 Almost immediately following the Ten Commandments 
 in Exodus we read : "And the Lord said unto Moses, 
 Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel." 
 (Exod. XX. 22.) — "Now these are the judgments 
 which thou shalt set before them." (xxi. 1.) In Levi- 
 ticus, " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 
 Speak unto the children of Israel," is constantly 
 occurring as the preface to a further set of commands 
 to them. 
 
 The evidence from Scripture is decisive against 
 any distinction as to their authority or sanctity be- 
 tween the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic ordi- 
 nances. All pass equally under the name of the Law. 
 St. Paul refers to the moral commands in the Deca- 
 
34 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 logue as the Law ;* while, on the other hand, in 
 St. John's Gospel we read of John the Baptist 
 bearing witness that " the law was given by Moses, 
 but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." f Surely 
 the law here said to have been given by Moses must 
 include whatever statutes and judgments he himself 
 delivered to the children of Israel. Again ; in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews (x. 1), we read, "For the 
 law having a shadow of good things to come, and not 
 the very image of the things, can never with those 
 sacrifices which they offered year by year continually 
 make the comers thereunto perfect." Here we see, 
 that although only the ceremonial part of the Mosaic 
 ordinances is referred to, it is called the Law. 
 
 But there is yet a higher sanction for applying 
 this phrase to the general mass of statutes and judg- 
 ments, and not confining its application merely to the 
 Ten Commandments. J For Christ himself, when 
 asked by one who tempted him, " saying. Master, 
 which is the great commandment in the law ? " replied, 
 " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
 and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," (Matt. 
 xxii. 36, 37.) This command, although not in the 
 Decalogue, Christ here says is the great command- 
 ment in the law.§ 
 
 * Komans, ii. & vii. f John, i. 17. 
 
 I It should he rememhered, that the Ten Commandments 
 are, as well as all the other divine commands to the children of 
 Israel, called statutes and judgments. (Deut. v. 1, 6.) 
 
 § The corresponding narrative in St. Luke's Gospel is stiU 
 more to the point , for it is Christ himself who is there repre- 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 35 
 
 Indeed, it seems quite incomprehensible how any 
 Sabbatarians can seriously entertain the opinion that 
 the Ten Commandments, because they were spoken to 
 the Israelites by the voice of God, were of superior 
 sanctity to that of the commands spoken to them by 
 Moses, and were on that account to survive, when all 
 the rest of the law should be abolished. For strict 
 investigation has, as I have shown, led us to the 
 startling conclusion, that some of the commands com- 
 municated to the Israelites by Moses have become 
 part of the Christian code, and will therefore endure 
 for ever ; whilst some of the Ten Commandments, 
 although spoken by the voice of God, form no part of 
 that code, and have therefore ceased to exist, or exist 
 only so far as any of them are in their spirit consistent 
 with the commands selected by Christ from amongst 
 those that were spoken to the children of Israel by the 
 voice of Moses. 
 
 It is further argued by Sabbatarians, that if it 
 was the intention of Christ that the Fourth Command- 
 ment should cease to be in force under the religion 
 of his Gospel, he would himself have made that 
 intention known. "In other matters" (says the author 
 
 sented as using the phrase of " the Law," and not the uiter- 
 rogator who tempted him. Being asked, " Master, what shall I 
 do to inherit eternal life ? he said unto him, What is written in 
 the law ? how readest thou ? And he, answering, said, Thou shalt 
 love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
 and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; and thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself. And he said unto him. Thou hast answered 
 right." (Luke, x. 25-28.) 
 
36 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 of "The Christian Sabbath") "Christ scrupled not to 
 attack the inveterate opinions of the Pharisees, and if 
 the Sabbath was to be abohshed, why does he so 
 cautiously abstain from any allusion to it, especially 
 when occasions so often offered of announcing what 
 was of the highest importance to have clearly pub- 
 lished?"* 
 
 But why should it appear strange to any reader of 
 the Gospel narratives that Christ did not clearly pub- 
 lish to the Jews the fact that their Sabbath was soon 
 to be abolished, when it is evident that they sought 
 his life for merely relaxing the rigour of the Sabbath 
 law, by excepting from it works of necessity and cha- 
 rity ? f It is also equally evident, that until he knew 
 that the time was fully come that he should suffer 
 (Luke, xxii. 15), Christ withdrew from personal danger 
 
 * " The Christian Sabbath," by the Rev. George Holclen, 
 A.M. London, 1825, p. 211. 
 
 f And when he was departed thence, he went into their 
 synagogue ; and, behold, there was a man which had his hand 
 withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the 
 Sabbath-days? that they might accuse him." (Matt. xii. 9, 10.) 
 Jesus restored the withered hand, and " then the Pharisees went 
 out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." 
 (v. 14.) In the corresponding narrative in St. Mark's Gospel, 
 it is said : "And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took 
 counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy 
 him." (Mark, iii. 6.) In St. John's Gospel, in a passage before 
 referred to, it is related that Christ healed a man who had had 
 an infirmity for thirty-eight years, and bade him take up his bed 
 and walk: "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and 
 sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sab- 
 bath-day." (John. V. 5-16.) 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 37 
 
 when that danger became apparent.* To have given 
 the Jews clearly to understand, or even to have inti- 
 mated to them, that the Sabbath itself was within a 
 short time, or at any time, to be abolished, would 
 have shocked the prejudices of the whole nation, and 
 not only have increased the enmity of the Pharisees, 
 but also in all hkelihood have roused against him the 
 indignation and fury of the multitude. 
 
 From whatever cause proceeding, it certainly was 
 not within the purpose of Christ's ministry that the 
 Jews should be forewarned by him of all the changes 
 which his coming was to effect in their religious 
 system. When did he ever give them the shghtest 
 reason to suspect that, before long, even in the life- 
 time of some who heard his teaching, the whole mass 
 of their ceremonial laws would cease to be in force, 
 and the rites of sacrifice be no longer performed? 
 Yet did these events come to pass, and without any 
 word having dropped from him which at the time 
 would excite an expectation of their occurrence. It 
 might indeed be remembered, after his death, that 
 Christ had twice quoted from Hosea, " I will have 
 mercy, and not sacrifice,"! and that he had told the 
 scribe he answered discreetly, when he said that for a 
 man to love God with all his heart, and his neighbour 
 as himself, was more than all whole burnt-offerings 
 
 * When Christ had healed the man with the withered hand, 
 the Pharisees, as before stated, held a council against him, how 
 they might destroy him : " But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew 
 himself from thence." (Matt. xii. 15.) 
 
 t Matt. ix. 13 ; xii. 7. 
 
38 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 and sacrifices.* But no one who heard these sayings 
 would then draw the inference that Christ thereby 
 foretold the abrogation of the ceremonial portion of 
 the law, and the discontinuance of the sacrifices which 
 it enjoined. 
 
 Again : it would thereafter be recollected by his 
 disciples, and come to the knowledge of the Jews, 
 that Christ had said to the woman of Samaria, " Be- 
 lieve me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in 
 this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the 
 Father " — " The hour cometh, and now is, when the 
 true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and 
 in truth." (John, iv. 21, 23.) 
 
 This, it is more than probable, was language too 
 new and mysterious to be then understood as fore- 
 telling the abolition of the rites of sacrifice. If after- 
 wards made intelligible in that sense to the Samaritan 
 w^oman or to her countrymen, during the two days 
 that Christ abode and taught in Samaria (iv. 40) ; 
 still this would have been to the Jews no annunciation 
 of the forthcoming event. The Samaritans were a 
 people whom they despised and hated, and with whom 
 they held no social intercourse. Even the disciples of 
 Christ " marvelled that he talked with the woman," 
 so strong was their national prejudice against the 
 people of Samaria. 
 
 Of the fact there is no doubt, that Christ did not 
 forewarn the Jews, although he himself foreknew, 
 that within a short period the ceremonial law would 
 
 •^ Mark, xii. 32-34. 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 39 
 
 be abolished : consequently it cannot be maintained 
 in argument, that because Christ did not make known 
 to the Jews that he intended to abolish the Sabbath, 
 such could not have been his intention. 
 
 There were many things of high importance which 
 Christ left to be taught by his Apostles. His own 
 teaching was confined to Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee, 
 but his apostles were sent to teach all nations,* and 
 were after his death instructed for that purpose by 
 the Holy Ghost. f Accordingly we find, that although 
 Christ himself never gave any intimation to the Jews 
 that the Sabbath command would, before long, be 
 abrogated, St. Paul, after the death and resurrection 
 of Christ, had authority to teach the Colossians that 
 that command had not become obligatory on Christ- 
 ians, and to teach his countrymen, by his own example, 
 that it had ceased to be obligatory upon Jews. 
 
 There remains, within my knowledge, but one other 
 argument which Sabbatarians put forward in proof of 
 the Fourth Commandment having never been abro- 
 gated, and certainly it is one which at first sight 
 may appear to be very forcible. Eor it is founded on 
 the declaration of Christ himself, that he had not 
 come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it: "Think 
 not," he says, " that 1 am come to destroy the law, or 
 the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 
 For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, 
 one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the 
 law, till all be fulfiUed." (Matt. v. 17, 18.) Hence 
 
 - Mark, xvi. 15. f Jol"i. ^iv. 26; xvi. 12-14. 
 
40 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 it is argued, that as the Fourth Commandment is a 
 part of the law, it could not have been the Divine will 
 that by the coming of Christ that commandment 
 should pass away. But if this mode of construing 
 the text be adopted in regard to the Fourth Command- 
 ment, it ought equally to be observed in regard to all 
 the rest of the law, every jot and tittle ; and this it 
 cannot be consistently with Scripture facts. 
 
 No one denies that we have Scripture authority 
 for believing that the ceremonial part of the law was 
 destined to pass away on the coming of Clirist, and we 
 know as an historical fact, that the observance of it, so 
 far as it related to sacrifice, did actually pass away 
 after the destruction of the temple, within forty years 
 after the death of Christ. To the Jews themselves 
 since that period, now nearly two thousand years ago, 
 the law has in this respect been a dead letter, although 
 they still observe, with the most scrupulous exactness, 
 all its fasts, its festivals, and its sabbaths, and other 
 ancient ordinances. 
 
 Neither will the Sabbatarian mode of construing 
 the text in Matthew be found compatible with Scrip- 
 ture facts, in regard to that portion of the law which 
 relates to moral duties. For in the very same chapter 
 of Matthew we read, — " Ye have heard that it hath 
 been said. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:* 
 but I say unto you. That ye resist not evil : but who- 
 
 * Exod. xxi. 24; Levit. xxiv. 20; and Deut. xix. 21. It 
 will suffice to quote from the last of these references : " And 
 thine eye shall not pity ; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, 
 tooth for tooth." 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 41 
 
 soever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to 
 hnn the other also." (Matt. v. 38, 39.) Now, in 
 whatever sense this saying of Christ is to be expounded, 
 it is undeniable that the Mosaic law of retaliation was 
 thereby declared by him to have passed away. 
 
 Moreover, a very great change was made by Christ 
 in the moral law relating to divorce. In the same 
 chapter of Matthew we find him teaching this new 
 doctrine, — "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put 
 away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce- 
 ment : but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put 
 away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, 
 causeth her to commit adultery." (v. 31, 32.) The 
 same doctrine is still more explicitly taught and 
 enforced in the nineteenth chapter of Matthew, where 
 it is related that " the Pharisees also came unto 
 him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful 
 for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" 
 Having said, in concluding his reply to this question, 
 "What therefore God hath joined together, let not 
 man put asunder ; they say unto him, Why did Moses 
 then command to give a writing of divorcement, and 
 to put her away ? He saith unto them, Moses, because 
 of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put 
 away your wives : but from the beginning it was not 
 so. And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away 
 his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry 
 another, committeth adultery ; and whoso marrieth her 
 which is put away doth commit adultery." (v. 3-9.) 
 
 In these texts we see, that not only was there a 
 change made in the law of divorce, but by necessary 
 
42 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 consequence a most material change was made in the 
 law relating to adultery. That by these changes the 
 disciples of Christ were of opinion that at least a jot 
 of the law had passed away is very clear, for upon his 
 prohibiting the putting away a wife, except for the 
 one cause mentioned, his disciples could not refrain 
 from remarking to him, that in such case it w^re well 
 not to marry.* 
 
 That the law of Christ relative to divorce and 
 adultery is more conducive to good morals and the 
 happiness of social life than that of Moses, is not to 
 be doubted ; but neither is it to be doubted, that as 
 the one has been by divine authority substituted for 
 the other, we are entitled to say of that other, It has 
 passed away. 
 
 Even as to the Fourth Commandment, since it 
 is certain, and is acknowledged by Sabbatarians them- 
 selves, that Christ relaxed the rigour of it in some 
 particulars,! it may be justly said that he thereby 
 caused some jots and tittles of it to pass away. Nay, 
 he did more, if the Sabbatarians have his authority, 
 as they say they have, for observing as a Sabbath 
 the first day of the week instead of the seventli ; for 
 if this be so Christ has changed the day which is 
 enjoined by the Fourth Commandment for the observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath, and in so doing has abrogated 
 that part of the Commandment, and another jot of it 
 
 * "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so 
 with his wife, it is not good to marry." (v. 10.) 
 
 f See ante, in p. 27, the extracts from Mr. Gurney's " Brief 
 Remarks" contained in the Note. 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 43 
 
 has thereby passed away. This last remark, I am 
 aware, is but an argumcntmn ad hominem, and I use it 
 only as such : for I maintain it was not the intention 
 of Christ that the Fourth Commandment, or any part 
 of it, should be observed by Christians. 
 
 Having thus pointed out various instances in 
 which a portion of the Law has been set aside by the 
 authority of Christ, it must be quite immaterial to the 
 present discussion what may be the interpretation 
 which divines put upon the words, " I am not come 
 to destroy, but to fulfil ;" or upon the phrases, " Till 
 all be fulfilled," — " Till heaven and earth pass." No 
 interpretation of the text in Matthew can disprove 
 the Scripture fact that Christ did change, abrogate, 
 and destroy some portions of the Law, 
 
 Thus the Sabbatarian argument founded on that 
 text, however specious it might seem, has proved, 
 upon examination, to be utterly untenable. 
 
 Nevertheless, so strong is my position in contend- 
 ing for the non-obligation of the Mosaic Sabbath 
 upon Christians, that I might safely concede the fact 
 to be, that not one jot or tittle has passed from the 
 Law, and that consequently the Sabbath Command- 
 ment of the Decalogue still remains unrepealed and 
 in force. For of what avail to the Sabbatarians would 
 be this concession ? I should again encounter them 
 with the question, — Upon whom does it remain in 
 force? and the answer, as before, must be, — Upon 
 the JeAvs, and the Jews only. If any Jewish converts 
 to Christianity, or any Judaising Christians descended 
 from Jewish converts, were to tell me they considered 
 
44 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 the obligation of the Fourth Commandment as still 
 imperative, my reply to them would be, — With you I 
 will not dispute the fact ; I wage no war of contro- 
 versy with you and your race, who are altogether but 
 an infinitesimal fraction of the millions that constitute 
 the community to which we belong ; and all I have to 
 say to you in parting is : Be consistent in your belief ; 
 keep your Saturday Sabbath, and do not, because you 
 profess to be Christians, pretend you have authority, 
 for you have none, to hold your Fourth Commandment 
 Sabbath on a Sunday. 
 
 No : my controversy is not with Jew-Christians ; 
 it is with the Sabbatarian portion of my fellow-coun- 
 trymen, descended from heathen ancestors, from the 
 aboriginal Britons, who, as some are of opinion, were 
 converted to the Christian faith in the first century, 
 and from the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the 
 Danes, and the Normans, who at different periods 
 invaded and settled in Britain, and all of w^hom were 
 converted from Heathenism more than a thousand years 
 ago. To the millions of heathen-descended Christians 
 among us who insist upon the present obligation of 
 the Fourth Commandment, I say, — Show me, if you 
 can, when it became obligatory upon heathens, or 
 upon converts made from them. It was not made 
 obligatory upon heathens when it was promulgated 
 from Mount Sinai. They were excluded from the 
 privilege of becoming subject to this and the other 
 statutes and judgments which were then bestowed 
 upon the chosen people. To that people only were 
 they given, and the surrounding nations were to 
 
THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 45 
 
 admire and envy them on that account. The whole 
 tenor of the Jewish Scriptures imphes that the Mosaic 
 statutes and judgments never became obhgatory 
 upon the heathens daring that period of the world's 
 history which is comprised in those Scriptures ; and 
 as to the Christian Scriptures, far from showing that 
 those statutes and judgments became at any subse- 
 quent period obligatory upon heathens, or upon con- 
 verts from the heathens, they prove the fact to be 
 directly the reverse. There is not in the Christian 
 Scriptures any command, nor any teaching by Christ 
 or his iVpostles, which brings the converts from the 
 Gentiles under the obligation of the Mosaic law. 
 Not only is there this negative evidence, there is also 
 the positive evidence of the divinely-inspired aposto- 
 lical decree recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the 
 Acts, which expressly exempts the Gentile converts 
 from the observance of the law of Moses, save in some 
 few particulars that have no bearing upon the present 
 question. Finally, there is positive evidence in the 
 teaching of St. Paul, that even upon the Jews them- 
 selves the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment had 
 ceased to be of religious obligation. 
 
 The argument against the alleged present obliga- 
 tion of the Mosaic Sabbath may be summed up in a 
 few words. We are in possession of Scripture proof 
 that the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue was 
 not made obligatory upon the heathens at its promul- 
 gation — that it did not become so at any time there- 
 after prior to the promulgation of the Gospel — and 
 
46 THE MOSAIC SABBATH. 
 
 that it did not then become obligatory on the converts 
 made from the heathens. It is a clear deduction from 
 these premises, that Christians descended from hea- 
 then converts cannot be under a religious obligation to 
 observe the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. 
 
47 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 The Creation Sabbath. 
 
 Section L 
 
 Of all the theological fancies which credulity has 
 accepted as divine truths, not the least remarkable for 
 the scantiness of evidence producible in support of it 
 is the tenet, that a command was given to mankind 
 at the creation to observe a seventh-day Sabbath. 
 The only text in Scripture which bears directly upon 
 the tenet, is Genesis, ii. 3 : " And God blessed the 
 seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he 
 had rested from all his work, which God created and 
 made ;" and in this text there is no command. 
 
 It is, however, contended by Sabbatarians, that 
 although the text does not set forth a command in 
 express words, the just inference from it is, that a 
 Sabbath command was then given. That, on the 
 contrary, the text in Genesis does not even imply any 
 such command, it is my purpose in the present 
 Chapter to prove. 
 
 So far as appears from the text, it is obvious ; first, 
 that it relates only to God, man not being noticed in it ; 
 
48 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 and, secondly, that it was only the one day mentioned 
 in the text, which God blessed and sanctified, there 
 being nothing in it to indicate that every subsequent 
 seventh day was then blessed and sanctified by antici- 
 pation. This, the apparent meaning of the text, every 
 reader would acknowledge to be its true meaning, 
 were it not for the signification there given to the 
 word " sanctified" by the advocates of the tenet, that 
 a Sabbath was ordained at the creation. They assert 
 that it signifies devoted to religious uses, and thence 
 they argue that as the Deity cannot be supposed to 
 offer prayer, praise, and adoration to himself, the text 
 must of necessity have relation to man. 
 
 Now, it is very true that the Hebrew word kadosk, 
 here translated *' sanctified," is sometimes used by 
 Moses in the sense above mentioned, and I am aware 
 that among the texts where he so uses it, Parkhiu*st, 
 in his Hebrew Lexicon, has placed the text in question, 
 (Gen. ii. 3.) But the same authority informs us, that 
 the word has several meanings. The first in his enu- 
 meration of them is, "to separate or set apart from 
 its common and ordinary to some higher use or 
 purpose." He then remarks that " this separation or 
 setting apart is the ideal meaning of the word," by 
 which I understand him to say, that it is its primary 
 or abstract meaning, as distinguished from other 
 meanings in which the use or purpose is specified. 
 Of these he gives two instances : one of them is, 
 " to set apart or select persons or nations for pur- 
 poses of war," and for this he refers to Jeremiah, 
 xxii. 7, and li. 27, 28. The other is, "to set apart. 
 
Sec. I.] CREATION SABBATH. 49 
 
 separate or appropriate to sacred or religious purposes, 
 to sanctify, to consecrate," and for this he refers to Gen. 
 ii. 3, Exod. xiii. 2, and 2 Sam. viii. 11. He adds that, 
 "applied to Jehovah, it denotes, to regard him in a pe- 
 culiar, separate manner," and for this he refers to Num- 
 bers, XX. 12; xxvii. 14, and Isaiah, viii. 13; xxix. 23.* 
 
 There is also a text in Joshua (xx. 7), wherein 
 the word Jcadosh is used and its purpose specified, 
 which, however, instead of being a religious purpose, 
 has reference exclusively to one of the municipal 
 institutions of the Jewish people, namely, the ap- 
 pointment of cities of refuge for persons guilty of 
 manslaughter. The first six verses of the chapter 
 lay down the law on the subject, and the 7th verse 
 is as follows (the word kadosh being there translated 
 appointed, and meaning set apart) : " And they ap- 
 pointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and 
 Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjath-arba, which 
 is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah." 
 
 Finally, I would call attention to a very remarkable 
 instance in which the word kadosh, translated sanctify, 
 in the 2d chapter of Genesis, is used to signify setting 
 apart, yet not for the performance of any religious 
 rites. It is so used in the Fourth Commandment of 
 the Decalogue, as I shall prove in a subsequent 
 Chapter ; for to enter upon that proof here, as it will 
 
 * The reader who may be, as I am, ignorant of Hebrew, may 
 nevertheless rely with perfect confidence on the accuracy of the 
 statements here given from Parkhurst's Lexicon. They were 
 furnished to me, at my request, by a friend who is well acquainted 
 with the Hebrew language. 
 
50 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap II. 
 
 necessarily be of some considerable length, would 
 inconveniently interrupt and divert the course of the 
 present discussion. 
 
 Such, then, are some of the many meanings of 
 which the word kadosh is susceptible : but I may be 
 asked. Of what avail can they be to your argument 
 upon the text in Genesis, unless some one of them 
 can be applied to the Deity, of whom it is said in 
 that text, — He blessed and sanctified the seventh 
 day ? How could he set it apart in reference to 
 Himself ? Which is the meaning you would select 
 to show it to be even possible He did so ? I answer, 
 it is that which Parkhurst calls the ideal meaning of 
 the word kadosh, and, as I understand him, its pri- 
 mary or abstract meaning, viz. " to separate or set 
 apart, from its common and ordinary to some higher 
 use or purpose." But how, it will be asked, is it 
 possible to conceive that in this sense God could bless 
 and sanctify a day to himself? The proper inquiry, 
 however, is not what our conceptions are equal to on 
 such a subject, but whether the historian did or did 
 not mean to say, that God set apart the day to 
 himself. That this was his meaning, the text, 
 divested of the Sabbatarian interpretation of the 
 word "sanctified," aff'ords strong grounds for belief, 
 and, as the Mosaic history of the creation is in perfect 
 accordance Avith this belief, it thus receives an author- 
 itative confirmation. 
 
 The historian relates what passed in the mind of 
 the Creator fi-om day to day during the progress of 
 his work, and all theologians are agreed in adopting 
 
Sec. I] CREATION SABBATH. 51 
 
 the plain and literal meaning of the words used in 
 this part of the narrative, however difficult it may 
 be for us to conceive of the Supreme Being as he is 
 there spoken of. Now the account given of the sixth 
 day's work, and of what then passed in the Divine 
 mind, and what occurred in consequence, is very re- 
 markable, and is the more important to the present 
 discussion as it comes close to the very question 
 under consideration, namely, whether the blessing 
 and sanctification of the seventh day, as related in 
 Genesis, ii. 3, had reference to man. Of the sixth 
 day's work w^e are told, " God said. Let us make man 
 in our image, after our likeness ; and let them have 
 dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the 
 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the 
 earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth 
 upon the earth." But as man was concerned in this 
 purpose of the Deity, to man, we are told, it was 
 communicated; for further on we read, that God, 
 having created man in his own image, (" male and 
 female created he them,") blessed them; "and God 
 SAID UNTO THEM, Be fruitful, and multiply, and re- 
 plenish the earth, and subdue it; mid have dominion over 
 the jisli of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and 
 over every living thing that moveth upon the earths 
 Most assuredly, therefore, may we venture to beheve, 
 that if, when God blessed and sanctified the seventh 
 day, he intended that man should sanctify it, he 
 would, as on the preceding day, have communicated 
 his purpose to the first parents of the human race, 
 and that the historian would, as iu the preceding 
 
52 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 instance, have recorded the communication in the 
 words which God said unto them. That the his- 
 torian would have done this is an inference so nearly 
 approaching to certainty, that it would be irrational 
 to doubt it. But if no command was given, as we 
 may justly infer, since none is recorded, it could not 
 be intended that man should sanctify the seventh day, 
 and consequently the text in Genesis is without a 
 meaning, unless it mean, that to Himself alone God 
 blessed and sanctified the day whereon he rested 
 from all his work which he had created and made. 
 
 Thus manifestly does the history of the Creation 
 testify to the fact, that its writer meant literally to 
 represent the Deity as having set apart that seventh 
 day to himself. Astonishing as this may at first 
 appear, it is not, I apprehend, very difficult to conjec- 
 ture in what sense Moses may have conceived the 
 Deity to have set the day apart. For this purpose it 
 is only requisite that we compare the text in Genesis 
 with other passages in the Mosaic writings, and thus 
 allow Moses, like other writers, to be his own in- 
 terpreter. 
 
 The account of the Creation represents the Deity 
 as experiencing great satisfaction in looking upon his 
 work as it progressed from day to day, and in seeing 
 " that it was good," and still greater when viewing 
 the whole of it on its completion, and seeing that " it 
 was very good." Therefore, with all the reverence 
 which is due to a theme so sacred, but at the same 
 time with the confidence which Scripture narrative 
 appears to warrant, I venture to suggest, that when 
 
Sec. I.] CREATION SABBATH. 53 
 
 the historian says, God blessed the seventh day on 
 which he rested and sanctified it, his meaning is, that 
 the Deity, pleased on the seventh day with contemplat- 
 ing and with resting from his glorious work, blessed 
 the day, as we should bless a day that was fraught 
 with peculiar delight to us ; and that he sanctified it 
 (set it apart) in his Divine mind as one to be for 
 ever distinguished on account of the gratification 
 which it had afforded, just as we set apart in our 
 thoughts a supremely happy day, hallowing it, as it 
 were, and cherishing it more especially than any other 
 in our fond remembrance of the days that are past. 
 
 Such an explanation of the text in Genesis is, I 
 acknowledge, to attribute to the Deity the same 
 feelings and impulses as belong to our human nature ; 
 but no one who possesses common sense, and the 
 courage to make use of it, when perusing the Mosaic 
 writings, can fail to perceive that the language of 
 Moses respecting the Supreme Being is throughout 
 essentially anthropomorphic, representing the Deity 
 as possessing the human form, and actuated by human 
 appetites and passions.* 
 
 In Exodus, xxxi. 17, an expression is used, which 
 in its exact translation will amaze the reader. It is 
 there said, " In six days the Lord made heaven and 
 
 * I have here used, and shall continue occasionally to use, the 
 ■word anthropomorphic in a general sense, as referring to the 
 human passions as well as to the human form. In strictness, I 
 ought in some instances, I am aware, to use instead the word 
 anthropopathic . 
 
54 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap, II. 
 
 earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and fetched 
 breath." ^^ 
 
 In Genesis, vi. 6, we find it said, " And it repented 
 the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it 
 grieved him at his heart." Of this strong language 
 used in reference to the Supreme Being, Bishop 
 Patrick (in D'Oyly and Mant's notes to their edition 
 of the Bible) has this remark on the text : " God can 
 properly neither repent nor be grieved. But such ex- 
 pressions signify He resolved to do as men do, who, 
 when they repent of anything, endeavour to undo it." 
 Verily it is not for me to object to this Episcopal expla- 
 nation of a text in the sixth chapter of Genesis, since 
 it undeniably goes far to sanction my mode of ex- 
 plaining the text in the second chapter. (Gen. ii. 3.) 
 
 Another striking instance of anthropomorphic con- 
 ceptions of the Deity is to be found in the 14th 
 chapter of Numbers. Moses there, in soliciting par- 
 don for the transgressions of the Israelites, joins 
 argument to entreaty, reminding the God of Israel 
 that if, as he had threatened, he should destroy the 
 people whom he had brought out of Egypt, " then the 
 
 Egyptians shall hear it and they will tell it 
 
 then the nations which have heard the fame 
 
 * "Fetched breath." This, as Hebraists inform us, (Dr. 
 Geddes and the learned editors of an annotated copy of our 
 authorised version of the Bible, published by them in 1774,) is 
 the true meaning of the Hebrew original. In the authorised 
 ■version that meaning is decorously veiled from our view by 
 translating the passage, "he rested and was refreshed." 
 
Sec. I.] CREATION SABBATH. 55 
 
 of thee will speak, saying, Because the Lord wns not 
 able to bring this people into the land which he sware 
 imto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wil- 
 derness." (Nmn. xiv. 13-16.) 
 
 In thus representing to the Deity the risk which 
 His fame would incur among the heathen nations, if 
 he should break his word to his own people, are we 
 to be told Moses did not mean that the Deity could 
 be moved by suggestions, which, in like cases amongst 
 ourselves, are employed by skilful orators to touch the 
 conscience and excite its fears ? Is it not, on the 
 contrary^ glaringly evident, from the very fact of his 
 having put on record this bold argume^itum ad vere- 
 cimdiam, Moses himself believed that it had con- 
 tributed in no small degree to the success of his 
 intercession ? 
 
 I now pass on to still more extraordinary instances 
 of anthropomorphism displayed in the Mosaic writings, 
 — instances in which theological ingenuity would in 
 vain attempt to pervert the language of the writer by 
 suggestions of some other than its plain and literal 
 meaning. 
 
 That great Being whose presence pervades unli- 
 mited space is said by Moses to have appeared to Jacob 
 more than once, and this not in a dream, as in Genesis, 
 chap. 28, but personally. Thus in Genesis, chap. 35, 
 we read, — " And God appeared unto Jacob again, 
 when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him, 
 
 and God said unto him, I am God Almighty. 
 
 And God went up from him in the place 
 
 where he talked with him." (v. 9, II, 13.) 
 
56 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap II. 
 
 Still more astonishing is the narrative contained 
 in the 18th chapter of Genesis, purporting that God 
 appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, and 
 that Abraham dressed for Him and his two attendant 
 angels, "a calf tender and good," of which they 
 actually ate.* 
 
 The heading of the chapter in our authorised 
 version of the Bible is, — Abraham entertaineth three 
 angels; but this is obviously inaccurate, and I will 
 venture to add, purposely evasive : for no one can, 
 after reading the whole chapter with attention, ho- 
 nestly deny that the historian meant to represent one 
 of the persons who appeared to Abraham as God 
 himself, who, as such, and not as an angel or mes- 
 senger, promised to work a miracle in favour of 
 Abraham's wife, and threatened to destroy Sodom ; 
 but, upon Abraham's entreaty, consented to spare it if 
 ten righteous men should be found there. The chap- 
 ter, in fact, begins by stating expressly that the Lord 
 appeared to Abraham. The Lord was therefore one 
 of the three persons whom Abraham saw and enter- 
 tained. Nothing can be more clear than that this is 
 the true purport of the narrative, and the real meaning 
 of the narrator. 
 
 Now it cannot be justly denied that, in construing 
 the text in Genesis relating to God's sanctifying the 
 
 *" And he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had 
 dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the 
 tree, and they did eat." (Gen. xviii. 8.) I refrain from quoting the 
 astounding instance of anthropomorphic narrative which occurs 
 in E.Kodus, xxxiii. 21-23. 
 
Sec. I J CREATION SABBATH. 57 
 
 seventh day, we ought to be guided by the represen- 
 tations which the writer of that text is accustomed to 
 give of the Divine nature in other parts of his nar- 
 rative. To understand the language of Moses when 
 he is speaking of God, we must think of God as 
 Moses thought, and discard for the time that more 
 subhme conception of the nature and attributes of the 
 Supreme Being which religion and science have since 
 revealed to mankind. Why, then, should any one who 
 reads with due attention the anthropomorphic de- 
 scriptions of the Deity, which are here selected from 
 amongst many others in the Mosaic writings, look 
 upon it as a thing incredible that, when Moses says, — 
 " God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, 
 because that in it he had rested from all his work 
 which God created and made," he intends us to 
 understand that this blessing and sanctification had 
 reference only to God, and to the satisfaction which 
 God is stated to have felt in finishing and contemplat- 
 ing his mighty work ? And if this interpretation be 
 credible, why should it be doubted? If Moses be 
 interpreted consistently with the uniform tenor of his 
 own writings, how can it be doubted? 
 
 True it is that our divines, never at a loss to 
 explain away Scripture difficulties, undertake to assure 
 us that the descriptions of the Deity which we meet 
 with in the Pentateuch are not intended to be under- 
 stood in their literal sense. But this is mere asser- 
 tion : no Scripture authority can be produced in sup- 
 port of it. Passages may, indeed, be quoted from 
 the Old Testament in which the prophets and other 
 
58 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 sacred writers, subsequent to the time of Moses, 
 describe the Deity in language that finely charac- 
 terises his spiritual essence ; but nowhere, in the Old 
 Testament, or in the New, is there any declaration 
 made or intimation given that Moses, when narrating 
 the appearances, the actions, and the thoughts of God, 
 intended his narrative to be understood in a figurative 
 and not in a literal sense. 
 
 "When the Holy Scriptures (says Stackhouse*) 
 speak of God, they ascribe hands, and eyes, and/(?^^ to 
 Him ; not that He has any of these members, accord- 
 ing to the literal signification; but the meaning is, 
 that He has a power to execute all those acts, to the 
 effecting of which these parts in us are instrumental. 
 In like manner the Scripture frequently repre- 
 sents Him as affected with such passions as we perceive 
 in ourselves ; namely, as angry and pleased, loving and 
 hating, repenting and grieving, &c. ; and yet, upon re- 
 flection, we cannot suppose that any of these passions 
 can literally affect the Divine Nature." The question, 
 however, as to passages of this kind in the Pentateuch, 
 and more especially in the book of Genesis, which gives 
 the history of the Creation, and tells of the personal 
 appearances of God to men, is not what, upon reflection, 
 we can or cannot suppose, but what did Moses mean 
 when there speaking of the Divine Being? Did he 
 or did he not mean to be understood in a literal 
 sense ? In some passages, namely, in Genesis, xviii. 8 ; 
 XXXV. 11; and Exodus, xxxiii. 21-23, he must have 
 
 * In D'Oyly and Mant's notes upon Genesis, vi. 6. 
 
Sec. I.] CREATION SABBATH. 59 
 
 meant to be so understood, for they are incapable of 
 any other than a hteral interpretation. But if he 
 meant this as to those passages, why not as to all ? 
 
 There is another explanation, and of a very dif- 
 ferent kind, to which both ancient and modern theo- 
 logians have resorted in order to solve the difficulty 
 under present consideration. Justin, in his Dialogue 
 with Trypho, maintains that it was not God the 
 Father, but God the Son, who appeared to the patri- 
 archs. In Brown's translation of the Dialogue, (Cam- 
 bridge Edition, 1846, p. 122,) the passage is as follows : 
 — " Seeing you understand the Scriptures, said I (to 
 Trypho), I will endeavour to convince you of the 
 truth of what I say, namely, that there is said to be, 
 and really is, another God and Lord inferior, or sub- 
 ordinate, to the Creator of all things, who is also called 
 the angel or messenger, because he communicates to 
 mankind all those things which it is the will of the 
 Creator of all things, above whom there is no God, 
 should be communicated to them." Justin then 
 proceeds to argue that it was this other God and 
 Lord who appeared to Abraham in the plains of 
 Mamre, and who appeared also to Jacob and to 
 Moses. How Justin, and those who follow him in 
 these opinions, reconcile them with the declaration 
 made to Jacob, — "I am God Almighty," (Gen. xxxv. 
 11,) I cannot imagine; but, waiving all discussion 
 upon this point, I have to remark, that if the hypo- 
 thesis of Justin be admitted as a Scripture fact, it 
 necessarily follows that Christ, the Lord and God of 
 whom he speaks, was, according to Scripture, the 
 
60 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 Creator of this world; for no doubt can exist of Moses 
 having represented the Creator of it as being the same 
 God who afterwards appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, 
 and to himself. 
 
 The tenet that Christ was the Creator of this 
 world, though not " of all things," appears to have 
 been held by other Church fathers besides Justin, as 
 was also Justin's opinion, that by Christ all communi- 
 cations from the Supreme Being were made to man- 
 kind. Thus, as to the latter opinion, we find Clemens 
 Romanus, in his Epistle to the Corinthians,* when 
 adverting to the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic 
 dispensation, stating them as " things which our Lord 
 had commanded to be done;" and Athanasius, in a 
 passage which is quoted from his works in the treatise 
 before referred to, entitled " The Christian Sabbath,"f 
 (p. 813,) speaks of Christ as having commanded to 
 be observed the Sabbath day of the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation, in commemoration of his creation of the 
 world. The quotation is as follows : — " The Sabbath," 
 says Athanasius, "was the end of the first creation, but 
 the Lord's day the beginning of the second, when he 
 renewed the old (creation); therefore, as he formerly! 
 
 * See Vol. I. of " The Sabbath," pp. 284-289. 
 
 f I have elsewhere noticed, but for another purpose, the 
 above quotation from Athanasius. (See Supplement to " The 
 Sabbath," p. ix.) 
 
 I " Formerly ordered." Athanasius cannot be taken to mean 
 by "formerly" {Tr^on^ov, priori cbvo), that the order to observe 
 a Sabbath was given at the Creation : an expression so indefinite 
 as to the period to which it refers cannot be aptly used in refer- 
 ence to the beginning of time. 
 
Sec. I.] 
 
 CREATION SABBATH. 61 
 
 ordered the Sabbath day to be observed in com- 
 uieiiioration of the end of his first works, so we 
 venerate the Lord's day as a commemoration of the 
 beginning of his second, which were a renovation ; 
 for he did not make a new creation, but renewed the 
 old one and perfected that which he had commenced." 
 {Be Sabbato, vol. ii. p. 57. ed. Benedict. 3 vols, folio, 
 Paris, 1698.*) 
 
 Augustine is still more explicit; he says: — '* Serve 
 male, fecisti quod Dominus jussit? Ne vapulares, 
 ista flagella tibi ante praedixit. Quis jussit ? Domi- 
 nus jussit, Creator tims jussit. Quid jussit ? Qui 
 amat, inquit, patrem aut matrem plus quam me, non 
 est me dignus!^ (Thou wicked servant, hast thou 
 done w^hat the Lord commanded? That thou might- 
 est not be beaten, he foretold those scourges to thee. 
 Who hath commanded? The Lord hath commanded, 
 tliy Creator hath comma^ided. What hath he com- 
 manded ? He that loveth, saith he, father or mother 
 more than me is not worthy of me.) (Benedictine 
 edition, Antwerp, 1702, vol. vi. p. 455.) It is there- 
 
 * Mr. Holden, the author of " The Christian Sabbath," does 
 not give the original of this passage, nor the Latin version of it 
 by the editors of the edition to which he refers. The following 
 is the Latin version in a later edition : — " Finis igitur prioris 
 creationis erat Sabbatum, secundse autem initium : Dominica 
 in qua vetereni renovavit. Sicut igitur priori £evo (Trgorsgov) 
 Sabbati diem servari jussit in monumentum finis priorum, sic 
 Dominicam veneramur in memoriam initii secundse reparationis. 
 Non enim aliam creavit sed veterem renovavit, et quam facere 
 coeperat absolvit." (Athanasii Opera Omnia quae extant, opera et 
 studio Monaehorum Ordinis S. Benedicti. Patavii, 1778.) 
 
62 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap, II. 
 
 fore, according to Augustine, the Creator who speaks 
 in Matthew, x. 37. 
 
 But, moreover, the tenet of the Church fathers, 
 that Christ was the Creator of this world, and that it 
 was He, and not the Supreme Being, who appeared to 
 the patriarchs, is, it should seem, at this very time, 
 the creed of the modern orthodox church. The erudite 
 author of a work entitled " A Vindication of Protestant 
 Principles," by Phileleutherus Anglicanus (London, 
 1847), is a strenuous advocate of these opinions. 
 " We cannot (he contends) regard the Supreme 
 Being as standing in any relation to us, even in that 
 of Creator, until he has revealed himself as assuming 
 a relative and, in some degree, concrete essence, 
 instead of his abstract existence. Por as this world 
 is obviously only a part of the universe, a point in an 
 infinite system, the Divine Being, the Omnipresent, 
 infinitely wise, and Almighty Governor and Preserver 
 of this boundless realm, can never manifest himself 
 in his absolute entirety to the conceptions of such a 
 mere atom in his system as we are. (John, i. 18; v. 
 37 ; vi. 46 ; xiv. 8, 9 ; Col. i. 15.) He must become 
 Godi relatively to us, — God considered as oiu* peculiar 
 Creator, and as peculiarly in communion with us. He 
 must, therefore, be God the Son, the only-begotten, 
 created before all the worlds, the Koyog, or divine 
 emanation, hypostasis, and person, by means of whom 
 (^/' ov) the world was made, and through lohom Q>i oxi) 
 all God's dealings with this branch of his Creation are 
 necessarily carried on. (John,i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 
 2.) Strictly, therefore, a personal God, in whose image 
 
Sec. I] CREATION SABBATH. 63 
 
 we were originally created, and to communion with 
 whom our nature continually aspires." (pp. 70 and 1 58.) 
 
 I make no comment upon this refined reasoning. 
 So far as regards my argument relating to the text in 
 Genesis, it is a matter of indifference whether these 
 mysterious tenets respecting Christ in his pre-existent 
 state be true or false ; for, of whatever God Moses may 
 mean to speak, it suffices for my interpretation of the 
 text, that Moses represents the God who created this 
 world and rested on the seventh day, as a Being who 
 possessed the form of man, who was influenced by 
 feelings and affections incident to man's nature, and 
 who ate of the calf that was tender and good. By 
 these representations, if we wish to arrive at its true 
 meaning, we must construe the text in question, and, 
 so construed, we are compelled to believe that God, 
 the Creator of this world, blessed and sanctified the 
 seventh day with reference to Himself, and not to man. 
 
 Now, it has been remarked, and truly remarked, 
 that upon the question, whether the Sabbath was 
 instituted at the time of the Creation, it is " the pass- 
 age in the second chapter of Genesis which creates the 
 whole controversy."* If, therefore, my interpretation 
 of that passage be approved, — if it be, as I think it is, 
 incapable of refutation, the controversy is at an end, 
 and any further dissertation upon the question of a 
 Sabbath command at the Creation ought, on every 
 sound principle of reasoning, to be deemed superfluous, 
 — a waste of words upon an exhausted theme. 
 
 * Paley's "Moral Pliilosopliy," vol. ii. pp. 74, 75, 8tb edition 
 
64 CREATION SABBATH. [CnAr. II. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 Confident as I am in the opinion expressed at the 
 conclusion of the preceding Section, I cannot act upon 
 it, — I cannot safely leave my case as it now stands, 
 for the Sabbatarians have another argument upon the 
 text in Genesis on which they lay very great stress, 
 and which, therefore, if I did not notice, I should 
 perhaps be thought afraid to encounter. They insist 
 that God, by his rest on the seventh day at the Crea- 
 tion, set us an example of resting from labour every 
 seventh day. " We cannot, indeed," says one of their 
 writers, " form any just notion of the Sabbath of Je- 
 hovah, — what was the nature of the rest of God, or 
 what the period through which it might extend. Yet 
 this rest, as a model, is presented to our notice in an 
 intelligible shape, and man is commanded to cease 
 from labour every seventh day, after the example of 
 his Maker."* Doubtless an example set us by our 
 Maker for our imitation would be a command to 
 imitate it, but who tells us that God's rest at the 
 Creation was intended to be a model and example to 
 us ? Certainly not the historian of the Creation, and 
 no one else, except by direct inspiration, could know 
 that it was so intended : but no one of the prophets 
 and historians of the Old Testament, nor any one 
 
 * "Brief Remarks on the History, Authority, and Use of the 
 Sabbath," by Joseph Johu Gui'uey, 1833, p. 10. 
 
Sec. II] CREATION SABBATH. 65 
 
 of the sacred writers in the New Testament, has 
 put this interpretation on the text in Genesis. Nay, 
 even the Church Fathers, some of whom were noto- 
 riously addicted to conjectural and fanciful inter- 
 pretations of Scripture, never, in their occasional 
 allusions to the text in Genesis, take upon themselves 
 to maintain that it implied a command to mankind to 
 imitate the rest of God on the seventh day. There 
 can be no analogy between the rest of God and that 
 of man. The example of rest, which Sabbatarians 
 allege to have been given to us, is such as they them- 
 selves, though professing to follow it, neither do nor 
 can follow. The Sabbath which they observe is that 
 of rest on the seventh day after six days of labour and 
 six nights of rest, and the example, if any, which is 
 actually set us is that of rest from the unceasing work 
 of six whole days, including the nights ; for it is not 
 to be imagined that the w^ork of Creation was ever 
 suspended for one moment from the time of its com- 
 mencement to that of its close. If it was at times 
 suspended, it would follow that God's rest on the 
 seventh day was not his first and only rest, as all 
 theologians appear to agree the text represents it to 
 have been. 
 
 The argument that God's rest is an example to 
 us fails also in another respect. The writer above 
 quoted acknowledges that we cannot form any just 
 notion of what was the period to which that rest 
 extended. How then could it be an example to us of 
 resting for the period of exactly one entire day ? To 
 be such it ought to appear from the text, inferentially 
 
 r 
 
66 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 at least, that this was the precise duration of God's 
 rest ; yet the text, it is admitted by the same writer, 
 affords no such inference. 
 
 Even if we could suppose that God did at the 
 close of the work of Creation rest from all exercise of 
 his Divine energy, and for precisely the space of one 
 day, and that day the seventh, we could not regard 
 the rest of that one day as an example for our resting 
 on every seventh day. The text is silent on this 
 point, and the example which God has since set us, 
 by the never-ceasing exercise of his power in sustaining 
 his work of Creation, is the example of working on the 
 seventh day as well as on every other.* Yet the 
 author of the " Brief Remarks" affirms that, by the rest 
 of God on the seventh day, of which he says himself we 
 cannot form any just conception, either as to its nature 
 or its duration, " man is commanded to cease from labour 
 every seventh day, after the example of Ids Maker !" 
 But what will not unscrupulous theologians say and 
 write ? for well they know that confident assertion in 
 aid of feeble argument is sure to satisfy the far greater 
 portion of their readers. Yet say and write what they 
 will on the subject of God's rest at the Creation, the 
 only sense in which this rest can be interpreted in a 
 manner comprehensible by our faculties, and appa- 
 rently the only sense in which it was understood by 
 the historian himself, is simply this : — God ceased 
 
 * " And therefore did tlie Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to 
 slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabhath day. 
 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and 
 I work." — John, v. 16, 17. 
 
Sec. 11.] CREATION SABBATH. 67 
 
 from loorhing, — ceased from the work which had 
 occupied him during the six preceding days, but 
 which was then ended.* That the historian could 
 not mean to say that God rested for any definite 
 space of time is incontcstably proved by what he says 
 afterwards in the remarkable passage before quoted f 
 from Exodus (xxxi. 17), where, when the original is 
 literally translated, we read as follows : — " For in six 
 days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the 
 seventh day he rested and fetched breath." 
 
 I conclude, therefore, that the notion of the 
 Almighty having at the Creation presented us with 
 a model, and set us an example for resting from 
 labour every seventh day, is at once gratuitous and 
 absurd. 
 
 Again, then, I resort to Paley's just remark, that it 
 is the text in Genesis which has occasioned the whole 
 controversy respecting a Sabbath command at the 
 Creation ; and having now replied to the further argu- 
 ment of the Sabbatarians upon this text, I find myself 
 again warranted in saying, the whole controversy/ is at 
 an end. 
 
 * "And oil the seveiitla day God ended his work which he had 
 made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which 
 he had made.'' — Gen. ii. 2. 
 
 f See ante, p. 54, and the note there upon the passage 
 quoted. 
 
68 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap II. 
 
 Section TIL 
 
 Not so, however, my task of exposing the fallacy of 
 the tenet which forms the subject of the controversy : 
 for although I have demonstrated its fallacy by an 
 interpretation which appears to me to be the true 
 interpretation of the text in Genesis, I must expect 
 Sabbatarians will still contend that the word trans- 
 lated "sanctified" is there used in the sense of "set 
 apart for religious purposes," — a signification which 
 cannot be applicable to the Deity ; and they will 
 therefore still insist that a Sabbath was instituted at 
 the Creation, and that the text in Genesis implies a 
 command to observe it. 
 
 Hence it becomes indispensably requisite for me 
 to go over the old beaten track in this field of contro- 
 versy, and to argue the question of a Creation Sab- 
 bath as though it had not already been disposed of. 
 
 Assuming, then, that the blessing and sanctifica- 
 tion of the seventh day, recorded in the text from 
 Genesis, had reference to a Sabbath which was to be 
 observed by man, it would not follow as of course that 
 the observance of it was to commence from the time 
 of the Creation. The mention made of the Sabbath 
 in the history of the Creation (if any mention be there 
 made of it), might be proleptical, alluding by antici- 
 pation to that which was instituted by Moses. This 
 was the interpretation given to the text by the old 
 Jewish commentators, as is admitted by Sabbatarian 
 
Sec. III.] CREATION SABBATH. 69 
 
 writers. "The Jewish Tahnuclists " (says the author 
 of "Brief Remarks") "pretend that this consecration 
 of the seventh day" (at the Creation) "was simply 
 prospective, that the mention of it in this passage" 
 (the text in Genesis) " is nothing more than an allu- 
 sion to a law which was long afterwards to be enacted 
 for the benefit of the Israelites alone." (" Brief Re- 
 marks on the History, Authority, and Use of the Sab- 
 bath," p. 8.)* 
 
 Among the modern writers who treat the text in 
 Genesis as proleptical, is Dr. Paley. He agrees with 
 the Sabbatarians, that the text refers to the Sabbath, 
 but remarks that, "as the seventh day was erected 
 into a Sabbath, on account of God's resting upon that 
 day from the work of Creation, it was natural enough 
 in the historian, when he had related the history of 
 the Creation, and of God's ceasing from it on the 
 seventh day, to add, ' And God blessed the seventh 
 day, and sanctified it ; because that on it he had 
 
 * The Talmud is a Jewish book, containing a compilation of 
 expositions respecting the duties imposed on the Jews in Scrip- 
 ture, or by tradition or custom, or by the authority of their 
 doctors. There are two books with this name ; the one compiled 
 at Jerusalem, about 300 years after Christ, though some think 
 it did not appear till the fifth century ; the other, which is held 
 in higher reverence, was compiled at Babylon, about 500 years 
 after Cluist ; though some are of opinion it was not finished 
 till the year 700. (Kees's " Cyclopaedia," art. Talmud.) 
 
 The Jewish writers who are cited by the author of " The 
 Christian Sabbath" (p. 62), as being of a contrary opinion to 
 that of the Talmudists, respecting the text in Genesis, are of a 
 much later period. The earliest of them, Aben Ezra and 
 Maimonides, were writers of the twelfth century. 
 
70 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 rested from all his work which God created and 
 made,' although the blessing and sanctification, i.e. 
 the religious distinction and appropriation of that day, 
 were not actually made till many ages afterwards. 
 The words do not assert that God then blessed and 
 sanctified the seventh day, but that he blessed and 
 sanctified it for that reason ; and if any ask why the 
 Sabbath, or sanctification of the seventh day, was then 
 mentioned, if it was not then appointed, the answer 
 is at hand, — the order of connexion, and not of time, 
 introduced the mention of the Sabbath in the history 
 of the subject which it was ordained to commem- 
 orate."* 
 
 Other eminent theologians have held the same 
 opinion as Paley on this question. Dr. Geddes says, 
 " I cannot but think with Jarchi,t Selden, Le Clerc, 
 &c., that the Jewish historian here, as often elsewhere, 
 makes use of a prolepsis, and alludes to the Mosaical 
 institution of the Sabbath." | 
 
 With due deference, however, to the great writers 
 who have thus undertaken to prove that Moses, in the 
 text from Genesis, has made use of ?^ prolepsis, I con- 
 sider all argument on the subject superfluous : for 
 the text cannot be otherwise than proleptical, if the 
 fact be, that the notion of a Sabbath having been 
 instituted at the Creation is an invention of com- 
 
 * " Moral Pliilos." ii. 75. 
 
 \ Jarchi (Solomon Ben Isaac), a celebrated Rabbi, was boru at 
 Troyes in 1104. He wrote commentaries on tlie Bible, Mishua, 
 &c., whicb are much esteemed. i^Vatk'ms, from Moreri.) 
 
 I " Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures," p. Q6. 
 
Sec. III.] CREATION SABBATH. 71 
 
 paratively a very recent date; and that this is the 
 fact, I shall, in a subsequent part of the Chapter, 
 submit my proofs to the candid consideration of the 
 reader. 
 
 Before I dismiss the proleptical argument, I have 
 to notice a flippant remark by Archbishop Sharp, 
 which I find quoted, and vi^ith approbation, by Mr. 
 Hughes, in his reply to Mr. Higgins' " Horse Sab- 
 batica3." Mr. Hughes says, that, " with reference to 
 such an interpretation (the proleptical), which is by 
 no means a new one. Archbishop Sharp, Serm. 12, 
 vol. 4, very pertinently asks, whether any man of 
 sense, that should meet with such a passage in any 
 other historian, could possibly so interpret it?"* My 
 answer is, most certainly he could, if the two cases 
 were similar in all respects, except in their subject ; 
 that is to say, if there were in some other historian a 
 passage similar to that in Genesis, and if there were 
 in a subsequent part of his history the narrative of an 
 important event, relating to the subject to which the 
 passage may be supposed to have related, in like 
 manner as the institution of the Sabbath in the wil- 
 derness appertained to the alleged subject of the text 
 in Genesis. The Archbishop, it is evident, had no 
 such passage to produce. He leaves it to his man of 
 sense to find one such, if he can. The Archbishop's 
 
 * " A Letter to Godfrey Higgins, Esq., on the Subject of his 
 ' Horte Sabbaticffi,' by the Rev. T. S. Hughes, B.D. bite Fellow 
 of Emanuel College, Cambridge, Christian Advocate of that Uni- 
 versity, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Peter- 
 borough," (p. 9). 
 
72 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II, 
 
 question, therefore, upon the proleptical interpretation 
 of that text, instead of being " very pertinent," is a 
 clear nihil ad rem. 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 My next argument against the tenet of a Creation 
 Sabbath is, that Scripture makes no mention of any 
 such Sabbath having been at any time observed. 
 
 If it were true that at the Creation a command 
 was given to observe a Sabbath, it would, doubtless, 
 have been obeyed at first, and would have been 
 strictly complied with, in after times, by the Jewish 
 patriarchs, and would in all succeeding ages, until the 
 time of Moses, have been observed with more or less 
 of regularity by some portions of the human race ; 
 yet the historian of the Creation, and of the first 2500 
 years of man's existence upon earth, takes no notice 
 of any Sabbath having been observed before that, 
 which at the end of this long period he himself, by 
 Divine authority, instituted in the wilderness. This is a 
 surprising fact, if a Sabbath command was actually 
 given at the Creation. It is thus commented upon 
 by Dr. Paley, after having related from Exodus 
 (ch. 16), the occurrence of the fall of manna during 
 six days, and the direction given by Moses to the 
 people of Israel, to observe a Sabbath on the day 
 following, on which day no manna was to fall : " Now, 
 
Sec. IV.] CREATION SABBATH. 73 
 
 in my opinion, the transaction in the wilderness, above 
 recited, was the first actual institution of the Sabbath. 
 For if the Sabbath had been instituted at the time of 
 the Creation, as the words in Genesis may seem at 
 first sight to import, and if it had been observed all 
 along from that time to the departure of the Jews out 
 of Egypt, a period of about two thousand five hundred 
 years, it appears unaccountable that no mention of it, 
 no occasion of even the obscurest allusion to it, should 
 occur either in the general history of the world before 
 the call of Abraham, which contains, we admit, only 
 a few memoirs of its early ages, and these extremely 
 abridged ; or, which is more to be wondered at, in 
 that of the lives of the three first Jewish patriarchs, 
 which, in many parts of the account, is sufficiently 
 circumstantial and domestic." (" Moral Philos." 
 ii. 74.) 
 
 To the same purport, argues Heylyn, in his " His- 
 tory of the Sabbath," " the Scripture is exceeding 
 copious in setting down his (Abraham's) life and 
 actions, as also of the lives and actions of his son and 
 nephews, their flittings and removes, their sacrifices, 
 forms of prayer, and whatsoever else was signal in the 
 whole course of their afiairs, but yet no mention of 
 the Sabbath, Though such a memorable thing as 
 sanctifying of a constant day unto the Lord might 
 probably have been omitted in the former patriarchs, 
 of whom there is but little left save their names and 
 ages, as if they had been only brought into the story 
 to make way for him, yet it is strange that in a punc- 
 tual and particular relation of his life and piety, there 
 
74 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II 
 
 should not be one item to point out the Sabbath, had 
 it been observed." (Heylyn's " History of the Sab- 
 bath," part 1, eh. 3, sect. 5.) 
 
 To these remarks it may be added, that had there 
 been a Sabbath instituted at the Creation, we might 
 reasonably expect to find the observance of it alluded 
 to by some one or more of the numerous prophets 
 and Scripture historians who succeeded Moses ; yet 
 no allusion to such an observance is to be discovered 
 in the writings of any of them. The fact is, and 
 very significant is the fact, that, throughout the whole 
 of the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures, there is 
 not to be found any evidence whatever which can 
 warrant a rational belief in the actual observance of 
 an ante-Mosaic Sabbath. 
 
 This objection to the tenet of a Creation Sabbath 
 the Sabbatarians meet by replying, that in respect to 
 some other institutions, acknowledged to have origi- 
 nated in a Divine command, there is a similar want of 
 evidence where evidence might be expected. They 
 further remark, that even if no proof exists of the 
 Creation Sabbath having been observed, there is evi- 
 dence of its having been known ; and, finally, they say, 
 there are in Scripture hints of its having been actually 
 observed. 
 
Sec. v.] creation SABUATII. 75 
 
 Section V. 
 
 On the first of the three points noticed in the last 
 Section, the Sabbfitarians instance the case of circum- 
 cision, "of which (says Dr. Jennings) there is no 
 express mention in Scripture, or, however, no instance 
 recorded of the observation of it, from the settlement 
 of the Israelites in Canaan to the circumcision of 
 Christ. Nevertheless, as this rite was the sign of the 
 covenant with Abraham and his posterity, and the 
 characteristic of the peculiar people of God, its being 
 constantly observed cannot reasonably be called in 
 question."* 
 
 The object of the argument contained in this reply 
 is to impress the reader with the belief that the two 
 cases are parallel ; for, if they are, it cannot conclu- 
 sively be inferred that there was no Sabbath command 
 at the Creation, merely because there is no instance 
 recorded of its having been observed. The cases, 
 however, are not parallel. The author here quoted, as 
 others do who use the same argument, speaks of the 
 silence of history as to the observance of the rite of 
 circumcision during the period which occurred between 
 the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan and the cir- 
 cumcision of Christ. But why not carry the inquiry 
 back to the time when the rite of circumcision was 
 first instituted, which was 447 years before the Israel- 
 
 * Jennings' "Jewish Antiquities," ii. 141. 
 
76 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 ites settled in Canaan ?* Of the non-observance of a 
 Creation Sabbath evidence is wanting, from the very 
 time of its supposed institution. The advocate of the 
 tenet may search the vv^hole Bible, from the first 
 chapter of Genesis to the last in Kevelations, — not one 
 instance will he find related in it, or in the Apocry- 
 pha, of the actual observance of a Creation Sabbath, 
 or any one clear allusion made to its having been ob- 
 served. How widely different is this from the case of 
 circumcision ! Of the observance of this rite there is 
 in Scripture express mention on some occasions, and 
 unequivocal recognition of it on several, between the 
 time of its institution and that of the settlement of the 
 Israelites in Canaan ; and after that period, the in- 
 stances of historical recognition of the rite are of fre- 
 quent occurrence. Thus, as to the observance and the 
 recognition of it before the settlement in Canaan, we 
 may refer to Genesis, xvii. 23 ; Exod. iv. 25, 26 ; vi. 
 12, 30 ; xii. 44-48 ; Levit. xii, 3 ; xix. 23 ; xxvi. 41 ; 
 and Deut. x. 16 ; xxx. 6. The two first of these texts 
 relate each an instance of the performance of the rite. 
 
 Another instance of the performance of it is men- 
 tioned in the 5th chapter of Joshua, v. 2-8. This 
 was after the Israelites had entered Canaan, but before 
 they had eff'ected a settlement in it. There is also an 
 instance in the Pentateuch, not before noticed, and 
 which occurred previous to the entrance into Canaan. 
 It is to be found in a most revolting narrative of a per- 
 formance of the rite under circumstances tliere related ; 
 
 * 1898 B.C.-1451 B.c.=447. 
 
SficV] CREATION SABBATH. 77 
 
 but although this narrative forms part of a chapter, the 
 whole of which is selected by our Church as one of 
 the " Proper Lessons to be read at Morning and 
 Evening Prayer," it would not be proper for me to re- 
 transcribe it, or more particularly to refer to it. 
 
 The allusions which are made to the rite of circum- 
 cision, after the settlement in Canaan, are, as already 
 remarked, very numerous. The canonical Scriptures 
 carry on the recognition of it to within 600 years of 
 the circumcision of Christ ; and the Apocryphal books, 
 which, in this matter, are good evidence, bring it 
 within 200 years of that event. 
 
 In little more than 300 years after Joshua and his 
 army had entered Canaan, we find, in the book of 
 Judges (xiv. 3), mention made (1141 b.c.) of the m7i- 
 circumcised Phihstines. Again, in the next chapter 
 (v. 18), Sampson is said to expect he shall fall into the 
 hands of the tmcircumcised. Subsequently we find the 
 rite noticed by the use of the same word {uncircum- 
 cised) in the following texts: — 1 Sam. xiv. 6 (about 
 1087 B.C.); xvii. 26, 36 (about 1063 b.c); xxxi. 4 
 (1056 B.C.); 2 Sam. i. 20 (same date); 1 Chron. x. 
 4 (same date); Isaiah, lii. 1 (about 712 b.c); Jere- 
 miah, iv. 4 (about 612 b.c); vi. 10 (same date); ix. 
 25, 26 (about 600 b.c); Ezekiel, xxviii. 10 (about 588 
 B.C.) ; xxxi. 48 (same date); xxxii. 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 
 27, 28, 29, 30, 32 (about 587 b.c) ; xliv. 7, 9 (about 
 574 B.C.) The canonical Scripture ends at about the 
 year 397 b.c. The Apocryphal Scripture has the fol- 
 lowing texts, in which one or other of the three words 
 — circumcision, circumcised, uncircumcised — is used : 
 
78 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 Judith, xiv. 10; and in this text is mentioned the 
 performance of the rite; the date is about G56 e.g.; 
 Esther, xiv. 15 (about 500 b.c.) ; 1 Mace. i. 15, 60, 
 61 (about 323 b.c.) ; and ii. 46 (about 168 b.c.) 
 
 Besides all this evidence, there is mention made in 
 the 1st and 2d books of Samuel* of two instances of 
 circumcision, which, although not performed as a re- 
 ligious act, are equally a recognition of its existence as a 
 religious rite amongst the Jewish people at that period. 
 
 I have been thus particular in referring to the 
 numerous texts here cited, because the only effectual 
 way of putting down general allegations is, to examine 
 in detail the facts upon which they are founded. 
 Great use is made by Sabbatarians of that deceptive 
 mode of argument, which consists of loose inexact 
 assertions regarding matters of fact. In the present 
 case, even intelligent readers are likely to be misled by 
 the specious statement, that " there is no express men- 
 tion in Scripture, or, however, no instance recorded, of 
 the observation of circumcision from the settlement of 
 the Israelites in Canaan to the circumcision of Christ. "f 
 They are led to believe that history, during all this 
 long period of 1450 years, is as complete a blank, or 
 very nearly so, on the subject of observing the rite of 
 circumcision, as it undoubtedly is on that of the ob- 
 servance of a Creation Sabbath ; yet we see that, upon 
 examining it closely, this insinuation is essentially 
 
 * 1 Sam.xviii. '25, and '27 (about 1003 B.C.) ; and 2 Sam. iii. 
 11 (about 1053 b.c.) 
 j See ante, p. 75, 
 
Sec. v.] CREATION SABBATH. 79 
 
 false. The two cases are dissimilar in every point of 
 view. Five instances are here noticed to have been 
 recorded of the actual performance of the rite of circum- 
 cision, whilst there is not one instance to be found 
 recorded of the actual observance of a Creation Sab- 
 bath ; and as to the recognition of those rites, the 
 difference is very striking. Not one clear recognition 
 of a Creation Sabbath can be pointed out in any part 
 of canonical Scripture, or of the Apocrypha ; yet, from 
 those authorities, no less than forty-four instances 
 have been quoted which recognise the rite of circum- 
 cision, exclusive of the five instances quoted as rC' 
 lating to the performance of it. Many of the in- 
 stances of its recognition, it is true, consist in the 
 phrase, " the uncircumcised ;" but the use of that 
 phrase by the Jews, when speaking of another na- 
 tion, is inferential evidence little less strong than posi- 
 tive evidence would be, that they themselves constantly 
 practised the rite. 
 
 The case of circumcision may, therefore, be dis- 
 missed as not possessing the smallest claim to be 
 cited in answer to the argument founded on the fact, 
 that Scripture takes no notice of any observance of a 
 Sabbath instituted at the Creation, 
 
 There is, however, another case referred to by 
 Sabbatarians which, I admit, has fair pretensions to 
 consideration as a reply to this argument. It is that 
 of the Mosaic Sabbath, of which it has been said, that 
 " the observance of the recently instituted Sabbath 
 itself, with all its pains and penalties, is not men- 
 tioned in any of the six books which immediately 
 
80 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap II. 
 
 follow the Mosaic code, and which contain a much 
 more particular history of events than the very com- 
 pendious book of Genesis."* 
 
 This is undoubtedly so, but the case is far from 
 being sufficiently parallel with that of the alleged 
 Creation Sabbath to form a satisfactory answer to the 
 argument in question. The Mosaic Sabbath, though 
 remaining unnoticed in Scripture for nearly five hun- 
 dred years following the death of Moses, was fre- 
 quently mentioned or alluded to in after times. The 
 historical book of Nehemiah contains notices of, or 
 allusions to, it on numerous occasions ; so also the 
 prophetical Book of Ezekiel. Mention is made of 
 it, moreover, in the books of the prophets Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, Hosea, and Amos, and in every historical 
 book of the New Testament. With all this evidence 
 of a Scriptural recognition of the Mosaic Sabbath, 
 contrast the perfect silence of the whole Bible on 
 the subject of a Creation Sabbath ; and what then, I 
 ask, becomes of the parallel attempted to be instituted 
 between these two cases ? The attempt must be ad- 
 mitted to be a failure, and consequently the objection 
 to the tenet of a Creation Sabbath, namely, that such 
 a Sabbath is nowhere noticed in Scripture, remains in 
 its full force. 
 
 It is not my design, however, to overstate the 
 value of the objection by overlooking the nature of it. 
 I readily acknowledge it amounts to nothing more 
 
 * "Letter to Godfrey Higgins, Esq., by the Rev. T. S. 
 Hughes, B.D."p. 11. 
 
Sec. VI.] CREATION SABBATH. 81 
 
 than this, that the total absence of all Scriptural 
 recognition of a Creation Sabbath renders it in the 
 highest degree improbable, a priori, that such a 
 Sabbath ever existed ; and the utmost value which, 
 in my judgment, can be put upon any a priori argu- 
 ment is, that in proportion to the antecedent impro- 
 bability of an alleged fact should be the strength of 
 the evidence produced in its support. But look at 
 the present case in this view of it : is there such 
 strong and convincing evidence that the text in 
 Genesis implies a Sabbath command at the Creation, 
 as to overbalance the inference which the silence of 
 Scriptm'e affords of the extreme improbability that 
 such a command was then given? 
 
 To me it appears that the evidence on the sub- 
 ject, if any there be, is so scanty and insignificant, 
 that any well-sustained a priori argument opposed to 
 it is sufficient to overthrow it, and that, therefore, the 
 silence of Scripture as to the alleged Sabbath com- 
 mand at the Creation may justly be deemed an ob- 
 jection fatal to that tenet. 
 
 Section VI. 
 
 I DO not forget that the Sabbatarians, as I have 
 already stated, contest the fact of Scripture silence, 
 and assert there is Scripture evidence, not only of the 
 Creation Sabbath having been known previously to 
 
 G 
 
825 (IREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 the time of Moses, but also of its having been actually- 
 observed. I must, therefore, discuss these two points 
 of their case before I can ask the reader's complete 
 assent to the contrary conclusion. 
 
 It is obvious that if Scripture evidence can be 
 given of a Sabbath having been observed before the 
 time of Moses, there can be no necessity for giving 
 any other evidence of its having been known before 
 his time ; but the Sabbatarians maintain, that although 
 there were no proof existing of its having been ob- 
 served, there is positive evidence of its having been 
 known. It will, therefore, be expedient to commence 
 with the consideration of that evidence. It consists 
 of an expression made use of by Moses when inform- 
 ing the Israelites, in the wilderness of Sin, that no 
 manna would fall on the seventh day. Upon this 
 expression the learned Hebraist, Dr. Kennicott, in a 
 passage which I find quoted from his works by Dr. 
 Jennings,* makes the following comment : — " When 
 the Sabbath is first mentioned in the time of 
 Moses, namely, in the 16th chapter of the Book of 
 Exodus, it is not spoken of as a novel institution, but 
 as one with which the people were well acquainted. 
 ' To-morrow,' saith he, ' is the holy Sabbath to the 
 Lord ; ' and then he informs them, not of their gene- 
 ral duty at such a season, of which they were per- 
 fectly apprised, but only how they should act on that 
 day with respect to the manna, which was not to fall 
 on the seventh, as it had done on the six preceding 
 days." 
 
 * " Jewish Antiq," ii. 143. 
 
Sec. VI.] CREATION SABBATH. 83 
 
 I know of no general duty belonging to a Sab- 
 bath-day of which the Israelites had then been per- 
 fectly or at all apprised ; and I believe it to be beyond 
 the power of any theologian to point out a passage in 
 Scripture whereby it appears that the Israelites had 
 been tlien apprised of any duty whatever that was 
 peculiar to a Sabbath-day. 
 
 As to the stress laid on the declaration by Moses, 
 above alluded to, and which occurs in verse 23, 
 " To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the 
 Lord," it seems very doubtful whether the use there 
 made of the definite article by our Bible translators is 
 correct. Dr. Geddes translates the passage thus : — 
 " To-morrow is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord." 
 The author of " Horae Sabbaticse" is so confident that 
 the use of the definite article in this passage is an 
 error, as to assert that no Hebrew scholar could doubt 
 for one moment of its being so, forgetting, however, 
 or possibly not having been aware, that Dr. Kennicott 
 might be named as an exception. The Greek of the 
 Septuagint has no article prefixed,* and, therefore, if 
 the definite article were used in an English translation 
 of the Greek version, its accuracy might be questioned. 
 It is also, perhaps, worthy of remark that our Bible 
 translators, though they use the definite article in the 
 verse above mentioned, make use afterwards of the 
 indefinite article, where (in v. 25) Moses repeats his 
 declaration : — "Eat that to-day, for to-day is a Sab- 
 bath unto the Lord." It must be doubtful, therefore, 
 if the use of the definite article in v. 23 be correct ; 
 
84 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 but, even if it be so, the proof which it is supposed 
 to afford that the IsraeUtes were, as Dr. Kennicott 
 asserts, well acquainted with the Sabbath rite, is feeble 
 in comparison with the proof to be found in v. 29, 
 that the Sabbath of which Moses is speaking was then 
 a novel institution ; — " See, for that the Lord hath 
 given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the 
 sixth day the bread of two days." If the w^ord giveth^ 
 relating to the bread, be taken literally, as it must be, 
 no just reason can be assigned why the word given, 
 which relates to the Sabbath, should not equally be 
 so taken.* It is clear, therefore, that no Sabbath 
 could have been given or commanded before that 
 which Moses instituted in the wilderness. That this 
 is the true inference from the text last mentioned 
 (v. 29 of Exodus, xvi.), is a proposition which receives 
 ample confirmation from the following passages in the 
 Books of Ezekiel and Nehemiah. In the 20tli chapter 
 of Ezekiel we read that the word of the Lord came 
 unto him, commanding him to speak to the elders of 
 Israel, " And say unto them. Thus saith the Lord . . . 
 they rebelled against me .... but I wrought for my 
 name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the 
 heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I 
 made myself known unto them, in bringing them 
 forth out of the land of Egypt. Wherefore I caused 
 them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought 
 
 * The same Hebrew verb is used for (jiven and giveth. lu 
 the Septuagmt the same icord is used (i^uKiv). In the passage 
 subsequently quoted from Ezekiel, the same Hebrew verb is 
 used as in Exodus. 
 
Sec. VI.] CREATION SABBATH. 85 
 
 them into the wilderness ; and \gave them my statutes, 
 and shewed 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." That God then gave them statutes and 
 judgments for the first time is, beyond all question, 
 the true meaning of this passage ; and if, moreover, 
 he then gave them his Sabbaths, it is equally indis- 
 putable that he then gave them also for the first time 
 his Sabbaths ; and when w^e find it added, that the 
 gift of the Sabbath to the Israelites was to be a sign 
 between God and them, we may very reasonably con- 
 clude that the Sabbath could not have been previously 
 given to all mankind. 
 
 It appears from the 9th chapter of Nehemiah, that 
 the Jewish people in his time, far from believing that 
 their forefathers were, as Dr. Kennicott asserts, well 
 acquainted with the Sabbath institution previously to 
 the fall of manna, regarded it as an undoubted histori- 
 cal fact, that the Sabbath was, previously to that 
 occurrence, entirely unknown to them. He relates 
 that the people met to read in the book of the law, 
 and to worship the Lord their God, and that the 
 Levites solemnly addressed the God of Israel on behalf 
 of his people, and, after recounting many of his great 
 mercies to them, thus proceeded in their address : — 
 " 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." (v. 13, 14.) 
 
86 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 Surely it will be admitted, that what was tlie7i 
 made known to the Israelites they could not have 
 known before.* 
 
 The whole tenor of the narrative respecting the 
 institution of the Sabbath in the wilderness indicates 
 that the Sabbath was then a new rite. The people, 
 and even their rulers, were not only surprised but 
 perplexed by the incidents related in it, and very slow 
 in apprehending their tendency and purpose. On the 
 arrival of the Israelites in the wilderness of Sin, and 
 their murmuring for want of food, " The Lord said 
 unto Moses, Behold, I wiU rain bread from heaven for 
 you, and the' people shall go out and gather a certain 
 rate every day." — " And it shall come to pass that on 
 the sixth day they shall prepare that which they 
 bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather 
 daily." This promise made to Moses, that there 
 should be a double fall of manna on the sixth day, 
 he appears not to have communicated to the people. 
 What he told them was, that the Lord would give 
 them in the morning bread to the full. When they 
 saw it in the morning, " they said one to another, It 
 is manna : for they wist not what it was."f Where- 
 
 * Sti'ictly speaking, it had been made known about seventeen 
 days before ; but Nehemiah very naturally adverts only to the 
 great event of its promulgation from Mount Sinai. 
 
 f The]) ivist not what it was. How, then, did they know it 
 to be manna ? Hebrew critics give a very satisfactory answer 
 to this question. Manna (man-hu), they say (see Geddes's 
 " Critical Remarks"), signifies. What is it? and the original thus 
 translated would render the text intelligible : " They said one 
 to another, What is it ? for they knew not what it was." 
 
Sec. VI.] CREATION SABBATH. 87 
 
 upon they resorted to Moses for an explanation of this 
 strange phenomenon. " Moses said unto them^ This 
 is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat." — 
 " Gather of it every man according to his eating, an 
 omer for every man, according to the number of your 
 persons : take ye every man for them which are in his 
 tents. And the children of Israel did so." What 
 follows in the narrative implies that there was some- 
 thing miraculous in the gathering on the sixth day, as 
 regarded the quantity gathered ; for when on that 
 day a double quantity was brought in, all the rulers 
 of the congregation came to inform Moses of the 
 prodigy. * " He said unto them " (evidently telling 
 them for the first time) : " This is that which the 
 Lord hath said. To-morrow is the rest of the holy 
 Sabbath unto the Lord;" and he then directed them 
 to use what they wanted for that day, and to lay by 
 what remained, that it might be used on the next day. 
 This they did; and although, when any manna had 
 been laid by on a previous day, it would not keep till 
 the morrow, but " bred worms and stank," it was 
 found that what was laid by on the sixth day did 
 not stink on the next, " neither was there any worm 
 therein." Here was another miracle ; whereupon 
 " Moses said : Eat that to-day, for to-day is a Sabbath 
 unto the Lord; to-day ye shall not find it in the 
 field ; six days shall ye gather it, but on the seventh 
 day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none." 
 
 * " And it came to pass that on the sixth day they gathered 
 twice as much bread, two omers for one man, and all the rulers 
 of the congregation came and told Moses." (v. 22.) 
 
88 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 Thus we see Moses again and again endeavouring to 
 make the people sensible of the Divine will, that 
 every seventh day was thenceforth to be observed as 
 a Sabbath. It is also remarkable that the quality of 
 the manna should be such, for the first five days, as 
 to compel the people to work on six days successively, 
 whilst on the seventh day they could not work, if they 
 would, in the great business of life, that of procuring 
 the means of subsistence ; so that they were, to some 
 extent, obliged to observe a seventh-day Sabbath, 
 after six days of compulsory labour. 
 
 Thus does every occurrence related in this nar- 
 rative strongly favour the belief that to the people the 
 Sabbath was a religious rite before unknown. But 
 this is not all ; for where is there any evidence in the 
 narrative that it was previously known to Moses 
 himself? In the Divine communication vouchsafed 
 to him, when the gift of manna was promised, he 
 may have obtained his first knowledge of a Sabbath 
 institution : there is nothing in his narrative incon- 
 sistent with the suggestion that such was the fact. 
 In V. 23 he tells the children of Israel : " This is that 
 which the Lord hath said : To-morrow is the rest of 
 the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Now, although he 
 has not stated that this was a part of the communi- 
 cation which had been made to him, it is quite clear 
 that he means to tell the children of Israel that it was 
 what the Lord had then said to him. This construc- 
 tion of his meaning is confirmed by a preceding 
 passage in his narrative; for in v. 15 we find him 
 telling the people : " This is the bread which the 
 
Sec. VI.] CREATION SABBATH. 89 
 
 Lord liath given," and adding (v. 16), " This is the 
 thing which the Lord hath commanded." 
 
 With the opinion thus warranted by the whole 
 tenor of the narrative, that the Sabbath rite was pre- 
 viously unknown both to Moses and his people, their 
 antecedent history is in perfect accordance. Not a 
 trace can be found in it of any Sabbath having been 
 at any time known to them, whilst on the other hand 
 incidents are related in it which would naturally, and 
 most probably, have led to the mention of their 
 having had some knowledge of a Sabbath, if this were 
 really the fact. 
 
 When the Israelites were " groaning" under tlieir 
 bondage in Egypt, it formed no subject of their com- 
 plainings that they were not allowed a respite from 
 their hard toil on Sabbath-days ; yet, had it been 
 a traditionary belief with them that God had at the 
 Creation enjoined a seventh day of rest from labour, 
 and that their forefathers had observed and enjoyed 
 this Sabbath, it was impossible they should not have 
 keenly felt their deprivation of it to be an aggravation 
 of their sufferings, and yet this made no part of " their 
 cry" unto God. 
 
 Again, when Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh 
 to demand permission to leave Egypt, they told him 
 (Exod. V. 1) : " Thus saith the Lord God of Israel : 
 Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me 
 in the wilderness." This was the only religious pur- 
 pose assigned. " And that they may observe my 
 Sabbaths," we may presume would have been added, 
 if the Sabbath had been an existing institution, of 
 
90 CUEATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 which Pharaoh had deprived them. Moreover, when, 
 in consequence of plagues inflicted upon him and his 
 people, Pharaoh at length determined upon making 
 some concession to the Israelites, yet not to suffer 
 them to depart out of Egypt, he said to Moses (Exod. 
 viii. 25) : " Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land" 
 (meaning the border land of Goshen, where the 
 Israelites dwelt) ; Moses refused the offer, and said : 
 " We will go three days' journey into the wilderness, 
 and sacrifice unto the Lord our God, as he shall com- 
 mand us." (v. 26, 27.) 
 
 Sacrifice thus appears to have been the only re- 
 ligious purpose for which he was commissioned to 
 apply for liberty to go into the wilderness, and the 
 only purpose on which he expected to receive a Divine 
 command. 
 
 The incidents here recited strongly favour the 
 opinion that Moses had no knowledge of any Sabbath 
 prior to that which he himself, by Divine command, 
 instituted in the wilderness ; and no one, I am con- 
 fident, can give a fair and full consideration to the 
 16th chapter of Exodus without acknowledging that 
 it has every appearance of being a narrative of the 
 institution of a religious rite which was till then 
 unknown. 
 
 Even if we suppose it to be possible that all the 
 circumstances there related might have attended the 
 renewal of a Sabbath rite fallen into disuse, still it 
 would scarcely be possible there should have been no 
 manifestation on the part of Moses and the people, 
 that they knew the wilderness Sabbath to be a 
 
Sec. VI. CREATION SABBATH. 91 
 
 revived, and not a novel institution. Nothing of the 
 kind is recorded, nor would any reader of the existing 
 narrative fancy that he savr in it the recognition of 
 an antecedent Sabbath, if he were to come to the 
 perusal of it unprepossessed with the notion that a 
 Sabbath was ordained at the time of the Creation. 
 Nevertheless, the declaration made to the Israelites, 
 " To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath," is the 
 only piece of direct evidence which Sabbatarians are 
 able to produce in their attempt to prove that a 
 Sabbath was known to mankind before the time of 
 Moses.* Their other evidence consists of mere con- 
 jectures, arising out of certain facts which they say 
 cannot be satisfactorily explained but by the supposi- 
 tion of a seventh-day Sabbath, commanded at the 
 Creation. Of those facts it may be as well here to 
 remark generally, that they afPord no evidence what- 
 ever that the pious and devout of the olden time, the 
 patriarchs and others, who, it is pretended, were 
 observers of the Sabbath, abstained on the Sabbath- 
 day from pursuing their worldly occupations, when 
 not engaged in the performance of religious rites. 
 
 * It may be thought that another instance is to be found in 
 the words of the Fourth Commandment : " Remember the 
 Sabbath-day, to keep it holy," the word remember implying, as 
 it certainly does, that a Sabbath institution already existed when 
 the Fourth Commandment was given ; but this does not warrant 
 the inference that the Commandment alludes to and recognises 
 a Sabbath enjoined at the Creation. See note A, at the end of 
 the Chapter. 
 
92 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. 11. 
 
 Section VIL 
 
 There are " hints," says one writer, there are 
 " traces," says another, of the observance of a Sab- 
 bath instituted at the Creation. The patriarchal 
 history, says the author of " Brief Remarks " (p. 15), 
 contains " an account of some circumstances which 
 afford us no insignificant hints that the Sabbath was 
 observed." To substantiate this assertion, he en- 
 deavours to extract a hint from an expression used in 
 the 4th chapter of Genesis, relating to the sacrifices of 
 Cain and Abel. He argues upon it thus -. " Cain 
 and Abel are described as ofi'ering their sacrifices to 
 the Lord ' in process of time,' as our version has it, 
 but as in the margin of that version, and in the 
 Hebrew, ' at the end of days.' Now the only period 
 of days before alluded to is that of the week, and it 
 is highly probable that this form of expression indi- 
 cates nothing more than that they made their offerings 
 on the day which terminates the week — that is, on 
 the Sabbath." 
 
 It cannot, indeed, be expected of any evidence 
 furnished by a hint, that it should be more than 
 " highly probable " evidence of the fact to which it is 
 alleged to relate, and therefore the question for con- 
 sideration in this case is, whether the writer's argu- 
 ment suffices to prove that his supposed hint affords 
 such evidence. He rejects the Bible phrase, " in 
 process of time," in favour of the marginal reading. 
 
Sec. VII.] CREATION SABBATH. 93 
 
 " at the end of days ; " but that it is questionable if 
 his argument derives any benefit from this selection, 
 will be seen in the following candid remarks of Dr. 
 Jennings, who, although an advocate for the tenet of 
 a Creation Sabbath, says (in his " Jewish Antiquities," 
 ii. Ill) : "To prove that this distinction of time (by 
 weeks) prevailed in the first ages of the world, some 
 allege the following passage of the Book of Genesis : 
 ' In the end of days (mikkets jamim) Cain and Abel 
 brought their offering to the Lord ; ' that is, say they, 
 at the end of the week, or on the Sabbath-day ; for, 
 according to the learned Gataker, there was then no 
 other distinction of days but into weeks. We may, 
 however, observe, with deference to so great an 
 authority, that it is not impossible, nor improbable, 
 that by this time they might have learned to distin- 
 guish time, by the changes of the moon, into months, 
 and by the course of the sun and the revolutions of 
 the seasons, into years. It is very evident that the 
 phrase mikkets jamim does not always import the 
 end of the week, from the use of it in the second 
 Book of Samuel (xiv. 26), where it is said, that ' at 
 the end of the days Absalom polled his head, because 
 his hair was heavy on him, and he weighed it at two 
 hundred shekels.' It cannot be imagined his hair 
 should grow so heavy as to need polling every week. 
 Probably in this place the phrase means, as we render 
 it, ' at every year's end.' In the same sense the 
 learned Ainsworth understands it in the passage in 
 Genesis, which we are now considering : ' At the end 
 of the year,' when the fruits of the earth were ripe. 
 
94 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 ' Cain brouglit of the fruits of the ground an offering 
 unto the Lord.' So God afterwards appointed ' a 
 feast of ingathering,' to be observed by the Jews in 
 the end of the jear, when they had gathered in their 
 labours out of the field." 
 
 This interpretation of the phrase amply suffices 
 to demolish the hint which the author of " Brief 
 Remarks" thinks the passage affords. I may observe, 
 in conclusion, that on the subject at present in dis- 
 cussion, a hint founded on nothing but probability 
 can be worth nothing ; for a tenet of such vast im- 
 portance as that of a Creation Sabbath cannot be 
 effectively supported, or rendered in any degree cre- 
 dible, by such paltry evidence as hints. Yet this 
 disputable "hint" is the only one which Sabbata- 
 rians can find in Scripture to assist them in their 
 attempt to prove the actual observance of a Creation 
 Sabbath. All other hints wdiich they refer to are 
 advanced to show that such a Sabbath must have 
 been known. Of hints of this description they 
 imagine they have found several, for their fancy in 
 such researches is freely indulged, and leads them at 
 times to marvellous discoveries. What will be the 
 reader's astonishment, if he be not already acquainted 
 with their writings, when I inform him, on their 
 authority, that in the time of the patriarchs, whilst 
 the rest of mankind were sunk in corruption and 
 wickedness, the pious few had the happiness to possess 
 an established Church, with all its appropriate ap- 
 pendages ? Sabbatarian writers seem to speak as con- 
 fidently of " the Patriarchal Church" as though it 
 
Sec. VII.] CREATION SABBATH. 95 
 
 unquestionably had had an historical existence, and 
 been actually known by that name. This fortunate 
 discovery being made, they see in it, as of course, the 
 inferential liint, that as there was a Church there 
 must have been a Sabbath. So at least the author of 
 " Brief Remarks," who says (p. 18) : " The existing 
 record that God, after finishing the work of Creation, 
 set apart the seventh day for holy uses, together with 
 the reasonableness and necessity of the service, affords 
 a strong presumption that amidst the general corrup- 
 tion of mankind this institution continued to be 
 observed, both before and after the flood, by the 
 Patriarchal Church. Of the existence of such a 
 Church from the date of the Creation to that of Moses 
 various hints are scattered over the book of Genesis. 
 Brief and undetailed (for the most part) as is this 
 inspired history, it contains many incidental allusions 
 to a system of worship — to a priesthood, places for 
 worship, altars, sacrifices, prayers, and peculiar re- 
 ligious rites.* There were preachers also in those 
 
 * As the author's remarks are professedly " brief," I feel 
 bound to give the reader the benefit of a reference which the 
 author makes to a work, where he says " ample evidences ou 
 this subject are adduced." It is to a little treatise, by J. J. Blunt, 
 " On the Veracity of the Five Books of Moses." I have not seen 
 this work, but sure I am that in Scripture no trace is to be 
 found of any stated times observed for sacrifice or prayer before 
 the Mosaic dispensation, and in that there is no precept of 
 prayer, public or private. Altars, indeed, there had been in the 
 Patriarchal times, but the sacrifices at them were only on special 
 occasions, and all prayer in those times was occasional and 
 voluntary. 
 
96 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II, 
 
 early days. The Apostle Peter speaks of our Saviour's 
 preaching, by his Spirit, to the world before the flood 
 (1 Peter, iii. 19) ;* and Avho can doubt that this was 
 through the instrumentality of his appointed ministers ? 
 Accordingly the same Apostle elsewhere calls Noah 
 * a preacher of righteousness.' (2 Peter, ii. 5.) 
 
 " Now, for the maintenance of such a system of 
 worship, a Sabbath would appear to have been essen- 
 tial, nor does the absence, in the history of the 
 Patriarchs, of any express mention of its observance, 
 
 * On consulting the chapter and verse here referred to, I 
 confess I was wholly at a loss to comprehend its applicability to 
 the assertion that " Peter speaks of our Saviour's preaching by 
 his Spirit to the world before the flood." The verse is as follows : 
 " By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." 
 In an annotated Bible, published in 1774, I find, in a note upon 
 this verse, an attempt at an explanation of it. However fanciful, 
 and therefore unsatisfactory, that explanation appears to me, the 
 reader may, perhaps, desire to form his own judgment upon it, 
 and I shall here transcribe it ; but as it depends in some measure 
 upon the verse which precedes and that which follows the verse 
 in question, I must first give the whole passage as thus con- 
 nected : " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins . . . being 
 put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit : by which 
 also he went and preached xmto the spirits inpirison; which sometime 
 were disobedient when once the long-suffering of God waited in 
 the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing." The following 
 is the note by the editors of the Annotated Bible : " By which 
 Spirit he preached, through the ministry of Noah, to the spirits 
 in prison — the unholy men before the flood ; who were then 
 reserved by the justice of God, as in a prison, till he executed the 
 sentence upon them all, and are also reserved to the judgment of 
 the great day." 
 
SRC. VII.] CREATION SABBATH. 97 
 
 materially weaken the probability that under these 
 circumstances it was actually observed.'' '* 
 
 This hint-built Church, and all that is said of it, 
 I should leave without further comment, were it not 
 for the concluding assertion made by its discoverer, 
 that probably the Sabbath had in the times of the 
 Patriarchs been actually observed. Apparently this 
 renders inaccm^ate my remark, that the hint derived 
 from the sacrifices of Cain and Abel was the only one 
 which Sabbatarians could discover in Scripture of an 
 actual observance of the Sabbath ; for here seems to 
 be another instance, yet it is not exactly so, as in this 
 instance it is not an original hint, but a hint extracted 
 from a hint. There is a hint of a Church, says the 
 writer, and that affords a hint that there was probably 
 a Sabbath, and if a Sabbath, the probability is that it 
 " was actually observed." What solemn trifling are 
 all these Sabbatarian surmises upon a topic so mo- 
 mentous as the question, whether or not a Sabbath 
 was instituted at the time of the Creation ! 
 
 I now pass on to an argument of great weight in 
 the estimation of the Sabbatarians, as favouring, in their 
 opinion, the tenet of a Creation Sabbath. Although 
 this argument is founded upon hints, it has, I admit, 
 a just claim to attention, since, to some extent, the 
 literature of ancient nations gives to those hints an 
 apparent support. 1 allude to the inference which 
 the Sabbatarians draw from the division of time into 
 
 * " Was actually observed.'' In the original these words are, 
 as licre, in Italics. 
 
 H 
 
9S CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 weeks, which, they say, has been in use amongst man- 
 kind from the earliest ages of the world, and which, 
 therefore, they argue, must have had its origin in the 
 week of seven days, formed by the six days' work of 
 Creation and the ensuing day of rest. " Of the divi- 
 sion of time into Aveeks," (says the author of " Brief 
 Kemarks," page 15,) " we have a plain hint or two in 
 the history of Noah. Jehovah says to Noah, 'For 
 yet seven days (or yet a week), and I will cause it to 
 rain upon the earth,' &c. Gen, vii. 4. Again, when 
 Noah's dove, after finding ' no rest for the sole of her 
 foot,' had been restored to the ark, we are informed 
 that Noah stayed ' yet other seven days ;' and sent 
 her forth, and on her return with the olive-branch, 
 he again waited for the same recognised period. 'And 
 he stayed yet other seven days, and sent forth the 
 dove, which returned not again unto him any more.' 
 Gen. viii." 
 
 " Jacob (the same writer adds, p. 17) twice served 
 Laban for Rachel ' a week of years,' a period of which 
 the reckoning was doubtless borrowed from that of 
 the week of days. (Gen. xxix. 27-30.) And 
 Joseph devoted ' seven days,' or, in other words, a 
 whole week, to a public mourning for his father. 
 Gen. 1. 10." 
 
 As to the " week of years," although marked by 
 inverted commas, in order, as it would seem, to in- 
 duce the reader to believe that it is an exact quotation, 
 the phrase is the author's own, the words in the text 
 being "seven years," The word "week" does, 
 however, occur elsewhere in the texts which this 
 
Sec. VII] CREATION SABBATH. 99 
 
 author has referred to. Labaii, having promised to 
 give Rachel in marriage to Jacob, and deceived him 
 by substituting Leah, said, in reply to Jacob's com- 
 plaint of such treatment, " Fuljil her toeek, and we 
 will give thee this also,* .... And Jacob did so, and 
 fulfilled her week,'" Gen. xxix. 27, 28. 
 
 Now, here are certainly two instances in which 
 the word " week" occurs in sacred history, in relation 
 to events long anterior to the time of Moses ; but 
 what does that prove as regards the present discussion ? 
 Absolutely nothing that is essential to it. If, indeed, 
 the phrase had occurred in a history of those events, 
 written not long after their occurrence, it would have 
 been conclusive evidence that the period of seven days 
 was then called a week. As, however, that division 
 of time had become established, and the name of a 
 week given to it,f when Moses wrote the history of 
 the Patriarchs, the use of the phrase in Genesis 
 merely proves that the historian found it convenient 
 to call the portion of time of which he was speaking 
 by its then ordinary appellation. 
 
 Still, I may be asked, how do you account for the 
 fact that the period of seven days was known as a 
 division of time in the earliest ages, even if not then 
 known by the name of a week ? I reply, I cannot 
 account for it, nor can any one else, except by conjec- 
 ture. It is the opinion of the Sabbatarians, that it 
 
 * " Fuljil her iveek — keep the week of feasting for thy mar- 
 riage with Leah, and so confirm thy marriage with her, and then 
 we will give thee the other." (" Annotated Bible" of 1774.") 
 
 t Levit. xii. .5 : Numb, xxviii. Q6. 
 
100 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap ll. 
 
 owed its origin to a tradition existing even before the 
 time of Noah, that the world had been created in seven 
 days, including a day of rest.* Yet what is this but 
 a mere conjecture ? Scripture nowhere tells us that 
 such was its origin. Nevertheless, Sabbatarian wri- 
 ters seem to argue as though their explanation must 
 be accepted, if a better cannot be found, f Nothing 
 can be more preposterous than such a mode of rea- 
 soning upon a question which admits of no other than 
 a conjectural solution. Sufficiently probable for the 
 purpose of throwing a doubt, at least, upon the Sab- 
 
 * Such a division of time must sm'ely have been foumled on 
 the tradition of the six days of Creation ending with a day of rest. 
 " This tradition had passed down to Noah through a very small 
 number of forefathers." — " Brief Remarks," p. 16. 
 
 f Dr. Jennings, in the course of his argument against the 
 proleptical interpretation of the text in Genesis, says (Jewish 
 Antiq., ii. 142) — " that the Sabbath was instituted at the time to 
 which Moses's relation of the institution of it refers, and was, in 
 consequence hereof, observed by the patriarchs, is at least pro- 
 bable from their distinguishing time by weeks of seven days, for 
 which it is not easy to account on any other supposition than of 
 some positive Divine appointment." Mr. Hughes, also, to the 
 same purport, but in a more confident tone, expresses himself on 
 the subject as follows, in page 12 of his reply to " Horae Sab- 
 baticae." He is there speaking of traces being found of the 
 Creation Sabbath, the chief of which he considers to be the reck- 
 oning of time by weeks, of which he says, " Although no actual 
 mention is made of the ordinance for so long a period in the 
 writings of Moses, still we may find traces therein leading us to 
 the conclusion that it was both given and known from the first. 
 The strongest of these, perhaps, is the established reckoning of 
 time by weeks, which cannot be accounted for otherwise than by 
 !i reference to this Divine decree." 
 
Sec. VII.l CREyVTION SABBATH. 101 
 
 batarian conjecture, is that which natiiralhj offers itself 
 on the occasion, namely, that the septenary division 
 of time had its rise in observations made in the early 
 ages of the world upon the course of the sun and the 
 changes of the moon. The division of the year into 
 months would be a sure result of such observations, 
 and the subordinate division into weeks would be very 
 likely to follow. To the latter consequence it has been 
 objected* that a lunar month is more than four times 
 seven days by above a day and a half. Still, however, 
 the very obvious division of the lunar month into four 
 quarters, the half-crescent moon, the full moon, the 
 half-waning moon, and the new moon, might, it is 
 highly probable, suggest the division of time into 
 periods of seven days, that being the nearest approach 
 to exactness in reckoning the quarters of the lunar 
 month. Four times six days (24) would leave a deficit 
 of five days and a half; and four times eight days (32) 
 would be an excess of two days and a half.f 
 
 Be this as it may, it is indisputable that the true 
 origin of the division of time into periods of seven 
 days is not, and cannot be, with certainty, known ; 
 it is lost in the mists of remote antiquity. Of what 
 
 * " Jewish Antiq." ii. 142. 
 
 f The above remarks, upon the probability that the division 
 of time into weeks originated in observing tlie changes of the 
 moon, formed part of a draft of the present chapter, written long 
 before the publication of the " Westrain'ster Review" for October 
 1850. In the article upon septenary institutions contained in 
 that number of the Review, the probability of this origin of 
 weeks is urged with such force of argument, based upon facts, as 
 
102 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 avail, then, to the proof of a Creation Sabbath, are 
 the " hint or two" respecting the division of time, 
 collected from the history of Noah, and the further 
 hints cited from passages relating to Jacob and 
 Joseph? All these Scripture hhits serve, at most, 
 as grounds for conjecture ; but evidence which stops 
 at conjecture proves nothing. 
 
 Section VIII. 
 
 It is besides important to remark, that the proof of a 
 " seven days' " division of time in the early ages of 
 the world is of no avail to the proof of a Creation Sab- 
 bath, without evidence that the seventh day was, in 
 those times, held to be sacred. The more numerous 
 are the instances in which the period of seven 
 days is mentioned in Scripture, the more probable 
 is it that we shoidd occasionally have found the 
 
 almost to convert probability into certainty. The argument 
 abounds with manifestations of the wi'iter's deep researches into 
 Oriental and general history, and of his extensive knowledge of 
 the Oriental and other languages requisite to those researches. 
 
 It were vain to attempt, by a few extracts from tliis erudite 
 argument, to give the reader any adequate idea of its power and 
 solidity. I can do no more than refer him to the article in the 
 Review, and apprise him that it has since been published sepa- 
 rately as a pamphlet, entitled " Sabbaths : or, an Enquiry into 
 the Origin of Septenary Institutions." The publishers are, G. 
 Luxford, Whitefriars Street, London; and A. and C. Black, 
 Edinburgh. 
 
Sec. VIII.J CREATION SABBATH. 103 
 
 seventh day spoken of as sacred, if it had been so 
 esteemed. Nevertheless, there is nowhere, in all 
 Scripture, a single instance of the seventh day being 
 so called, except in reference to the Mosaic Sabbath. 
 How do you account — I ask of the Sabbatarians in my 
 turn — how do you account for this fact? It cannot 
 be satisfactorily explained otherwise than by the very 
 rational conjecture, that the seventh day is never, in 
 Scripture, called a sacred or holy day before the time 
 of Moses, simply because it was never till his time 
 regarded as such. 
 
 It is, however, a circumstance not a little curious 
 in itself, that, although Scripture entirely fails to aid 
 the Sabbatarians on this point, it does so happen that 
 there are passages to be found in profane literature, 
 wherein the seventh is called a sacred day. Homer 
 and Hesiod we usually see triumphantly quoted, as 
 testifying, that in their time the seventh day was 
 reckoned sacred, and expressly so called; — and whence, 
 it is asked, could the veneration for it, even amongst 
 heathen nations, have been derived, if not from the 
 command at the Creation to sanctify the seventh day ? 
 " It appears (says Dr. Jennings) by their most ancient 
 writers, Homer and Hesiod in particular,* that they 
 (the heathen nations) accounted one day of the seven 
 more sacred than the rest, Hesiod styles the seventh 
 day the illustrious light of the sun — 
 
 * Ancient as are the poems of Hesiod and Homer, tliey 
 were not written till five hundred years after the time of Moses. 
 
104 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 Homer saith : — 
 
 then came the seventh day, which is sacred."* 
 
 The author of " Brief Remarks," in page 21, gives 
 the Hne which is quoted as from Hesiod by Dr. Jen- 
 nings, together with another hne from the same poet, 
 which is one of no small importance in this discussion, 
 as the reader will presently see. The two lines, as 
 quoted by the author of " Brief Remarks," are — 
 
 'E/ioofidTYi a aviii >^xfA7rpov <pdog viiXioio.^ 
 
 The first of these he translates — 
 
 " Sacred in the first place is the day of the new moon, sacred 
 also are the fourth and the seventh days." 
 
 The second he translates — 
 
 " Again came the seventh day, the illustrions light of the 
 sun." 
 
 He also gives the line which is quoted as from 
 Homer by Dr. Jennings — 
 
 which he translates — 
 
 " The seventh day then arrived, — a sacred day." § 
 
 * "Jewish Antiq." ii. 142. 
 
 f These two lines are quoted, apparently, as though the one 
 followed the other in the original, but it is veiy doubtful if the 
 second is anywhere to be found in Hesiod, for which doubt I 
 shall hereafter mention my authority. The author of " Brief 
 Remarks" refers to Eusebius (Evang. Prsep. lib. xiii. cap. 12), 
 who, he says (p. 20), quotes from Aristobulus, a Jewish Platonic 
 philosopher, who lived about 150 years before Christ. 
 
 \ For this line also reference is made to Eusebius. 
 
 § " Brief Remarks," p. 21. 
 
Sm VllI] CREATION SABBATH. 105 
 
 If the reader should not have been previously 
 acquainted with the Sabbatarian argument, and should 
 not have happened to give particular attention to the 
 first of the two lines ascribed to Hesiod, he will be 
 not a little surprised to be told that, after all the efforts 
 which Sabbatarians have made to attach importance 
 to their heathen evidence, the fact is, that the seventh 
 day referred to in that evidence is the seventh day, not 
 of the week, but of the month. And if it be asked, 
 why should the heathen poets call the seventh day of 
 the month sacred, the answer is, because it was beheved 
 by them to be the birth-day of Apollo. The Greeks 
 had no festival on the seventh day of the week ; that 
 division of time was not in use with them ; they di- 
 vided their month into decades. They, however, had 
 a festival on the seventh day, which Potter in his 
 " Antiquities of Greece," thus describes : — 
 
 "'EBAOMH, on the seventh day of every lunar 
 month, in honour of Apollo, to whom all seventh days 
 were sacred, because one of them was his birth-day, 
 whence he was sometimes called 'E/3^o;o6aygv;jj. The 
 story we iiave in Hesiod — 
 
 TjT yig 'A'sroXXuvct, pi^^va-uo^x ytivxro Aj)T6). 
 ' — the seventh day is sacred, 
 'Cause Phoebus then was of Latcna born.' "* 
 
 Independent of the explanation aflPorded by this 
 additional line from Hesiod, 
 
 * Potter's " Antiquities of Greece," Dunbar's Edition, 
 Edinburgh, 1827. Vol. i. p. 444. 
 
100 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. n. 
 
 it is an indisputable inference from the first part of 
 the hue which precedes it, namely, 
 
 (the whole line being, as before quoted, 
 
 that it was the seventh day of the month to which the 
 poet intended to refer — 
 
 " Sacred, in the first place, the day of the new moon, sacred, 
 also, the fourth and the seventh days." 
 
 Fourth and seventh days of what ? Clearly, of the 
 moon's age. 
 
 As to such of the foregoing quotations as are ad- 
 duced by Sabbatarians, I shall complete my proof of 
 their failure to serve the intended purpose, by calling to 
 my aid the all-powerful remarks made on this subject 
 by the Rev. T. S. Hughes, the candid Sabbatarian oppo- 
 nent of the author of " Horae Sabbaticoe." He refers 
 to the quotations given by Clemens Alexandrinus as 
 from Hesiod and Homer ;* but before I state his stric- 
 tures upon them, I will give the reader a specimen of 
 the flights of fancy in which the learned Clemens could 
 sometimes indulge. He prefaces his quotations by 
 gravely asserting that Plato foretold the Lord's day. 
 " Porro diem etiam Dominicum Reipub. decimo his 
 verbis vaticinatur Plato." (Moreover Plato, in the 
 
 * They are to be found in vol. ii. p. 712, of Potters Edition 
 of Clemens. Mr. Hughes does not name the edition whicli 
 he consulted. 
 
Sec. VIII J CREATION SABBATH, 1 07 
 
 tenth book of his " Repubhc," prophesies also the 
 Lord's day in these words.) He then gives the words, 
 and proceeds to expound them, but which, as well as 
 the exposition of them, in support of his silly notion 
 that Plato had unconsciously the gift of prophecy, I 
 think it needless to transcribe.* He then says, that 
 " not the Jews only, but the Greeks also, acknowledge 
 the seventh day to be sacred" (Septimum quoque diem 
 sacrum esse, non Hebraei tantum, verum etiam Graeci 
 agnoscunt) ; and thence he proceeds with his quotations 
 as from Hesiod and Homer ; and it is to some of these 
 that Mr. Hughes has referred in his reply to the "Horae 
 Sabbaticae." In a long and learned note, at p. 14 of 
 that reply, Mr. Hughes says, he conceives that the 
 period of the week was known to the Greeks in very 
 early ages ; and he refers to some passages in the Odys- 
 sey,! " froi^ ^ consideration of which (he says) I am 
 inclined to think that Homer had a knowledge of the 
 septenary division of time ; but (he adds) I will not 
 weaken my argument by adducing testimony to this 
 point, which will not bear examination, as so many emi- 
 nent writers on this subject, indeed all who have come 
 under my notice, appear to have done. When Theo- 
 philus of Antioch declares that all mankind make pecu- 
 liar mention of a seventh day, though they know not 
 the reason, I am inclined to believe him under certain 
 
 * Clemens gives, a little further on, a quotation from Plato, 
 which, he says, almost foretells " the saving dispensation of 
 Christ :" — " Plato salutarem Christi dispensationem tantum non 
 prtenuutians ita loquitur secundo de UepublifU." 
 
 f Odyssey, K m, M 397, S 249, O 475. 
 
108 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 limitations. The same credit I give to Clement of Alex- 
 andria, when he asserts that not the Jews only, but the 
 Greeks also, are well acquainted with a seventh day. — 
 Strom, lib. v. The authorities, however, which he cites 
 in favour of his opinion, are not only foreign to his pur- 
 pose, but I am afraid, distorted, mis-quoted, and even 
 forged, for the sake of supporting that opinion." — 
 " The first author which he quotes is Hesiod." Mr. 
 Hughes then gives the two lines above quoted — 
 
 observing on the first that " the poet is not describing 
 the days of the week, but those of the month, and he 
 calls the seventh day of the month sacred, because it 
 was the birth-day of Apollo." Of the other line, 
 
 Mr. Hughes says, " The second verse I cannot discover 
 in Hesiod, but it appears to refer to the same origin." 
 
 Mr. Hughes then says — " He next quotes Homer 
 still more unfortunately : — 
 
 "1. 'E(3^0|M/ar;j ^' '/j'^itTU KarriXvOiv k^ov ri^oc^. In 
 looking for this verse among those of Homer, I have 
 long strained my eyes in vain, and several of my 
 friends have done the same with no better success. 
 
 " 2. 'Y.^loii>ri rjv k^Yj. The same may be said of this. 
 
 Here I find the worst fault of all, for 'i^oimv appears 
 to be substituted for Tir^cirov^ as it exists in all the 
 copies of Homer which I have seen. Even if sfihoiMov 
 
Sec. VIII.J CREATION SABBATH. 109 
 
 were the right reading, the line would have nothing 
 to do with the subject in question," 
 
 Thus much for the Sabbatarian argument respect- 
 ing the septenary division of time and the sacredness 
 of the seventh day derived from the alleged testimony 
 of heathen poets. More might still be said upon 
 it ;* and, indeed, considering that so many Sabbatarian 
 writers of high repute have gravely, and some of them 
 most disingenuously, urged this frivolous argument, it 
 becomes indispensable that I should transcribe one 
 passage more from Mr, Hughes's invaluable note. 
 
 As some excuse for Clemens, whom, as he says, 
 he is reluctantly obliged to censure, Mr. Hughes 
 notices the extract which Eusebius gives from the 
 works of Aristobulus,f and which contains the quota- 
 tions made use of by Clemens ; he then remarks, 
 " Perhaps, therefore, this Aristobulus may deserve our 
 censures on the score of falsification before Clement ; 
 yet even in this case, the latter must submit to repre- 
 hension for very culpable negligence in not verifying 
 his quotations ; and in this I am sorry to say that 
 such eminent authors as Rivetus, Grotius, Bishop 
 Beveridge, Dr. Jennings, Mr. Faber, Dr. Hales, &c., 
 must participate. The errors of this last-mentioned 
 gentleman are very extraordinary. He not only 
 
 * Hesiod and Homer are the writers chiefly relied upon in 
 the Sabbatarian argument ; but Clemens, and the Sabbatarians 
 also, press into their service Callimachus, Solon, and Linus, " or, 
 as he might," says Mr. Hughes, " be styled, Pseudo-Linus." 
 Mr. Hughes repudiates them all. 
 
 f See Note, ante, p. 104. 
 
110 CREATION SABBATH. IChap.II. 
 
 boldly quotes the i^l6(jb7] h^ov 7j(jijcc§ of Ilesiod as cor- 
 roborating his opinion, but draws yEschylus also into 
 the alliance, thus translating a passage from that 
 author : — 
 
 " The ureJcs, the venerable author of the ^ceek 
 King Apollo appointed." — E^r. e^r* 0)5/3. i. 801. 
 
 Whereas, in fact, Apollo is represented by the poet 
 as taking the seventh ^ate of the city under his guard, 
 and that, not because he was f/ie author of the week, 
 but because he was born, as Hesiod tells us, on the 
 seventh day. 
 
 Although, however, there are not discoverable in 
 the various quotations usually made from the Greek 
 poets any clear traces of a division of time into 
 weeks, there certainly does exist historical evidence 
 that the use of this division of time is very ancient 
 amongst some heathen nations. Still, the main 
 question is, as I have before stated, whether by any 
 nations of great antiquity the seventh day of the 
 week was accounted a sacred day? 
 
 As to the evidence arising from hints which Sab- 
 batarians adduce from Scripture in proof of a custom 
 to sanctify the seventh day, the only part of it which 
 touches upon this point is the inference drawn by 
 some of them from the sacrifices of Cain and Abel 
 
 * Mr. Hughes considers the right reading to be, "not 
 Ifi^ouoiyTX', (a word of extraordinary derivation, and one a,7rx% 
 
 7\iyou.i)ioy\ but l/3o6|tt«yiv»)?." 
 
Sec. villi CREATION SABBATH. Ill 
 
 " at the end of days," an inference which I have 
 shown to be untenable.* 
 
 As to non-Scriptiu'al evidence, the Sabbatarians 
 do not oflFer any, that I am aware of, beyond that 
 which has just been here examined and proved to be 
 valueless. 
 
 It would have been not at all surprising, if it had 
 chanced that amongst the numerous nations of the 
 earth and the infinite variety of their rehgious insti- 
 tutions, some one nation using the septenary division 
 of time should also be found to have held sacred the 
 seventh day of their week, but there is no known 
 instance of the kind. Had it appeared to have been 
 a custom w^ith some ancient nations to account the 
 seventh, and no other day of their week, sacred, then, 
 undoubtedly, a fair presumption would have arisen, that 
 this religious observance originated in a tradition that 
 mankind was commanded at the creation to sanctify 
 the seventh day, but the facts requisite to raise any 
 such presumption are wholly wanting to the page of 
 history. 
 
 Thus the argument which Sabbatarians are accus- 
 tomed to deduce from the septenary division of time 
 fails in every view of it as an objection to the propo- 
 sition, that no proof exists of the alleged Creation 
 Sabbath having ever been at any time observed.! 
 
 How strange, therefore, when calmly considered, 
 
 * See ante, p. 95. 
 
 f I ought not, I am aware, to pass over entirely, although I 
 think them scarcely worthy of notice, some other " hints " of a 
 Creation Sabbath, wliich I find suggested by the author of 
 
112 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap II. 
 
 is this modern tenet, that a Sabbath was enjoined at 
 the creation ! It presents us with one of those in- 
 stances of glaring inconsistency in the exercise of the 
 reasoning faculty which are so peculiar to questions 
 that appertain to religious belief. It is to believe, 
 that a command was given to mankind at the creation 
 to observe a seventh-day Sabbath, notwithstanding 
 the historian of the creation has not recorded this 
 command, although he has recorded the Sabbath 
 command, which was afterwards proclaimed from 
 Mount Sinai ; it is to believe, that a Sabbath com- 
 mand was given at the creation, notwithstanding the 
 text in Genesis, which is offered in proof of the fact, 
 is never once referred to in the Jewish Scriptures, 
 and is referred to but once in the Christian Scriptiu'es, 
 and in that instance not as containing or implying 
 any command ; * it is to believe (for such nmst be 
 
 " Brief Remarks ; " but in order not to re-open and prolong the 
 discussion here, I reserve the statements of them for a note at 
 the end of the chapter. (Note B.) 
 
 * Hebrews, iv. 4. That the text in Genesis is aUuded to in 
 the Fourth Commandment (Exod. xx. 11) cannot be contended, 
 unless it were probable, which it is not, that Moses wrote his 
 account of the Creation before the Ten Commandments were pro- 
 mulged. Besides, who can say with certainty that the reason 
 which is given in the Exodus Decalogue for enacting the Fourth 
 Commandment, and which may seem at first sight to allude to 
 the text in Genesis, formed part of the Commandment pro- 
 claimed from Mount Sinai, and " written with the finger of God " 
 on "tables of stone?" (Exod. xxxi. 18.) This it could not be, 
 if the totally different reason assigned for the Commandment in 
 the Deuteronomy Decalogue is that which the divinely-inscribed 
 stone-tables recorded. Yet the voucher in Deuteronomy for its 
 
Sec. VIII.] CREATION SABBATH. 113 
 
 believed to have been the consequence, if the alleged 
 command was given) that mankind, or at least some 
 portion of the human race, did actually observe a 
 seventh-day Sabbath, with more or less of regularity 
 in the observance of it, from the beginning of the 
 world to the time when the Mosaic Sabbath was 
 instituted ; although the historian of the events of that 
 period has not recorded, nor has any subsequent his- 
 torian alluded to, a single instance of an ante-Mosaic 
 Sabbath having been at any time observed by any 
 nation, tribe, family, or individual whatever. Had 
 there been extant an express command given at 
 the Creation to observe a Sabbath, we might justly 
 have inferred the practice of such an observance; 
 had the practice been proved, we might with great 
 probability have ventured to infer the command : but 
 since there is no record of a Sabbath command at the 
 Creation, and no evidence of the observance of any 
 such command, to argue in such case, as the Sabba- 
 tarians in effect do argue, that we ought to infer both 
 the one and the other, and call it proof, what is this 
 but a perversion and mockery of human reason, that 
 noble faculty by which man is distinguished from and 
 elevated above every other created being upon earth ? 
 
 being so is at the least as strong as that which in Exodus sup- 
 ports the genuineness of the reason assigned in the Exodus 
 Decalogue. See further remarks on this singular discrepancy 
 between the two Decalogues in a note (Note C) at the end of the 
 chapter. 
 
114 CREATION SABBATH. FChap.!!. 
 
 Section IX. 
 
 By some of those who contend that at the Creation a 
 command was given to mankind to observe every 
 seventh day as a day of rest from labour, and as a 
 day specially appointed for the worship of God, much 
 stress is laid on the alleged improbability that God 
 would suffer mankind to remain 2500 years without 
 an institution of this kind. 
 
 " It cannot be supposed (says Dr. Jennings *) that 
 God left the world destitute of so salutary an institu- 
 tion, and, consequently, that no Sabbath was observed 
 for so many ages as intervened between Adam and 
 Moses." 
 
 Not even to be supposed ! — strange presumption 
 in a pious and learned divine thus confidently to 
 determine what is possible or impossible in the ways 
 of God to man. Scarcely less strange is the reason 
 which he gives for its not being even a supposable 
 case. " The observation of a Sabbath, of some par- 
 ticular season for rest and devotion is (he says) pri- 
 marily a moral law, or law of Nature, certain intervals 
 of respite from business and labour being necessary 
 for the preservation both of our intellectual and cor- 
 poreal frame." That intervals of rest are necessary to 
 the preservation of our intellectual and corporeal frame 
 is an unquestionable truth ; but to say that some 
 
 * " Jewish Antiquities," ii. 144. 
 
Sec. IX CREATION SABBATH. 115 
 
 particular season for devotion is primarily a moral 
 law, or law of Nature, is so gratuitous an assertion 
 that it requires no formal refutation. As regards the 
 necessity of a season of rest, for preserving in health 
 both the body and the mind, no one would think 
 of denying that this is primarily a law of Nature, 
 since it is absolutely necessary to our very exist- 
 ence, but being so, there needed no command 
 at the Creation for the observance of it; nor is 
 it probable, therefore, that Scripture contains, even 
 by implication, any such command. Nature — the 
 infallible interpreter of the will of God — prompts and 
 obliges us, at periodically returning intervals, to cease 
 from all business and labour, and during those in- 
 tervals beneficently, though to us imperceptibly, 
 recruits our wearied frame by refreshing sleep, and 
 not in a septenary but a daily rest. Whoever should 
 presume to rebel against this salutary provision of 
 Natm*e, by continuing for an immoderate length of 
 time to exercise, without any respite, his faculties of 
 body and mind, whether it be in toilsome or in plea- 
 surable occupations, would inevitably incur the penalty 
 due to such rash resistance to this non-Scriptural 
 command of God ; — disease, bodily and mental, and a 
 premature death. 
 
 Illusory, therefore, is the argument which con- 
 tends for the probability of a seventh-day Sabbath 
 having been instituted at the Creation, because man's 
 nature requires some season of respite from business 
 and labour. 
 
 Dr. Jennings, on this occasion, falls into the 
 
116 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 mistake so common witli Sabbatarians, of confounding 
 the rest which is necessary to the present continuance 
 of hfe with that which is requisite to its utmost pos- 
 sible prolongation. For the one nature provides in 
 every instance by the irresistible propensity which we 
 feel at intervals to sleep. Por the other nature does 
 much, but is not alone sufficient ; the external cir- 
 cumstances of the individual destined to long life 
 must be such as to contribute to that result. Gene- 
 rally speaking, he should possess the means which 
 obviate the necessity of excessive toil, and minister to 
 the comforts and rational enjoyment of life ; and he 
 should, in addition to these advantages, be blessed 
 with an exemption from all bodily ills and mental 
 afflictions, which are permanently injurious to health. 
 Thus do some attain to extreme old age, and sink at 
 last into a quiet sleep, the same in its nature as their 
 ordinary sleep, but from which they never awake, 
 their corporeal frame being so entirely exhausted of its 
 strength that its vital functions can be roused into 
 action no more. How infinitely few are those who 
 attain this happy end ; and how little, if at all, in any 
 instance is the attainment of it attributable to a 
 seventh-day relaxation from business and labour ! 
 Moreover, when composing his a priori argument. 
 Dr. Jennings, as a Christian divine, ought to have 
 reflected that mankind remained for 4000 years 
 without the salutary doctrines of the Gospel, and 
 that, consequently, it is possible to suppose they 
 might for 2500 years have been left destitute of the 
 more doubtful benefit of a Sabbath. In truth, the 
 
Sec. IX.J CREATION SABBATH. 117 
 
 history of the world, in this respect, forcibly teaches 
 US the necessity of caution when reasoning a priori 
 upon the course of Providence, Not only were man- 
 kind for a very long period without a knowledge of 
 the Gospel, but far the greater portion of them are to 
 this day without it ; and even of those who profess 
 and call themselves Christians, great numbers profess 
 a Christianity which, estimated at its just value, is not 
 worth having. Still more astonishing is the fact, that 
 the religion of Mahomet has not only spread over 
 and become firmly established in regions of vast 
 extent throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe, but in 
 some of them, — nay, in Judea itself, the birth-place 
 of the Gospel, — has succeeded in rooting out and sup- 
 planting the religion of Christ. 
 
 To argue on the ways of Providence after the 
 manner of the Reverend Dr. Jennin2:s and other Sab- 
 batarian writers, is to assume that it is the design of 
 God to grant to every human being, except in the 
 cases of death from casualties, the most protracted 
 duration of life of which our mortal frame is capable. 
 If such had been the design, how could it have hap- 
 pened that we find some portions of the human 
 race planted, not by their own seeking, but from 
 the time of their birth, in unwholesome districts, 
 where the body, if not also the mind, experiences 
 from that cause a premature decay? and how could 
 it have happened that Providence should in all civilised 
 countries permit, or rather ordain, (for civilisation, it 
 will be acknowledged, is within the purpose of Pro- 
 vidence,) such a state of society to exist, that its wants 
 
118 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 should absolutely require from large classes of the 
 community exertions of bodily labour injuriously 
 severe, or of a kind which, although not laborious, 
 tends, in some instances rapidly, and in all inevitably, 
 to shorten the duration of their lives, not even the 
 respite of one day in seven sufficing to preserve in 
 health and vigour " the intellectual and corporeal 
 frame?" Let any one look calmly around him and 
 survey the business and battle of life passing under 
 his own eyes, and this by the sufferance, and, conse- 
 quently, the design of Providence, and he cannot fail 
 to see that not only is it the ordinary lot of man to 
 labour, but that with the generality, and not except- 
 ing entirely even the upper classes of society, it is 
 their irresistible destiny to employ their energies of 
 body or mind, or both, in occupations more toilsome 
 and unremitting, or in work of a kind, though not 
 laborious, more prejudicial to health than is com- 
 patible with the extension of life to its otherwise 
 natural close. 
 
 In a word, no secure reliance can be placed on 
 any a priori argument, be the question what it may ; 
 and as to that by which it is attempted to prove 
 that the w^orld could not have remained without a 
 Sabbath from Adam to Moses, it suffices to remark, 
 in refutation of it, that the instances which have 
 been here adduced of known dispensations of Pro- 
 vidence are such as no one can deny to be far 
 more improbable a priori than the fact that God 
 left the world destitute of an ante-Mosaic Sabbath. 
 
Sec. X.J CREATION SABBATH. 119 
 
 Section X. 
 
 I HAVE, in the foregoing remarks, asserted of the tenet 
 of a Creation Sabbath that it is but of modern date.* 
 If I make good this assertion respecting it, I shall 
 have refuted it by a proof which every candid Sab- 
 batarian will acknowledge to be decisive. 
 
 Modern is a relative term; the tenet may have 
 been held a thousand years ago, but if it was never 
 known before that time, it was unknown during the 
 first five thousand of the years which have elapsed 
 since the Creation, and therefore may, relatively 
 speaking, be justly characterised as a modern tenet, — 
 and consequently untrue. 
 
 Let me, in the first place, observe, that wherever 
 in Scripture we might reasonably expect to find evi- 
 dence that the tenet of a Creation Sabbath was known 
 to mankind, if ever known to them, none is to be 
 found. 
 
 To begin with the earliest period of the world's 
 history : — We meet with instances narrated in it of 
 prayer, and thanksgiving, and sacrifice. Here, then, 
 were opportunities for the historian of the Creation 
 to have noticed the veneration which the Patriarchs 
 had for the seventh day, if any they had for it ; but 
 as he has not noticed that they had any, we may rest 
 assured they had none. If, indeed, it were the fact 
 that they held the seventh day in veneration, this 
 
 * Ante, p, 71. 
 
120 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 would have been fair presumptive evidence of their 
 belief in a command at the Creation to hold the 
 seventh day sacred. Not a trace of such evidence 
 appears : on the contrary, it is plain from the narra- 
 tive itself that all the demonstrations of piety dis- 
 played in the instances there mentioned of prayer, 
 and thanksgiving, and sacrifice, were occasional. 
 The devout in those days, as it was natural they 
 should, prayed for blessings when they wished to 
 obtain them,* and gave thanks, as was also natural, 
 when blessings w^ere conferred. f Their grateful piety 
 sometimes induced them to build an altar on the spot 
 where tokens of Divine favour had been bestowed, | 
 and in one instance an altar was built by Divine 
 command ; § but whether the building an altar was in 
 obedience to command or the result of an impulse of 
 gratitude and devotion, the immediate object in either 
 case was simply to perpetuate the memory of an 
 event. Doubtless all such altars were afterwards 
 made use of as occasion for saciifice arose in their 
 vicinity, but no indication is given in Scriptare nar- 
 rative of any one of them having ever been resorted 
 to for sacrifice on statedly recurring days. 
 
 The next historical period for our consideration is 
 that of the bondage in Egypt. 
 
 Grievously as the Israelites were burdened by their 
 task-masters, it made no part of their complaint that 
 they were not allowed the respite of the Sabbath. 
 (Exod. iii. 7.) Yet that they would have known their 
 
 * Gen. xxiv. 12. f Gen. xxiv. 26, 27. 
 
 I Gen. viii. 20 ; xii. 7, 8 ; xxxv. 14. 
 § Gen. xxxv. 1. 3. 7. 
 
Sec. X] CREATION SABBATH. 121 
 
 forefathers had observed the Sabbath, if such a rite 
 had existed, cannot be doubted. No exact period is 
 assigned in Scripture to the commencement of the 
 bondao;e. It could not have beo-un till the Israelites 
 in Eg3^pt had become a very numerous and powerful 
 race, for the reason which Pharaoh gave for subjecting 
 them to bondage was : " Behold the people of the 
 children of Israel are more and mightier than we." 
 (Exod. i. 9.) They, however, must have been suffer- 
 ing for some time under their burdens before Pharaoh 
 gave directions to the Hebrew midwives to destroy 
 the male children of the Israelites at their birth, for 
 it had been previously said (ver. 13) that " the more 
 the people were afflicted the more they multiplied and 
 grew." This interval, which need not be supposed 
 more than a few years, would bring us to the time 
 when Moses was born, and we are afterwards told 
 (Exod. vii. 7) that Moses was fourscore years old 
 when he returned from Midian into Egypt to deliver 
 his countrymen from their oppressors. I know not 
 what may be the opinion of biblical commentators, 
 but to me it seems most probable from the above 
 data that the duration of the bondage of the 
 Israelites might be properly estimated at between 
 eighty and ninety years.* On this supposition it 
 would follow that the observance of the Sabbath by 
 their forefathers, if such were the fact, would be 
 
 ■■' The age of Moses precludes us from estimating the dura- 
 tion of the bondage at less than eighty years, otherwise we might 
 be induced to believe (and particularly from Exod. iii. 9) that it 
 had not been suifered to last so long. 
 
122 CREATION SABBATH. LChap.il 
 
 within the memory of some of them, and but a recent 
 tradition to any. 
 
 That the descendants of the Patriarchs, the Israel- 
 ites in Egypt, observed the Sabbath previously to their 
 bondage, if the rite had been instituted at the Creation, 
 I need not argue in a controversy with Sabbatarians. 
 They are but too eager to assert this themselves : 
 "No doubt" (says Bishop Wilson) it was observed 
 " by all good men from Adam to Moses."* 
 
 That the Israelites would be permitted to enjoy 
 their Sabbaths till their bondage can also admit of no 
 reasonable doubt. They were a favoured colony from 
 the time of their settling in Egypt, under the protection 
 of Joseph, and their practice of abstaining from labour 
 one day in seven, if such was their practice, regarded 
 only themselves, and could not affect the interests, or 
 offend the religion of the state. 
 
 Considering all the circumstances here noticed, it 
 is strange that the Israelites should not have keenly 
 felt, and bitterly lamented the loss of their Sabbaths 
 while suffering from excessive toil, which knew of no 
 intermission, if in truth they, or their forefathers, had 
 ever observed a Sabbath rite.f Yet (as before re- 
 
 * Note on Gen. ii. 3, in D'Oyly and Mant's Bible. 
 
 f It is clear that the Israelites in bondage were not allowed 
 to observe a Sabbath. Yet, Dr. Jennings has, in his zealous 
 advocacy of the Creation Sabbath, ventured upon the following 
 argument to the contrary : " It is not probable the Egyptians 
 would be so blind to their interests, as by subjecting the Israelites 
 to excessive and incessant labour to wear out and destroy their 
 constitutions. It is more likely they allowed them a weekly day 
 of rest, as is allowed by their masters to the negroes in the 
 
Sec. X.] CREATION SABBATH. 123 
 
 marked) it does not appear that any lamentations on 
 this acconnt made part of " their cry unto God." 
 (Exod. ii. 23.) 
 
 But further, as hath also been before remarked, 
 Moses, when asking permission of Pharaoh to let the 
 people go, stated as the reason, and did so by Divine 
 command, that it was to sacrifice unto the Lord their 
 God in the wilderness. (Exod. v. 1, 3.) The reason 
 thus assigned w^as the performance of a religious rite, 
 which they could not practise in Egypt, through fear 
 of the Egyptians (Exod. viii. 25, 26); but, though 
 deprived also of the observance of Sabbaths, equally a 
 rehgious duty, if ever Sabbath observance had been 
 enjoined, no allusion is made to any purpose of 
 restoring them to the enjoyment of those Sabbaths. 
 
 Again, w4ien the Israelites had passed the Red 
 Sea, and consequently were at full liberty, if they so 
 pleased, to observe every Sabbath day that occurred, 
 they "took their journey from Ehm .... and came unto 
 
 West Indies, more for the sake of their health than out of any 
 regard to religion." [Jewish Antiquities, ii. 149.) Here we have 
 another specimen of d. priori reasoning hy reverend divines to 
 support a favourite theory in direct opposition to plain Scrip- 
 ture facts. For Pharaoh himself declares his object in afflicting 
 the people of Israel with burdens was to keep down their 
 numbers (Exod. i. 9-11); and with this object "the Egyptians 
 made the children of Israel to serve with rigour, and they made 
 their lives bitter with hard bondage" (v. 13, 14). No respite 
 was allowed ; the narrative expressly states that their tasks were 
 daily: " And the task-masters tasked them, saying, Fulfil your 
 works, your daily tasks." (Exod. v. 13.) "Ye shall not minish 
 ought from your bricks of your daily task." (v. 19.) 
 
124 CREATION SABBATH. [Cfiap. ]i. 
 
 the wilderness of Sin .... on the fifteenth day of the 
 second month after their departing ont of the land of 
 Egypt." (Exod. xvi. 1.) In this interval there had been 
 several Sabbath days, if the Sabbath rite had been then 
 instituted; did the Israehtes observe them? If they 
 had forgotten, or never knew of the Sabbath rite, 
 there was Moses to remind or inform them of it, if he 
 himself knew of its existence. Moreover, they were 
 then journeying, it would seem, under the immediate 
 guidance of Jehovah their God, as is afterwards ex- 
 pressly said of them, when journeying during their 
 forty years' sojoinni in the wilderness (Num. ix. 
 18-20) ; they, therefore, had not only the opportunity 
 of observing the Sabbath days occurring in their pro- 
 gress from Elim to the wilderness of Sin, but would, 
 it is reasonable to beheve, be made to observe them, 
 if Sabbath observance was already a duty ; and yet 
 we are not told that they observed any one of them. 
 
 I now ask the candid reader whether the portions 
 of the Mosaic narrative, which are above referred to, 
 did not offer occasions where we might justly expect 
 to have found some recognition, direct or indirect, of 
 the Sabbath rite, if it had been estabhshed at the 
 Creation ? and whether the absence of all allusion to 
 it be not significant, not to say conclusive, of the fact, 
 that up to this point of time in the world's history 
 the tenet of a Creation Sabbath was unknown ? 
 
 Subsequent to this period, the Jewish Scriptures, 
 in two instances, exhibit occasions where it is probable 
 a Creation Sabbath would have been alluded to, had 
 it been known to the writers, namely, in the passages 
 
Sec X] CREATION SABBATH. 125 
 
 which have been ah-eady quoted from Ezekiel and 
 Ts^ehemiah.* It could hardly be expected that many 
 such occasions would present themselves ; for when 
 the Mosaic Sabbath was enjoined upon the Israelites, 
 the Creation Sabbath, if it ever had an existence, must 
 have been withdrawn from all the rest of mankind ; 
 otherwise, the Sabbath rite could not have been, as it 
 was declared to be, a sign between God and his chosen 
 people, — a sign which was thenceforth to distinguish 
 the Jews from all other people. 
 
 As regarded the Jews, the Creation Sabbath, if it 
 ever existed, was either superseded by, or absorbed 
 in, the Sabbath instituted by Moses. It was super- 
 seded, if, as some Sabbatarians maintain, the Mosaic 
 Sabbath was appointed to be observed on " a new 
 day,"f — a day which was not a seventh in regular suc- 
 cession from that seventh day, which was blessed and 
 sanctified at the Creation. It was absorbed in the 
 Mosaic Sabbath, if, as other Sabbatarians maintain, or 
 
 * See ante, p. 86. 
 
 f The author of " Brief Remarks" so calls it, in the following 
 statement of an opinion, -which he prohably derived from Mede 
 (see Mede's works, 4th Edition, London, 1677, pp. 56, 57): — 
 " The history of the Israelites in the wilderness is considered to 
 contain an internal evidence that a new day was appointed for 
 their Sabbath. From Exodus (xvi. 1), it appears, that the seventh 
 day preceding that on which the manna ceased to fall, was occu- 
 pied not by a holy rest, but by a wearisome journey in the wil- 
 derness of Sin. Now, although the Israelites might have forgotten 
 the Sabbatical institution, yet, as their journeys were under the 
 direct command of Jehovah, it is presumed, that a day thus spent 
 could not have been that of the original Sabbath." ( " Brief Re- 
 marks," p. 39.) 
 
126 CREATION SABBATH. IChap. I . 
 
 think probable,* it was (to use the grandiloquent 
 phraseology of a Sabbatarian writer) " the seventh day 
 in the hebdomadal revolution from the commencement 
 of time."f 
 
 I marvel much, by the way, whether those Sab- 
 batarians who think that a new seventh day was 
 appointed for the Mosaic Sabbath ever ask themselves 
 the question, what in that case became of the old 
 seventh day? They insist upon it, and it is of the 
 very essence of their tenet in regard to a Creation 
 Sabbath, that God blessed and sanctified not only the 
 seventh day in which He rested, but also every suc- 
 ceeding seventh day. Every seventh day, therefore, 
 in regular recurrence from that of the Creation to the 
 time of Moses, a period of 2500 years, continued to 
 be blessed and sanctified ; but, in the case supposed, 
 it follows, that at the end of that period, this seventh 
 day was thenceforth desecrated, deprived of its holy 
 nature, and reduced to the level of an ordinary day, in 
 deference to the new day designed for the Mosaic Sab- 
 bath. Such a course of Providence, — first consecrating 
 a particular day of the week for one purpose, and after- 
 wards unconsecrating it for another purpose, appears 
 
 * Mede, who, as above intimated, was of opinion that it was 
 not the same seventh day as that in succession from the Creation, 
 says, " Nevertheless, it might fall out so by dispensation of Divine 
 Providence, that the Jews' designed seventh day was both the 
 seventh in order from the Creation, and also the day of their deli- 
 verance out of Egypt," which, according to the commandment in 
 Deuteronomy, was the event they were enjoined to commemorate. 
 (Mede's Works, pp. 56, 57.) 
 
 f Holden's "Christian Sabbath," p. 101. 
 
Sec X] creation SABBATH. 127 
 
 utterly incredible, unless upon irresistible evidence, 
 which there is not, that such, nevertheless, was the fact.* 
 
 But whatever doubt may remain upon the ques- 
 tion with reference to the Jews, there can be none 
 whatever that the seventh day in succession from the 
 Creation was the day which all the rest of mankind 
 continued bound to observe, if, at the Creation, a com- 
 mand had been given to observe a seventh-day Sabbath, 
 and if that command remained in force ; so that, on 
 the supposition that the Mosaic Sabbath was designed 
 to be held on a neio day, it would result that the Jews 
 were under the obligation to observe the rite of the 
 Sabbath on some one day of the week, and all the rest 
 of the world to observe it on another ! Such, at least, 
 must have been the result from the time of Moses 
 until the introduction of Christianity, when, according 
 to the Sabbatarians, another iiew day was appointed 
 for the observance of the Sabbath — the first day of the 
 week instead of the seventh. 
 
 I have thrown out these remarks merely to bring 
 into view some of the many inconsistencies in which 
 
 * We are, indeed, not unaccustomed to witness such a course 
 of proceeding ; but it is in human caprice and inconsistency that 
 we find it. We consecrate churches, professing, by formal and 
 solemn ceremonies, to set them apart as thenceforth belonging 
 to God ; yet, if we want to construct a new dock, or to open a 
 new street, and a church happen to stand in the way, then, by virtue 
 and under the authority of an act of Parliament, and with the 
 consent of the lords spiritual as well as temporal, down comes the 
 consecrated building, its materials are sold, or otherwise con- 
 verted to profane uses, and the spot whereon it stood, and the 
 adjoining graveyard, are no longer holy ground. 
 
128 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 Sabbatarians become involved, as a consequence of 
 their tenet of a Creation Sabbath, and I now return 
 to my argument. 
 
 I had been noticing that, after the institution of 
 the Mosaic Sabbath, it v^^as not hkely we should find 
 in the Jewish Scriptures many occasions where allu- 
 sions might be expected to have been made to a 
 Creation Sabbath ; that, however, there were two 
 instances in which such occasions had presented them- 
 selves, and yet no allusion had been made to it in 
 either of them ; and this remark I substantiated by 
 a reference to passages in Ezekiel and Nehemiah. 
 
 Ezekiel " is said to have been carried away captive 
 to Babylon, with Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in the 
 year of the world 3406."* " He began to deliver his 
 prophecies .... in the fifth year of his captivity,"f 
 which would be in the year of the world 3411, being 
 593 years before Christ. 
 
 The latest date assigned in our Bibles to events 
 recorded in the book of Nehemiah is about 434 before 
 Christ; the book, therefore, could not have been 
 written till after that year. 
 
 There is no book in the Old Testament of later 
 date than that of Nehemiah, the last of the Jewish 
 historians, excepting the book of Malachi, the last of 
 the prophets. The date assigned to his prophecy is 
 B.C. about 397. It makes no allusion to a Creation 
 Sabbath. 
 
 * "A Ke}^ to the Old Testament," by tlie Rev. Robert Gray, 
 A.M. (afterwards D.D.), London, 1790; p. 395. 
 t Dr. Gray, p. 396. 
 
secx.] creation sabbath. 129 
 
 Hence, it appears by evidence, which, though only 
 negative and inferential, is perfectly conclusive, that 
 for more than 3600 years of the world's existence, and 
 within about 400 years of the birth of Christ, the 
 tenet of a Creation Sabbath was unknown. And here 
 ends the testimony on the subject, so far as it is to be 
 collected from the Jewish Scriptures. 
 
 We now come to the consideration of the question, 
 what occasions there were in which the writers of 
 the books in the New Testament might, in all proba- 
 bility, be found to have alluded to a Sabbath command 
 at the Creation, if such a command was then given. 
 
 Most natural and rational would be our expec- 
 tation that the New Testament would abound in allu- 
 sions to the observance of a Sabbath, which, if ever 
 commanded, was still obhgatory on all mankind. 
 Nevertheless, it contains not a single passage wherein 
 any such allusion appears ; and it is especially worthy 
 of notice, that the text in Genesis, which it is alleged 
 implies the command, is, as I have before remarked, 
 never quoted throughout the Christian Scriptures, 
 nor even alluded to, except in one instance (Heb. iv. 4), 
 and there not as implying any command. 
 
 These are facts in regard to the Christian Scrip- 
 tures, which are unaccountable on the supposition 
 that a Creation Sabbath had been known ; our present 
 inquiry, however, relates more immediately to the 
 particular opportunities that may have occurred to the 
 writers of the New Testament for recognising the 
 tenet of a Creation Sabbath, but of which nevertheless 
 they have not availed themselves. Now, there is one 
 
 K 
 
130 CREATION SABBATH. [CpAP. II. 
 
 occasion, and that one alone is all-sufficient, where it 
 is incredible that no reference should have been made 
 to a Sabbath enjoined upon all mankind, if such a 
 Sabbath there was ; yet no such reference is to be 
 found. The occasion was this ; St. Paul told his 
 heathen converts, in his Epistles to the Romans, the 
 Galatians, and the Colossians, that they were not 
 bound to observe Sabbath-days. Now it is absolutely 
 incredible that, when thus writing to them concerning 
 Sabbath-days, he should have omitted to inform them, 
 that although not bound to observe the Jewish Sab- 
 bath, they were under an obligation, long lost sight of 
 by heathen nations, but which still subsisted in its 
 primeval force, to observe a Sabbath commanded to 
 all mankind at the creation of the world. If St. Paul 
 knew of the existence of any such obligation, it was 
 his duty, as the apostle of the Gentiles, to proclaim it 
 to his heathen converts, and earnestly to exhort them 
 to a strict and immediate compliance with it. He has 
 done nothing of the kind ; he therefore knew of no 
 such obligation, nor of any such tenet being held in 
 his time either by Jew or Christian as that of a 
 Creation Sabbath. 
 
 How long this utter ignorance of the tenet con- 
 tinued to prevail after the close of the period to 
 which the Christian Scriptures extend, is a question 
 upon which we must seek for information in ecclesi- 
 astic history. 
 
 What say the Fathers of the Church ? What says 
 Eusebius, its great historian? They say that from 
 which but one inference can be drawn, namely, that 
 
Sec. X.J CREATION SABBATH. 131 
 
 in their day the tenet of a Creation Sabbath was not 
 yet invented. 
 
 From the writings of the Fathers who flourished 
 before Justin Martyr (usually called the Apostolical 
 Fathers), 1 have nothing to quote. They are silent on 
 the subject of Sabbaths. Their works, therefore, do 
 not furnish any passages which demonstrate either 
 their knowledge or their ignorance of the tenet in 
 question ; but if any conclusion may be drawn from 
 their silence, it assuredly would be this, that they 
 knew of no such tenet. Before, however, I proceed 
 to make extracts from the writings of Justin and his 
 successors, it will be proper to take some notice of an 
 ancient document usually called the Epistle of Barna- 
 bas, but which, for reasons I have elsewhere stated,* 
 it is in the highest degree probable, has been errone- 
 ously ascribed to him. Nevertheless, as an ecclesias- 
 tical writing of very great antiquity, and of a date 
 which, though uncertain, there can be little doubt 
 was prior to the time of Justin, it claims our first 
 attention ; and it is of the greater value on the present 
 question as the writer expressly refers to the text in 
 Genesis. "Even in the beginning of the Creation 
 (he says) God makes mention of the Sabbath;" but, 
 instead of adding that God commanded it to be ob- 
 served, he proceeds to give the following opinion of 
 what is meant by the Sabbath mentioned in the text, 
 and by the rest of God on the seventh day : " And 
 God made in six days the works of his hands, and 
 
 * "The Sabbath," vol. i. p. 217. 
 
132 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 he finished them on the seventh day, and he rested 
 the seventh day and sanctified it. Consider, my 
 children, what that signifies — he finished them in 
 six days. The meaning of it is this, that in six 
 thousand years the Lord God will bring all things 
 to an end, for with him one day is a thousand years." 
 — " And what is that he saith, And he rested the 
 seventh day? He meaneth this, that when his Son 
 shall come and abolish the season of the wicked one, 
 and judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun, and 
 the moon, and the stars, then he shall gloriously rest 
 in that seventh day."* 
 
 The truth or nonsense of these opinions is not here 
 in question, but only the proper inference to be drawn 
 from them in relation to the point in discussion ; and 
 it is clearly this, that the writer himself did not believe 
 the text in Genesis implied a command to mankind at 
 the Creation to observe a Sabbath, and that he did not 
 know of such a tenet being held in his day by any 
 one else ; for if he knew of its existence, he would 
 scarcely have failed to allude to it, since it was so di- 
 rectly opposed to his own interpretation of the text. 
 
 I now commence my intended extracts from the 
 writings of the Chm^ch Fathers. 
 
 * This passage in the Epistle is quoted more fully in p. 226 
 of " The Sabbath." I have given it there, and here also, from 
 Archbishop Wake's translation. 
 
Justin Maetyr.] CREATION SABBATH. 133 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, written 
 about the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr 
 says of Adam, Enoch, Lot, Noah, and Melchizedec, 
 that they had never been circumcised, and adds : 
 " All those just men before named pleased God with- 
 out observing the Sabbath, and, after them, Abraham 
 and all his posterity to the time of Closes'' (" Sine 
 observatione Sabbati, qui nominati modo sunt, justi 
 omnes Deo complacuerunt, et post illos Abraam atque 
 ejus liberi cuncti ad Mosen usque." Thirlby's Edition, 
 1722, p. 174.) 
 
 Em-ther on, addressing Trypho, Justin says, " Re- 
 main as you were created ; for if, before Abraham 
 there was no custom of circumcision, nor before Moses 
 of celebrating the Sabbath, and festivals, and offerings, 
 neither now, in like manner, since the Son of God, 
 Jesus Christ, by the determinate counsel of God, born 
 without sin of a virgin of the race of Abraham, is there 
 any need of those things." (" Manete sicut generati 
 estis. Si namque ante Abraam non fuit usus circum- 
 cisionis, neque ante Mosen celebrationis sabbati et 
 feriarum et oblationum, neque nunc quidem post filium 
 Dei, Jesum Christum, de consilio et voluntate Dei 
 absque peccato ex virgine generis Abraae natum consi- 
 militer eis est opus."* Thirlby, p. 183.) 
 
 * Quoted, but in part only, in vol. i. of " The Sabbath," 
 p. 276. 
 
134 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap II. 
 
 And again he says, "As, therefore, circumcision 
 took its rise from Abraham, and the Sabbath, and 
 sacrifices, and offerings, and festivals, (which, it hath 
 been proved, were ordained on account of your peo- 
 ple's hardness of heart,) took their rise from Moses ; 
 so was it proper that those things should, according 
 to the counsel of the Father, come to an end in him, 
 the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was born of a virgin 
 of the race of Abraham, and of the tribe of Judah, and 
 of the house of David." (" Sicut ergo ab Abraam cir- 
 cumcisio, et a Mose sabbatum et sacrificia et obla- 
 tiones et ferise ortum cepere, quae propter duritiam 
 cordis populi vestri disposita esse probatum est, ita 
 finem ea habere oportuit, juxta Patris consilium in eo, 
 qui e virgine generis Abraae et tribus Judae et stirpis 
 David natus est, filio Dei, Christo Jesu." P. 222, 
 Thirlby.) 
 
 There are several other passages to the like pur- 
 port scattered through the Dialogue with Trypho, 
 which it would be superfluous to quote, one excepted, 
 which is remarkable, as it asserts there was no com- 
 mand to observe a Sabbath before Moses. 
 
 Justin having asked Trypho if it was still possible 
 to observe all things commanded in the law of Moses, 
 and Trypho having acknowledged it was not, " Pray do 
 you tell me then," says Justin, " which those precepts 
 are that may be observed now." (" Turn ego : Quae 
 igitur servari queant, ipse rogo, dicite.") Trypho re- 
 plies, " You may observe the Sabbaths, circumcision, 
 the months, and to wash, if you have touched anything 
 which was forbidden by Moses." ("Atille: Sabbata 
 
Justin Martyr.] CREATION SABBATH. 135 
 
 peragere, inquit, et circumcidi, et menses servare, et 
 ablui, ubi quid attigeris quod a Mose vetitum est.") 
 Justin then remarks to Trypho, that Abraham, and 
 other just men before and after him, had done none of 
 these things : "To which Trypho answers. Were not 
 Abraham and his posterity circumcised? Yes, says 
 Justin, I know that Abraham and his posterity were 
 circumcised, but why circumcision was imposed on 
 them I have already observed in several places, . . . 
 but that none of those just and righteous men that 
 were before Moses did ever observe, or, indeed, receive 
 any command about the observation of any of these 
 things now in dispute,* except circumcision which 
 took its rise from Abraham, you know very well. 
 We do know, said Trypho." (" Et Trypho respondit : 
 Non circumcisus est Abraam et posteri ejus ? Ego 
 vero, Scio, inquam, circumcisum esse Abraam et suc- 
 cessores ejus. Qua autem gratia eis circumcisio sit 
 
 data, multis antea dixi Quod certe ad ipsum 
 
 usque Mosen nuUus omnino justorum eorum quidam 
 
 * The language of Justin, strictly construed, it may be 
 admitted, implies nothing more than that the Patriarchs had 
 not received, personally, a command to observe a Sabbath, which, 
 it may be said, might be very true, and yet a Sabbath command 
 might have been given at the Creation, and if so, the Patriarchs 
 actually did, in common with all the rest of mankind, receive a 
 command to observe a Sabbath. But if it was Justin's belief, 
 as it is here shown to have been, that no Sabbath command was 
 given at the Creation, it must necessarily follow, that in the 
 passage above quoted, he intended to assert that the Patriarchs 
 had never, either personally or otherwise, received a command for 
 the observation of a Sabbath. 
 
136 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 quae in qnaestionem veniunt servaverit, ac ne prcscep- 
 tum quidem ullmn servandi acceperit, \ovhiv oXojg rovruv 
 •rg^/ S)v l^r,rov^iv \(pv\u^zv, ovbi hrok^v 'ikccSi <pv'kdaanv\ 
 extra circumcisionem quae ab Abraam exordium sump- 
 sit, scitis. Scimus, inquit." P. 228 of Thirlby's 
 edition, 1722.) 
 
 IREN^US. 
 
 Irenseus, in his treatise against Heresies, written 
 towards tlie end of the second century, says of Abra- 
 ham, that " without circumcision and without observ- 
 ance of Sabbaths, he beUeved God, and it was 
 counted unto him for righteousness." (" Ipse Abraham 
 sine circumcisione et sine observatione sabbatorum 
 crediditDeo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam." Adv. 
 Haereses, Kb. iv. c. 16, Massuet's edit.) 
 
 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 Tertullian, in his treatise against the Jews, written 
 at the end of the second or in the beginning of the 
 third century, says, " Since God ordained that Adam 
 should be neither circumcised nor an observer of the 
 Sabbath, so he commended Adam's son Abel, when 
 offering sacrifices to Him, although Abel was uncir- 
 cumcised, and not an observer of the Sabbath. . . . 
 
Tertullian] creation SABBATH. 137 
 
 Noah, also, God saved from the dekige, although 
 imcu'cumcised and not observing the Sabbath. But, 
 moreover, he translated from this world, without expe- 
 riencing death, Enoch, a most righteous man, although 
 he was not circumcised nor an observer of the Sabbath. 
 Melchizedec, also, the priest of the Most High, was 
 appointed to the priesthood of God, although uncir- 
 cumcised and not observing the Sabbath. Lot, the 
 brother of Abraham, is also an instance, since it was 
 on account of his righteousness, without his being an 
 observer of the law, that he was saved from the flames 
 of Sodom. But Abraham, you say, was circumcised. 
 True ; but he pleased God before he was circumcised, 
 nor did he, though circumcised, observe the Sabbath." 
 After some further remarks, Tertullian concludes this 
 part of his argument by saying, " It follows, there- 
 fore, that as the abolition of circumcision and of the 
 old law is shown to have been completed in their ap- 
 pointed periods, so may the observance of the Sabbath 
 also be shown to have been temporary." (" Cum neque 
 circumcisum neque sabbatizantem Deus Adamum 
 instituerit, consequenter quoque sobolem ejus Abel 
 offerentera sibi sacrificia incircumcisum nee sabbati- 
 zantem laudavit Noe quoque incircumcisum 
 
 Deus, sed et non sabbatizantem, de diluvio liberavit. 
 Nam et Enoch justissimum non circumcisum nee sab- 
 batizantem de hoc mundo transtulit, qui necdum 
 mortem gustavit. . . . Melchisedech, quoque summus 
 Dei sacerdos, incircumcisus et non sabbatizans, ad 
 sacerdotium Dei allectus est. Probat et Loth, frater 
 Abraae, quod pro meritis justitise sine legis observatione 
 
138 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II 
 
 de Sodomitorum incendio sit liberatus. Sed Abraham, 
 inquit, circumcisus est. Sed ante Deo placuit quam 
 
 circumcideretur, nee tamen sabbatizavit 
 
 Sequitur itaque ut qiiatenus circumcisionis carnalis 
 et legis veteris abolitio expuncta suis temporibus 
 demon stratur, ita Sabbati quoque observatio tempo- 
 raria fuisse demonstretur."* ( Contra Judaeos, p. 185. 
 Rigault's edition, Paris, 1675.) 
 
 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 Eusebius, in the introduction to his " Ecclesiastical 
 History," written in the beginning of the fourth cen- 
 tury, says, " That the nation of the Hebrews is not 
 new, but honoured among all for its antiquity, is well 
 known. The writings and literature of this nation 
 concern ancient men, rare and few in number, but 
 yet excelling in piety, righteousness, and every virtue. 
 And, indeed, even before the flood, there were some 
 who were distinguished for their virtue ; and after 
 this others, both of the sons and posterity of Noah, 
 among whom we would mention Abraham, celebrated 
 by the Hebrews as the founder and progenitor of 
 their nation. Should any one, beginning from Abra- 
 ham, and going back to the first man, pronounce 
 those who have had the testimony of righteousness 
 Christians in fact, though not in name, he would not 
 
 * This last sentence is before quoted, vol. i. of " The Sab- 
 bath," p. 298. 
 
EusEBins.] CREATION SABBATH. 139 
 
 be far from the truth. For as the name Christians is 
 intended to indicate this very idea, that a man by the 
 knowledge and doctrine of Christ is distinguished by 
 modesty and justice, by patience and a virtuous for- 
 titude, and by a profession of piety towards the one 
 and only true and supreme God, all this was no less 
 studiously cultivated by them than by us. They did 
 not, therefore, regard circumcision nor observe the 
 Sabbath, nor do we ; neither do we abstain from 
 certain foods, nor regard other injunctions which 
 Moses subsequently delivered to be observed in types 
 and symbols, because such things as these do not 
 belong to Christians." — Cruse's Translation, p. 46, 
 (" Hebraeorum gentem haudquaquam recentem esse, 
 sed vetustatis gratia apud omnes in honore haberi 
 cunctis notissimum est. Sunt apud eam prisca mo- 
 numenta, in quibus continentur res gestae veterum 
 quorundam virorum, qui licet rari ac perpauci, re- 
 ligione, justitia, ac cseteris virtutibus reliquos omnes 
 longe superarunt. Et ante diluvium quidem non- 
 nulH commemorantur : post diluvium autem alii, 
 partim ex Noe liberis, partini ex eorum posteris. 
 Inter quos etiam Abraham, quem quidam conditorem 
 auctoremque generis sui jactant Hebrsei. Quod si 
 quis omnes illos quorum justitia tam illustri testimonio 
 comprobata est, ab Abraham initio sumpto ad primum 
 usque hominem recurrens, Christianos non quidem 
 nomine sed re ipsa fuisse affirmet, is certe non procul 
 a veritate aberraverit. Nam ciim Christiani nomine 
 nihil aliud significetur, quam vir qui per Christi cog- 
 nitionem atque doctrinam modestia, justitia, tele- 
 
140 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 rantia, fortitiuline, et pietatis cultusque unius, qui 
 super omnia est, Dei professione ornatus est ; hsec 
 omnia veteres illi non minus studiose quam nos ex- 
 coluerunt. Itaque nee circumcisionem nee Sabbatum 
 observare curse illis fuit, sicut nee nobis ; neque a 
 certis cibis abstinere, et alia qusedam sollicite ob- 
 servare quae primus omnium Moses typice agenda et 
 custodienda posteris tradidit ; sicut neque nunc apud 
 Christianos quidquam horum geritur.") — From Read- 
 ing's Edition of the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius 
 and others, by Valesius, with the Latin version of 
 Valesius, printed at the Cambridge press, in 1720. 
 Lib. i. cap. 4, of Eusebius. 
 
 JEROME. 
 
 Jerome, in his preface to St. Paul's Epistle to the 
 Galatians, written in the latter part of the fourth 
 century, says : " There is not any one discourse by 
 this Apostle, whether by letter or in person, in which 
 he does not labour to teach that the discontinued 
 burdens of the old law, and all those things which 
 formerly existed in types and figures, that is to say, 
 the idleness of the Sabbath, the suiFering from circum- 
 cision, the recurrence of appointed seasons, and of the 
 three great festivals of the year, the scrupulousness as 
 to meats, and the daily ablutions, had ceased insen- 
 sibly and by degrees, through the influence of the 
 Gospel." (The Latin of this passage has been already 
 given in chapter i. p. 25.) 
 
Damascenus] creation SABBATH. 141 
 
 DAMASCENUS, 
 (John of Damascus,) 
 
 A monk and presbyter, who flourished about the 
 year 730,* has the following passage in his treatise, 
 entitled, " Of the Orthodox Faith : " " When the 
 law did not exist, nor any Scripture divinely inspired, 
 neither then was the Sabbath consecrated to God. 
 But after the divine Scripture was given through 
 Moses, then also was the Sabbath consecrated to God, 
 that those might employ themselves in the meditation 
 of it who do not devote their whole lives to God." 
 (" Quando lex non erat, nee Scriptnra diviniti^is in- 
 spirata, ne Sabbatum quideni Deo consecratum erat 
 \_ovTZ ro (7d(^[occTov Toj ©g&J a(piz^o[iro.~\ At postquam 
 Scriptnra divina per Mosen data est, sabbatum 
 quoque Deo dicatum fuit [aipie^cudri] ut ejus medita- 
 tioni vacarent, qui totum vitse tempns Deo non im- 
 pendunt.") — De Fid. Orthod. lib. iv., c. 23. Paris 
 Edition, 1712. 
 
 With this extract from a treatise, which is little 
 more than eleven hundred years old, I close my proof 
 that for nearly five thousand years f after the Creation 
 the tenet of a Creation Sabbath was unknown, and 
 
 * " Lardner's Credibility," v 315. 
 
 f Our Bible clironology gives 4004 years for the period 
 before Christ, to which if 730 a.d., the date assigned to the time 
 of Damascenus, be added, we have 4734 years. 
 
142 CREATION SABBATH. LChap. II. 
 
 that consequently it is a tenet of modern origin. But 
 if it be of modern origin, Sabbatarians must admit there 
 can be no truth in it, for from its very nature it must, 
 if true, be as old as the world itself. They must, there- 
 fore, object to my proof, or admit the conclusion which 
 I have drawn from it. Yet, what have they to object ? 
 They cannot produce any evidence which shows that 
 their tenet had come into existence before the Christian 
 era, whilst, on the contrary, I have shown, by refe- 
 rence to Scripture history, that from the earliest times 
 the Jewish historians and prophets had opportunities 
 of mentioning or alluding to the Creation Sabbath, if 
 they knew of such a Sabbath, and yet of those oppor- 
 tunities not one of them has in any one instance 
 availed himself. All further discussion of evidence 
 prior in date to the Christian era is superfluous. 
 The further discussion may, without risk to the for- 
 mation of a just opinion upon the subject, be confined 
 to the single question : — Was the tenet in existence 
 at any time during the first seven centuries of that 
 era ? For if it was not then known to the world, it 
 would be absurd to suppose it could ever have been 
 known before. 
 
 Now, in the extracts which I have here given from 
 six of the Church Fathers, we have through their suc- 
 cessive testimony during a period which extends to 
 nearly the middle of the eighth centmy, — testimony 
 not opposed by that of any contemporary writer, — a 
 clear proof that the tenet of a Creation Sabbath would 
 not have come into existence till after that period. For 
 if it did exist in the times of Eusebius and the other 
 
Sec. X.] CREATION SABBATH. 143 
 
 Fathers here quoted, most assuredly it must have been 
 known to them, and its truth as assuredly have been 
 denied by them ; since it is a tenet completely at 
 variance with, and, if true, utterly subversive of, all 
 that they themselves say upon the subject. 
 
 That the prima facie inference arising from what 
 they say is this, namely, they knew of no Sabbath 
 before Moses, is too obvious to be doubted. Some 
 attempt, therefore, it is necessary for the Sabbatarians 
 to make, in order to prove that although in appearance 
 this is the just inference, yet in reality it is not so. 
 
 The attempt, I find, has been made by a learned 
 Sabbatarian divine, whom I have often before quoted. 
 His explanation is this : — When the Fathers assert 
 that the Sabbath had ceased — that the Sabbath, like 
 circumcision, was a temporary institution — that as 
 circumcision was not before Abraham, so neither was 
 the Sabbath before Moses, they in all these instances, 
 and in all others where they express themselves to the 
 like pm-port, are speaking only of the Mosaic Sabbath, 
 and never of the Creation Sabbath.* " It is (he says) 
 frequently asserted by the Fathers that the Sabbath is 
 an institution peculiar to the Jews, that it was to be 
 abolished, and that its observance is unnecessary 
 under the Christian law of liberty" (page 330) ; and, 
 in justification of this remark, he refers to passages 
 in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, and he says 
 of Origen (page 332), that " he Hkewise reasons upon 
 the assumption that the Sabbath was no longer obli- 
 
 * " The Christian Sabbath," pp. 830-332. 
 
144 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 gatory after the coming of Christ : and similar senti- 
 ments (continues this writer) are proclaimed by most 
 of the ancient Fathers But all the declara- 
 tions of this kind, it is to be observed, have reference 
 to the Jewish Sabbath." 
 
 Elsewhere (p. 142) the same writer remarks, that 
 " St. Paul pronounced it (the Mosaic Sabbath) to be 
 abolished among the other ceremonial institutions of 
 the Mosaic economy;" and in p. 164 he says, when 
 commenting on the second chapter of the Epistle to 
 the Colossians, "there is" (in what St. Paul teaches 
 in that chapter respecting holy days) " no reference to 
 the Paradisiacal institution of the Sabbath. The 
 primaeval command is not implicated in the Apostle's 
 declaration : it is to the Jewish Sabbath alone to which 
 he refers ; and, while the festivals of that religion are 
 pronounced to be transient shadows, the original insti- 
 tution, which is not even glanced at by the Apostle, 
 must remain in full force." 
 
 With all my sincere and great respect for this 
 writer, whose treatise is conspicuous alike for its 
 learned research and for a degree of candour seldom 
 seen in theological controversy, I cannot but smile at 
 the simplicity of the remark, that the Creation Sab- 
 bath is not even glanced at. How could it be glanced 
 at, if it never existed ? And if the Apostle knew that 
 it did exist, how shall we account for the fact that he 
 did not glance at it, nay, actually speak of it, and that, 
 too, in very emphatic and unmistakeable language ? 
 Eorit is to be borne in mind that St. Paul was writing 
 to converts made from the heathens, who were little 
 
Conclusion.] CREATION SABBATH. 145 
 
 likely to be acquainted with the Mosaic history of the 
 Creation. It was, therefore, as I have before had 
 occasion to remark, most improbable, that St. Paul, 
 when telling them that the Jewish Sabbath was not 
 obKgatory, should refrain from informing them, if such 
 was his own belief, that there was another Sabbath, a 
 " primeval" Sabbath, whose duration was eternal, 
 and its obligation universal. The only rational mode 
 of accounting for St. Paul's silence with regard to this 
 alleged Sabbath, when he was imparting religious in- 
 struction to Heathen converts on the subject of Sab- 
 baths and holy days, is to be found in the fact, that the 
 tenet of a Creation Sabbath did not take its rise till 
 after his time. 
 
 So when it is said of the Church Fathers here 
 quoted, that they are speaking only of the Mosaic 
 Sabbath, the like questions may be asked. How could 
 they speak of a Creation Sabbath, if such a Sabbath 
 was never instituted? and if their belief was that it 
 had been instituted, how happens it that they, like 
 St. Paul, should not even glance at it ? If they 
 believed, that besides the Mosaic Sabbath there had 
 been another, which was instituted at the Creation, 
 it is in itself scarcely credible, that not any one of 
 them, not even Eusebius, the historian of the opinions, 
 as well as of the affairs of the Church, should chance 
 to allude to it, particularly as the course of their argu- 
 ment would naturally have led them to speak of it. 
 Per while it may be readily admitted that the Sabbath, 
 which they say was no longer obligatory, was that 
 which was instituted by Moses, no one can deny that 
 
 L 
 
146 CREATION SABBATH. IChap. II 
 
 their language, in the passages here quoted from their 
 works, uniformly appears to imply that they are 
 speaking of the Sabbath, in the abstract, as a rite 
 which mankind had not in all times been commanded 
 to observe. To guard themselves, therefore, from all 
 misapprehension of their real meaning, if it was that 
 which Sabbatarians attribute to them, the Fathers 
 should have said expressly, and yet none of them have 
 said it : — We are speaking only of the Mosaic Sabbath, 
 for we well know that the rite of the Sabbath existed 
 from the beginning of the world, and have no doubt 
 but that it was observed by all good men from Adam 
 to Moses ; and on this account the just and righteous 
 men whom we have named, and who were living 
 before the time of Moses, were acceptable to God, 
 although they observed not that Sabbath which, with 
 other Mosaic ordinances, ceased to be obligatory after 
 the coming of Christ. 
 
 Some such form as this their argument must have 
 assumed if they believed in the tenet of a creation 
 Sabbath. In its present form it is obviously defective 
 and inconclusive, on the supposition that they held or 
 knew of the existence of that tenet. 
 
 On the other hand, how natural, how rational, how 
 consistent, is that explanation of their language, which 
 represents it as meaning there was never any Sabbath 
 instituted before that of Moses ! "As circumcision 
 was not before Abraham, so neither was the Sabbath 
 before Moses," is, in brief, what the Fathers say. 
 Surely this language can have but one, and that one 
 its prima facie meaning. As well might it be argued 
 
Conclusion.] CREATION SABBATH. 147 
 
 they believed the rite of circumcision existed before 
 the time of Abraham, as that they beHeved in a Sab- 
 bath antecedent to that of Moses. 
 
 Thus decidedly fails the only attempt which I have 
 seen made by Sabbatarian ingenuity for the purpose 
 of reconciling the declarations of the Church Fathers 
 with their alleged belief in a Sabbath enjoined at the 
 Creation. The inference afforded by the patristic 
 writings above quoted, namely, that the tenet of a 
 Creation Sabbath was unknown to the Fathers of the 
 first seven centuries of the Christian era, is, indeed, 
 too clear, too self-evident to be overthrown by argu- 
 ment ; and having, as I believe I have, succeeded in 
 proving that no evidence. Scriptural or non-Scriptural, 
 can be given of the existence of that tenet in any 
 previous period of the world's history, it becomes an 
 undeniable fact, that the tenet took its rise in compara- 
 tively modern times, and consequently cannot, by any 
 possibility, be true. 
 
 To me, who am confident that the tenet is of 
 modern invention, the argument derived from that con- 
 sideration appears so conclusive as to supersede the 
 necessity of recmTing to any other ; but to those who 
 may still persist in imagining that in Scripture there 
 are " hints" that the tenet was known in the early 
 ages of the world, the argument which thus satisfies 
 me may, I am aware, not satisfy them. I have, there- 
 fore, to remind them of the argument which I have 
 advanced in the beginning of this chapter, to prove 
 that the text in Genesis (ii. 3), relating to the blessing 
 and sanctification of the seventh day, does not even 
 
148 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap il 
 
 imply a command to mankind to observe a Sabbath. 
 The only ground for contending that the text concerns 
 mankind is, that to sanctify the day means to devote 
 it to purposes of religion, and that, in this sense, the 
 sanctification of it cannot be applicable to God ; but 
 if I have shown, as I am confident I have, that, allow- 
 ing Moses to be his own interpreter, there is a sense 
 in which he may have believed the Deity to have 
 sanctified the day to himself, it becomes an irresistible 
 inference, that it is in this sense he intended to be 
 understood, when, in speaking of the Deity, he says, 
 " God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." 
 
 I refrain from tasking the patience of the reader 
 with the perusal of a summary, however brief, of all 
 the other arguments which I have advanced in the 
 course of the present chapter to disprove the tenet in 
 question. I am content to conclude it by once more 
 remarking, that if the text in Genesis, — a text which 
 has occasioned the whole controversy on the subject, — 
 has, as I have proved it has, no reference to man, the 
 controversy respecting a Creation Sabbath is at an 
 end. 
 
NoTiiA.J CllKATION SABBATH. 149 
 
 NOTES 
 
 To the preceding Chapter. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 REFERRED TO IN P. 9 1 . 
 
 I have, I think, seen it argued by Sabbatarian 
 writers, that the word Remember, in the Fourth 
 Commandment, * is evidence that a Sabbath was en- 
 joined at the Creation, since there was, it is alleged, 
 no other Sabbath to which it could refer. It is 
 strange that any attentive reader of the Mosaic nar- 
 rative concerning the transactions in the wilderness 
 prior to the delivery of the Decalogue from Mount 
 Sinai should miss the clue which that narrative affords 
 to the true import of the word in interpreting the 
 commandment. 
 
 The Israelites, we are told, " came unto the wil- 
 derness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the 
 fifteenth day of the second month after their departing 
 out of the land of Egypt." (Exod. xvi. 1.) On arriving 
 there they murmured on account of (as Mede quaintly 
 expresses it) "their poor entertainment." Quails 
 were in consequence sent to them in the evening and 
 manna the next morning ; on the first day of the third 
 month they arrived in the wilderness of Sinai,t and 
 
 * " Reinember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Exod. xx. 8. 
 t " In the third month, when the children of Israel were 
 
150 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 on the third day of that month the Fourth Command- 
 ment was promulgated from the Mount. It was, 
 therefore, above fifteen days previous to this great 
 event that Moses, by divine command, instituted a 
 Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin ; so that there had 
 already occurred two Sabbath days before the pro- 
 mulgation of the Fom'th Commandment, and, con- 
 sequently, that commandment does nothing more 
 than bid the Israelites remember, that they were to 
 continue in the observance of the Sabbath, which had 
 just then been instituted, and of which they had 
 already kept holy two Sabbath days. 
 
 That this is the true interpretation, is placed be- 
 yond all doubt by the Decalogue in Deuteronomy, 
 where the Fourth Commandment begins thus, " Keep 
 the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God 
 hath commanded thee;" for these words cannot pos- 
 sibly be applicable to any other command than one 
 which had been given to the Israelites, and, therefore, 
 must refer to the command to observe the Sabbath, 
 which had been recently given to them in the wilder- 
 ness of Sin. 
 
 gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into 
 the -wilderness of Sinai." Exod. xLx. 1. " This verse," say the 
 editors of the annotated Bible published in 1774, " may more 
 properly be read, The children of Israel, in the third month after 
 they had left the land of Egyj)t, on the first day of the month, 
 came into the ivilderness of Sinai," 
 
 Dr. Geddes, in his version of the Pentateuch, translates this 
 passage, " On the first day of the third month from the going 
 out of the children of Israel from Egypt, they came to the wil- 
 derness of Sinai." 
 
noteb] creation sabbath. 151 
 
 Note B. 
 
 REFEERED TO IN P. 112. 
 
 Further hints of a Creation Sabbath frotn Mr. Guriieys 
 " Brief BemarJcs.'* 
 
 In page 1 6 of those Remarks he says, " We read 
 of Abraham that ' he obeyed' the ' voice' of God, and 
 kept his ' charge,' his ' commandments,' his * statutes,' 
 and his 'laws' (Gen. xxvi. 5). No wonder that Ma- 
 nasseh Ben Israel, a learned Dutch Jew, should infer 
 from this passage that Abraham observed the Sabbath, 
 for which of the charges, statutes, commandments, or 
 laws of God, was such a man more likely to reverence 
 and obey ?" 
 
 It is obvious that Mr. Gurney's question upon the 
 inference of the Dutch Jew assumes the very point in 
 dispute ; it assumes that before the time of Abraham 
 a Sabbath had been commanded. 
 
 Again, Mr. Gurney says (p. 17), *' Eben Ezra, 
 another learned Jew, presumes that Job kept the 
 Sabbath, because he offered sacrifice at the end of 
 seven days. Job, i. 5." Mr. Gurney, it may be no- 
 ticed, expresses no direct approbation of this other 
 Jew's presumption ; and " no wonder," for what we 
 read of Job is this, that he had seven sons, and that 
 " his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one 
 his day, and sent and called for their three sisters to 
 eat and to drink with them. And it was so, when 
 the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job 
 
152 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the 
 morning and offered burnt-offerings according to the 
 number of them all ; for Job said, It may be that my 
 sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts." 
 Now, in the first place, we have very learned autho- 
 rity for the opinion that what is meant by " every one 
 his day," is, " every one his birth-day ; " for of this 
 opinion was Grotius, whom I first so quoted in D'Oyly 
 and Mant's notes to their edition of the Bible, together 
 with the reference given by Grotius to Gen. xl. 20, 
 as showing that a custom of celebrating birth- days 
 was prevalent in the early ages of the world. If this 
 be the meaning of the passage in Job, there remains 
 no foundation for the Sabbatarian inference from it. 
 But I will not press the interpretation of Grotius upon 
 the reader's acceptance, as I cannot say I am satisfied 
 with it myself ; for although it is possible, it is not 
 probable that the anniversaries of the birth-days of 
 seven sons should fall on the seven days immediately 
 succeeding each other, yet the text manifestly implies 
 that the seven days of feasting by Job's seven sons 
 were consecutive. Admitting, then, that they were 
 so, the Sabbatarian inference would still be untenable, 
 for it was not till after those seven days " were gone 
 about," that is, had completely passed over (" Cum- 
 que in orbem transissent dies convivii," says the 
 Vulgate ; ciig av avvzrzk'iG&riGuv at ^(Lz^ai rov 'xorov, 
 says the Septuagint), that Job rose up early in the 
 morning to offer up burnt-offerings ; this would, 
 therefore, be on the morning not of the seventh day, 
 but of the day after it. 
 
^'oTF.B.J CREATION SABBATH. 153 
 
 Mr. Gurney next propounds the following ques- 
 tions : "And is there not good reason to suppose 
 that the day when ' the sons of God came to present 
 themselves before the Lord,' was the day consecrated 
 to worship — the day of the Sabbath ?" To this idle 
 query as to the probable existence of a celestial Sab- 
 bath, it may be sufficient to reply by asking in turn. 
 And is there not in such case {mirabile dictu), good 
 reason to suppose that Satan is, or was at one time 
 since his fall, a Sabbatarian ? The texts referred to, 
 when quoted entire, run thus : " Now there was a 
 day when the sons of God" (the angels ; see the 38th 
 chap, of Job, ver. 7) " came to present themselves be- 
 fore the Lord, and Satan came also among them" 
 (i. 6). " Again there was a day when the sons of 
 God came to present themselves before the Lord, and 
 Satan came also among them to present himself before 
 the Lord'' (ii. 1). No particular reason appearing 
 for his presenting himself on the first of the two days, 
 what else can we infer but that Satan was an occa- 
 sional, if not a constant observer, of the celestial Sab- 
 bath ? 
 
 Leaving both these idle queries to themselves, I 
 proceed to remark that a Sabbatarian writer, who 
 ventures to refer his reader to the Book of Job for 
 proof of a Sabbath having been commanded at the 
 Creation, seems to lack discretion not a little ; for the 
 presumptive evidence deducible from that book, so 
 far as it goes, is decidedly adverse to the tenet. Thus, 
 besides the passage already quoted from it (i. 4, 5), 
 which implies a period of seven days, there is another 
 
154 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. ll. 
 
 wherein the period of seven days is recognised ; but 
 it is so in a manner which shows that no Sabbath 
 rite was performed upon any one of them. We read 
 that when Job's three friends came " to mourn with 
 him and to comfort him" — "they sat down with him 
 upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and 
 none spake a word unto him ; for they saw that his 
 grief was very great." (ii. 11, 13.) Now it is mani- 
 fest from this account that neither Job nor his friends 
 distinguished any one of these seven days from the 
 other six in any way whatever. Yet, had it then been 
 a duty to perform rehgious rites statedly on one day 
 in seven. Job must surely have felt the more disposed to 
 perform that duty when suffering from, and deprecating 
 the continuance of calamities which, as he believed, 
 were inflicted upon him by the hand of God : " The 
 Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away" (i. 21). 
 
 Moreover, Job is represented to be not only an 
 upright but a religious man, accustomed to offer 
 sacrifice : " Thus did Job continually" (i. 5) ; but 
 his sacrifices were voluntary. It nowhere appears 
 that he sacrificed on statedly recurring days, and the 
 fact of his offering no sacrifice on the seventh day of 
 his mourning, or on any of the preceding six days, 
 affords an additional proof that when he offered burnt- 
 offerings after the seven days of feasting by his sons 
 " were gone about," he did so without any reference 
 to an observance of a Sabbath day. It is also not 
 unworthy of notice, that in replying to the reproofs 
 administered to him by his friends, the comforters, he 
 takes occasion to speak, and with much earnestness, 
 
noteb] creation sabbath. 155 
 
 of his own merits, yet he makes no boast of observhig 
 a Sabbath, nor is there throughout the Book of Job a 
 single allusion made, either by himself or his friends, 
 to a Sabbath institution — a significant indication this, 
 although not a conclusive proof, that the alleged 
 Sabbath command at the Creation was to him and 
 to them unknown. 
 
 Biblical critics are far from being agreed as to the 
 nature or the author of the Book of Job. Some con- 
 sider it to be nothing more than a sacred drama, in 
 which Job is an imaginary personage, and the occur- 
 rences entirely fictitious ; but the orthodox faith in 
 this matter is, of course, that Job is a real personage, 
 and the book a relation of actual events, some, how- 
 ever, qualifying this opinion by the admission that it 
 is in part parabolical. " The veracity of the book," 
 says Dr. Gray, " is not invalidated by the allegorical 
 manner in which some things are related. Human 
 events are literally described, but the proceedings of 
 Providence .... are perhaps here, as in other parts 
 of Scripture, parabohcally represented."* 
 
 From the variety of opinions that have been enter- 
 tained concerning the nature and the author of the 
 Book of Job, it necessarily results that the date of it 
 is uncertain. If, as some writers suppose, it was 
 written by Job himself, it would, on Scripture autho- 
 rity, be clear that it must have been written not long 
 after, and perhaps even before, the Pentateuch ; for 
 Eliphaz the Temanite, who is said to be one of Job's 
 
 * Dr. Gray's " Key to the Old Testament," p. 286. 
 
150 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 comforters, was descended from the Patriarch Isaac, 
 in the same degree of descent as Amrani, the father of 
 Moses. Whether, however, Job had a real existence, 
 and whether the Book was written about the time of 
 Moses, or, as is very possible, not till long after- 
 wards,* are questions which cannot essentially aflfect 
 the scanty evidence to be gleaned from it in reference 
 to the tenet of a Sabbath having been commanded at 
 
 * Professor Bauer, in his " Theology of the Old Testament," 
 says : " We should place the Book of Job either in the age of 
 Solomon or in that immediately subsequent. In the ideas con- 
 tained in the Book of Job there is a striking similarity to those 
 which are found in the Book of the Proverbs. Several com- 
 mentators are of opinion that the former is the joint production 
 of some of the wise men who lived during the reign of Solomon, 
 or soon after his death." 
 
 I quote this from a publication entitled " The Theology of 
 the Old Testament, extracted and translated from the Theologie 
 DES ALTEN TESTAMENTS, by George Lorenz Bauer, Professor of 
 Oriental Languages and of Logic at Altdorf, and afterwards of 
 Oriental Languages and Biblical Criticism at Heidelberg," 
 (London, 1838.) 
 
 Although not immediately connected with my subject, I 
 cannot deny to myself the gratification of quoting, and to my 
 reader that of perusing, Professor Bauer's encomiastic notice of 
 the Book of Job, and its unknown author. " This book (he 
 says) is the most sublime and beautiful poetical work of the 
 Hebrews ; it surpasses all their other writings in the excellence 
 of its religious sentiments, especially in the purity of its notions 
 concerning God. It may with justice be styled the masterpiece 
 of antiquity. An author who, in a period of general ignorance, 
 could so far expel from his mind the prevailing prejudices and 
 superstitions of his country, and could work out for himself a 
 belief and morality so comparatively pure and reasonable, must 
 have attained to a high deoree of intellectual advancement." 
 
Note CI CREATION SABBATH. 157 
 
 the Creation, and which evidence, as we have seen, 
 although it be scanty, is, so far as it extends, de- 
 cidedly adverse to that tenet. 
 
 Note C. 
 
 REFEKEED TO IN THE NOTE AT P. 113. 
 
 The striking difference which subsists *^etween 
 the Decalogue in Exodus and that in Deuteronomy, 
 with regard to their statement of the reason why the 
 Fourth Commandment was enacted, cannot fail to 
 amaze and perplex every one who observes it. The 
 ordinary reader, however, who should happen to 
 notice it, soon recovers from his amazement, and finds 
 himself relieved from his perplexity, if he is so for- 
 tunate as to possess the means of consulting some 
 one of those numerous Scriptiu"e commentators, who 
 are ever ready to explain away all difficulties, howso- 
 ever formidable, and to reconcile, if need be, the most 
 palpable contradictions ; and never, surely, was there 
 any occasion on which they have shown themselves 
 more daring and dogmatical than on that to which I 
 am now adverting. They begin by taking for granted, 
 and expecting their readers to believe, on their autho- 
 rity, what is actually impossible, namely, that two 
 copies of the same document, though differing from 
 each other, may, nevertheless, both be perfectly ac- 
 curate copies of the original, and they deal with the 
 
158 CREATION SABBATH. [Chav. II. 
 
 two differing copies of the Fourth Commandment 
 accordingly. Do they wish to account for the Jews 
 observing the seventh day of the week for tlieir 
 Sabbath, they appeal to Deuteronomy. Do they con- 
 tend that Christians may observe the first day of the 
 week for their Sabbath, they appeal to Exodus, where, 
 strange to say, they fancy there is proof that the par- 
 ticular day of the week for the observance of a Sab- 
 bath is a matter of indifference, notwithstanding the 
 Commandment in Exodus, as well as that in Deu- 
 teronoiff^, expressly declares that " the seventh day is 
 the Sabbath." Thus Archbishop Wake, in com- 
 menting upon the Fourth Commandment, says : — 
 " This Commandment is as obligatory upon us as it 
 ever was upon the Jews, though not exactly after the 
 same manner. We worship, as they did, the God 
 who in six days created the heaven and earth, the sea 
 and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ; 
 and in acknowledgment thereof w^e stand obliged, 
 with them, to keep a seventh day of rest after six of 
 labour. But, then, as they worshipped this God under 
 the peculiar character of ' the God who brought them 
 out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bond- 
 age,' so were they directed to take that particular 
 day, the seventh of the week, for their Sabbath, upon 
 which he completed their deliverance."* 
 
 This plausible piece of sophistry seems borrowed 
 in part from Mede, who, in his discourse on Ezek. 
 
 * From D'Oyly and Mant's Note on Exodus, xx. 11, in their 
 edition of the Bible. 
 
notec] creatton sabbath. 159 
 
 XX. 20, says, " The Sabbath includes two respects of 
 time ; first, the quotum, one day of seven, or the 
 seventh day after six days' labour ; secondly, the de- 
 signation, or pitching that seventh upon the day we 
 call Saturday. In both the Sabbatical observation 
 was a sign and profession that Jehovah, and no other, 
 was the God of Israel ; the first according to his at- 
 tribute of Creator, the second of deliverer of Israel 
 out of Egypt. For by sanctifying the seventh day 
 after they had laboured six, they professed themselves 
 vassals and worshippers of that only God who created 
 the heaven and the earth ; and having spent six days 
 in that great work, rested the seventh day, and, 
 therefore, commanded them to observe this suitable 
 division of their time as a badge and livery that their 
 religious service was appropriate to Him alone ; and 
 this is that which the Fourth Commandment in the 
 reason given from the Creation intendeth, and no 
 more but this."* 
 
 Mede then gives his explanation of the reason 
 why the Israelites pitched upon " that seventh day, 
 namely, Saturday, to hallow^ and rest in rather than 
 any other." It was, he tells us, to commemorate 
 their deliverance from Egypt. This reason, it appears, 
 he also assigns for it when 'commenting on Deut. v. 1 5 
 (" and remember that thou wast a servant in the land 
 of Egypt") ; for he there says, " This is a new ground 
 for the observation of the Sabbath, because God had 
 given them rest from their hard labour in Egypt. 
 
 * The Works of Joseph Mede. Fourth Edition, p. 5fi. 
 
160 CREATION SABBATH. |Chap II. 
 
 This obliged them to keep that seventh day which God 
 appointed at the giving of manna, being the day on 
 which he overthrew Pharaoh in the Red Sea, as the 
 memory of the creation of the world obhged them to 
 keep one day in seven!'* 
 
 So then the Deuteronomy copy of the Fomih 
 Commandment the learned commentator tells us, 
 furnishes " a new ground" for the observation of the 
 Sabbath, whilst not a hint escapes from him of the 
 utter impossibility that the reason given in Deutero- 
 nomy, which furnishes this new ground, and the 
 reason given in Exodus, could both be taken from the 
 commandment inscribed on the tables of stone. Yet 
 the unlearned reader may well ask how anything neiD 
 can be found in a second copy of an original document, 
 if, as well as the first, it be a true copy? It is in 
 vain, however, to oppose plain common sense to the 
 learning and dogmatism of great critics and eminent 
 divines, with whom, on theological subjects, self-con- 
 tradictory propositions can be reconciled, and, in 
 some instances, as in the present, that which is im- 
 possible may, nevertheless, be believed. Credo quia 
 impossibile. 
 
 But the cool complacency with which Dr. Grayf 
 treats the difference between the two copies of the 
 Fourth Commandment, as though it wer« a matter of 
 
 * This last extract from Mede is quoted from D'Oyly and 
 Mant's Notes. I have not had an opportunity of referring to 
 the passage in Mede's works. 
 
 t Key to the Old Testament, p. 120. 
 
notec] creation sabbatpi. 161 
 
 not the least importance, would seem to surpass in 
 theological effrontery that of every other commentator. 
 For thus saith the Reverend Doctor : "In the pre- 
 ceding books of the Pentateuch, Moses speaks of 
 himself in the third person, but here" (in the book of 
 Deuteronomy) " in a more animated manner, he drops 
 as it were, the character of an historian, and is 
 introduced as immediately addressing himself to his 
 countrymen. Hence it is, that in describing what he 
 uttered, he repeats the Decalogue with some shght 
 change of expression from that which was used at its 
 first delivery." 
 
 Sovie slight change of expression! Verily, our 
 divines appear to think they may dictate just what 
 they please to their readers. Would any one else 
 presume to characterise, as, inferentially. Dr. Gray 
 does characterise, the reason assigned in Deuteronomy 
 for keeping the Fourth Commandment when com- 
 pared with that in Exodus as being a mere change of 
 expression, and that but a slight one ? 
 
 It will, perhaps, be alleged on Dr. Gray's behalf, 
 that in what he has said, he did not intend so to 
 characterise the assigned reasons, and that he was 
 speaking only of the commandments themselves, and 
 of those trivial variations in the statement of them by 
 the two Decalogues, which are merely verbal, and do 
 not afi'ect their meaning. But he has no just claim 
 to be thus interpreted; his remark apphes to the 
 whole Decalogue, without exception, and it can no 
 more be contended that the reason assigned for the 
 Fourth Commandment is not a part of the Decalogue 
 than that the beginning of the First Commandment, 
 
 M 
 
162 CREATION SABBATH. [Chap. II. 
 
 or the reason which concludes the Second Command- 
 ment, forms no part of the Decalogue. 
 
 Dr. Gray's mode of treatmg his subject can admit 
 of no justification, for he unquestionably leaves his 
 readers under the impression that, excepting in non- 
 essentials, the whole Decalogue in Deuteronomy is 
 repeated exactly as it is given in Exodus. 
 
 I commend the foregoing remarks of commenta- 
 tors, on the difference between the two copies of the 
 Fourth Commandment,* to the attention of all who 
 may wish to satisfy themselves to what extent learned 
 critics and doctors in divinity can sometimes dare to 
 insult the common sense of mankind. f 
 
 * Exodus. Deuteronomy. 
 
 For in six days the Lord And remember that thou 
 
 made heaven and earth, the wast a servant in the land of 
 sea, and all that in tliem is, Egypt, and that the Lord thy 
 and rested the seventh day, God brought thee out thence 
 WHEREFORE the Lord blessed through a mighty hand and by 
 the Sabbath-day and hallowed a stretched-out arm ; there- 
 it. FORE the Lord thy God com- 
 
 manded thee to keep the 
 Sabbath-day. 
 f Mahomet, it is well known, related of himself, that in a 
 single night, he was transported through seven heavens, which, 
 he affirmed, were at 500 years' distance from each other. When 
 his disciples, after his death, put together the different parts of 
 the Koran, they left out this marvellous story, fearing the ridicule 
 it would excite. This, says Voltaire, was being over-nice ; they 
 might safely, for that matter, have trusted to the Commentators, 
 who would easily have known how to explain the whole course of 
 the journey. " lis craignirent les railleurs et les philosophes. 
 C'etoit avoir trop de delicatesse. lis pouvoient sen fier aux 
 commentateurs, qui auroient bien S9U expliquer I'itineraire." 
 (De I'Alcoran et De Mahomet.) 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE MORAL EQUITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 
 
 Section I. 
 
 Of that class of Sabbatarians, who are irresistibly 
 convinced by the teaching of St. Paul, that the Fourth 
 Commandment of the Decalogue is not binding upon 
 Christians, there are some who struggle to maintain 
 its obligation in part, by giving to it what they call an 
 equitable construction. With this view they contend, 
 that although its authority, as a prohibition from work 
 on the seventh day, is gone, its authority, as implying 
 an injunction to sanctify by religious offices one day 
 in seven, still remains. 
 
 Thus, in the " Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at 
 large," a work which was published in 1650, and is 
 stated by its editor to have been written by Bishop 
 Andrewes, we find the following proposition : " It is 
 certain there is a moral equiti/ in the Fourth Com- 
 mandment which extends to us under the Gospel, viz., 
 that some time be set apart for public worship, and 
 that not less than a seventh part ; .... in regard of 
 which moral equity this precept extends to all times 
 and persons, and is therefore put among the other 
 
164 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 commandments which are purely moral, and so retains 
 its power of obligation."* 
 
 It is remarkable that, with only one exception that 
 I am aware of,t all the advocates of this tenet profess 
 at the same time to believe, that a Sabbath command 
 was given to mankind at the Creation. If this was 
 so, what need can there be of the moral-equity 
 tenet ? For the alleged command at the Creation, as 
 its advocates themselves expound it, prescribes exactly 
 the same duty as that which is said to arise out of 
 the equity of the Fourth Commandment, namely, the 
 observance of a seventh day by religious rites, without 
 the additional obligation of entire abstinence from 
 work on that day. Why, then, should they not 
 remain satisfied with their Creation Sabbath, which 
 thus seems to render useless their equitable construc- 
 tion of the Fourth Commandment ? May it not be, 
 because they are acutely conscious that for their Crea- 
 tion Sabbath there is no command, and that there- 
 fore, although the text in Genesis, in their opinion, 
 implies a command, yet as that opinion is subject to 
 severe controversy, it is prudent to call to their aid 
 the recorded command of the Decalogue to keep holy 
 
 * See Note A, at the end of the chapter. 
 
 f Bishop White ; who, although he denies the present 
 obligation of the Fourth Commandment and repudiates the 
 tenet of a Creation Sabbath, contends, nevertheless, for a moral 
 equity in the Fourth Commandment, which obliges us to devote 
 a portion of our time to God. See his " Treatise of the Sabbath- 
 day," pp. 90, 121, 151. The title of his book is, " A Treatise of 
 the Sabbath-day, containing a Defence of the Orthodoxall Doc- 
 trine of the Church of England against Sabbatarian Novelty." 
 
Sec. I] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 165 
 
 the seventh day, and thence to argue, that by a just 
 inference from a positive command of God, Christians 
 are bound to set apart a seventh portion of their time 
 to his service. 
 
 Besides, if the proposition comprised in this infer- 
 ence be true, it would seem to authorize the further 
 inference, that it is a matter of no importance which 
 of the days of the week is so set apart. This, there- 
 fore, may be another inducement to Sabbatarians 
 to maintain the moral-equity tenet, for they would 
 thus derive from it some apparent support in their 
 attempts to overcome the chief difficulty standing in 
 their way when appealing to the Jewish Scriptures 
 in order to supply the defect in their proof of a 
 Christian Sabbath from the Christian Scriptures. 
 That difficulty consists in the positive injunction, both 
 in the supposed command at the Creation and in the 
 actual command of the Decalogue, to observe speci- 
 fically the seventh day,* whereas the Sabbatarians, as 
 
 * To pretend that the rest of the Creator on the seventh 
 day can be appropriately commemorated by the observance of 
 any other than the seventh day is clearly repugnant to the com- 
 mon-sense construction both of the text in Genesis and of the 
 command in the Decalogue. It has been v^^ell remarked by 
 Bishop Andrewes, or the able theologian, whoever else he may 
 have been, who wrote " The Pattern at large," that " the special 
 day here " (in the Fourth Commandment) " required is the 
 seventh from the Creation, not a seventh day in general, as 
 some without any ground affirm, but that seventh day in special, 
 which was then observed, which was no other than the seventh 
 day from the Creation. For though the first j)art of the com- 
 mandment speciiies not the day, but requires only to sanctify 
 
166 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 advocates of Sunday observance, are under the neces- 
 sity of contending, in defiance of this injunction, tliat 
 it is not the seventh day of the week, but the first, 
 which it is the duty of Christians to observe. 
 
 Some Sabbatarians actually do venture to argue, 
 that the observance of a day of holy rest, though not 
 the seventh of the week, after six days of labour, 
 suffices to fulfil the Sabbath command. In a note 
 (Note C) appended to the preceding chapter, the 
 reader will have seen, that arguments to this purport 
 are there quoted from Mede and Archbishop Wake. 
 So argues also the author of " The Christian Sab- 
 
 the Sabbath, yet the reason added doth plainly limit the day to 
 the seventh day from the Creation, and cannot be extended to 
 the Lord's day without manifest absurdity — for who would not 
 think the reason ridiculous, God made the heaven and earth in 
 six days and rested on the seventh ; therefore we ought, in imita- 
 tion of him, to rest on the first day, when he began to work?" 
 
 To the same purport, and with a power of close reasoning 
 that is irresistible, the erudite author of the article upon Sep- 
 tenary Institutions, in the " Westminster Keview," for October 
 1850, p. 203, remarks that "perhaps in the history of human 
 error there is not to be found an example of more extravagant 
 inconsistency and wilful blindness, than the daily reading and 
 professing to believe that God rested on the seventh day, and 
 therefore sanctified it, and the afterwards assuming that we obey 
 the command to keep holy the Sabbath-day, by observing not the 
 seventh day, but the first day, — the day consecrated to the 
 heathen worship of the sun — the day when God did not rest, 
 but had only just commenced the work of Creation. Why, if 
 the institution were intended to be commemorative of Creation, 
 is it not evident, that by changing the day, we entirely subvert 
 its character and defeat the original design ? Is it possible to 
 imagine a more direct breach than this of a positive ordinance ? " 
 
Sec. I] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 167 
 
 bath." He expressly says (p. 255), "The Sabbath 
 was made for man, and every purpose of its institu- 
 tion is answered if after every six days' labour the 
 seventh be kept as a day of rest holy unto the Lord." 
 Now, it is not a little curious that the Sunday ob- 
 servance in our week is the very reverse of this ; for 
 Sunday, the first day of the week, being observed as 
 our day of rest, we have a day of rest followed by six 
 days of labour, instead of six days of labour followed 
 by a day of rest. Such is the inconsistency of our 
 so-called Christian Sabbath ; we first take our rest, 
 and then we go to work. Practically, no doubt, the 
 result is the same. We do observe a day of rest 
 after having worked six days ; but we do so by bor- 
 rowing that day of rest from the succeeding week.* 
 
 * It is worthy of remark liow few persons are aware of the 
 incousistency here noticed ; and this, tecause few are acquainted 
 with the fact, that Sunday is the first day of the week. All the 
 working classes look upon Monday as the first, and very natu- 
 rally, for the Sunday is truly to them a seventh day of rest after 
 six of labour. 
 
 There is a large working class to which all of us have be- 
 longed at one period of our lives — that of the schoolboys. None 
 of the other classes welcome more cordially than they do the 
 return of Sunday after sis days of toil at their tasks, or feel 
 more confident than they do in the belief that Monday begins 
 the week again. With such of them as are brought up in the 
 Established Church, the response made to the Fourth Com- 
 mandment, on its being read from the altar in the Communion 
 Service, has a strong tendency to confirm them in this belief. 
 When praying that my heart might he inclined to keep this law, 
 I never doubted but that I was then in the actual observance of 
 its injunction to keep holy the seventh day; and long was it 
 
168 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. in. 
 
 Sabbatarians themselves, therefore, strictly speaking, 
 do not comply with the terms of their own proposi- 
 tion, and such being the case, they ought not to lay 
 any stress upon it ; but they are so embarrassed by the 
 plain directions, both in the alleged and in the actual 
 commandment, to observe specifically the seventh day, 
 that some efforts they have felt they must make to ob- 
 viate the difficulty. Hence their attempts by plausible 
 argument to induce the belief, that the observance of 
 any day of the week, and of course, therefore, our ob- 
 servance of the first day of the week, as a seventh day 
 of holy rest, wall satisfy the Sabbath command. 
 
 These considerations will sufficiently account for 
 the importance which some Sabbatarians attach to the 
 doctrine of a moral equity in the Fourth Command- 
 ment. They appeal to this command as an authority 
 for the portion of our time which it is our duty to de- 
 vote to God — that portion, it is argued, being thereby 
 declared to be one-seventh, and the authority of the 
 command having been abrogated in every other re- 
 spect, the necessity of devoting specifically the seventh 
 day of the w^eek to that service is assumed to be 
 superseded. If this be Scripture doctrine, there will 
 need no other evidence to demonstrate that we are 
 under a religious obligation to observe, in its strictest 
 sense, a Sunday Sabbath. Admit to Sabbatarians 
 
 before I discovered that in thus praying on a Sunday I had no 
 been keeping holy the day prescribed by the Commandment. 
 
 This tardy discoveiy of the error probably happens to many 
 of those who are educated in the Established Church, and very 
 many of them remain in their error to the end of their lives. 
 
Sec. I.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 169 
 
 that, in virtue of a recorded command from God him- 
 self, a seventh part of our time ought to be spent in 
 his service ; that is, as Sabbatarians tell us, in public 
 and private prayer, in Scripture reading and in holy 
 meditation ; and they will have no difficulty in proving 
 to you, that this cannot be done without refraining 
 on every seventh day from all work and labour, and 
 from all worldly pursuits, not excepting recreation 
 and amusement, however innocent. What would this 
 be but the observance of a Sabbath — a Christian 
 Sabbath — more rigorously stringent than even the 
 Sabbath of the Jews, as they kept it before it was 
 burthened with Pharisaical innovations ! * 
 
 Bishop White, consistently with " the orthodoxall 
 doctrine of the Church of England " (alas ! how 
 changed since his day, when almost every minister 
 of that Church was, as well as himself, anti- Sabbata- 
 rian), does not, in advocating a moral equity in the 
 Fourth Commandment, contend for a seventh portion 
 of our time being devoted to religion, and for a Sun- 
 day Sabbath such as our modern Sabbatarians w^ould 
 fain impose on us. He is content to infer from the 
 Commandment, "that God's people are obliged to 
 observe a convenient and sufficient time for public 
 and solemn divine worship, and for religious and 
 ecclesiastical duties" (p. 90). His purpose in thus 
 
 * In the article on Septenary Institutions, before quoted 
 from the "Westminster Review" (pp. 182-185), will be found 
 some valuable remarks on the festive character of the Jewish 
 Sabbaths, some of which will be transcribed in Note B, at the 
 end of this chapter. 
 
170 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 adopting the moral-equity doctrine would seem to 
 be simply to obtain for an useful ordinance of the 
 Church (the observance of the Lord's day) some ap- 
 pearance of a divine sanction, since it did not, in his 
 opinion, originate in a divine appointment. He says 
 elsewhere (p. 152), that "the Church of Christ, .... 
 both in ancient and modern times, hath made choice 
 of the Lord's day, being the day of oiu* Saviour's 
 resurrection, to be a weekly day of rest from ser- 
 vile labour, and a solemn time for divine worship." 
 Nevertheless his "orthodoxall" belief is (p. 241), that 
 "to labour, or to use civil recreation, upon some part of 
 the Lord's day, and in such manner as the law of the 
 Church and of the State permitteth, is no sin ; " and 
 he adds, "It is impossible for these superstitious 
 law-givers" (so he calls the puritans of his time) "to 
 make demonstration either out of holy Scripture, or 
 sound reason, or testimony and authority of approved 
 witnesses, that it was a capital crime in the time of 
 the old Law for Jews and proselytes to use sober and 
 honest pastime and recreation upon some part of their 
 Sabbath-day.'* 
 
 The qualified construction thus given by Bishop 
 White to the moral-equity tenet, it is very clear, can 
 find no favour with Sabbatarians ; and as my contro- 
 versy is with them only, I shall confine the discussion 
 to the consideration of their view of it, — namely, that 
 it obhges us to devote to the service of God one- 
 seventh portion of our time, at the least. 
 
 Can this their proposition be sustained by any 
 sound reasoning, or any recognised authority ? I 
 
Sec. I] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 171 
 
 apprehend it can not ; and that, by whatever test of 
 authority or argument it be examined, it will be found 
 wanting. 
 
 I will not trifle with the question by insisting that 
 were we to devote to God the whole of every seventh 
 day, this could not be reckoned as a seventh portion 
 of our time, unless we included as part of the day the 
 hours of the night, and that so to devote the whole 
 twenty-four hours on every recurrence of the seventh 
 day is impossible. But granting that our waking 
 hours constitute a day, and that a seventh day in this 
 restricted sense is a seventh portion of our time, no 
 one does, or can devote to purposes of religion the 
 whole of such a day. This, a learned divine. Dr. 
 Hook, admits, when in his " Church Dictionary " he 
 is speaking of the Lord's day. But since we cannot 
 possibly devote every moment of Sunday to religious 
 exercises, and therefore do not in observing the Sun- 
 day give up a seventh portion of our time to God, he 
 is of opinion that we ought to eke it out in some 
 other way, and he gravely proceeds to inform us how 
 it may be done : " We may perceive from this (he 
 says) that our practice of keeping holy the first day 
 of the week is sanctioned by the Apostles : what is 
 our authority, if we except the high authority of the 
 Church, for not observing the last day of the week 
 also, it were hard to say. But if the authority of the 
 Church is to be received, we must remember that 
 what she teaches us is, that we are to dedicate at least 
 a seventh portion of our time to God. But this we 
 do not do, unless every moment of the Sunday is so 
 
172 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 devoted, and yet who can do tliis? Therefore, the 
 Church also requires of us a portion of Friday and a 
 portion of the Saint-days." (! ! !) — " Church Dic- 
 tionary," by Walter Tarquhar Hook, D.D., Vicar of 
 Leeds. Fifth edition. Art. Lord's Bay^^ 
 
 Waving, however, this preliminary objection, let 
 us examine the question on the assumed basis, that it 
 is possible to " all such as shall be religiously and 
 devoutly disposed" to spend a whole day, excepting 
 the hours of the night, in the active performance of 
 religious rites, or in the soothing repose of pious 
 meditation, and that, if they so spend every recurring 
 seventh day, they do devote to God a seventh portion 
 of their time, I ask, where do we find the proof that 
 such is our duty? Certainly not in any Scripture, 
 Jewish or Christian. 
 
 Let us first inquire if it is to be found in any 
 Christian Scriptures. 
 
 * I do not quote Dr. Hook as one of those who advocate the 
 notion of a moral equity in the Fourth Commandment. It is 
 upon the text in Genesis that he and many other Sabbatarian 
 divines rest tlie doctrine of our svipposed duty to appropriate a 
 seventh portion of our time to God. As I am not at present 
 arguing with those who thus advocate that doctrine, I shall only 
 remark, first, that they as well as those who ground it on the 
 moral equity of the Fourth Commandment have recourse to it 
 as an expedient to get rid of the obligation to observe specifically 
 the seventh day, if any ; and secondly, that of the two arguments 
 that which is adduced by the advocates of the moral equity, if 
 it can be sustained, w^ould seem to be preferable to the other, 
 inasmuch as it is based on a positive command of God, which 
 cannot be said of that which is founded on the text in Genesis. 
 
Sec. I.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 173 
 
 It cannot be said of any doctrine taught in those 
 Scriptures, that it is there represented as deriving its 
 authority from the moral equity of the Fourth Com- 
 mandment, for it is undeniable, and a very remarkable 
 fact it is, that the Commandment itself is never once 
 quoted either by Christ or by his Apostles for any 
 purpose whatever ; nor can it be said, that although 
 no reference is made to the Fourth Commandment 
 the duty of devoting to God a definite portion of our 
 time, one-seventh at the least, is specifically taught in 
 the Christian Scriptures, or that there is recorded in 
 them any injunction or saying of Christ or of his 
 Apostles from which this duty, though not specifically 
 taught, may nevertheless be inferred. From the sixth 
 chapter of Matthew, and from the corresponding 
 chapter in Luke (ch. xi.) and elsewhere, we learn 
 that Christ, at the request of his disciples, taught 
 them how to pray, that he forbade them to use vain 
 repetitions as the Heathen did,* and that he cen- 
 sured the long prayers of the Pharisees,! and gave to 
 his disciples the model of a short one.t In a single 
 instance, and that of a rather questionable import, he 
 is represented to have enjoined upon them as a duty 
 perseverance in prayer. § Still, he never by precept 
 
 * Matthew, vi. 7. f Matthew, xxiii. 14; Mark, xii. 40, 
 
 I The Lord's Prayer, Matthew, vi. 9 ; Luke, xi. 2. 
 § Luke, xviii. I, where is told the parable in which God is 
 likened unto an unrighteous judge, who complies with a just and 
 reasonable request only when wearied out by the incessant im- 
 portunities of the petitioner. This is one of those passages in 
 Scripture which are " hai'd to be understood," and, indeed, it 
 
174 MORAL EQUITY OF THE LChap. III. 
 
 or example taught them that a certain specified portion 
 of their time ought to be allotted to prayer, or to any 
 other offices of devotion. 
 
 Neither did the Apostles teach, or recognise, the 
 existence of such a doctrine. They by their example 
 on various occasions inculcated the duty of prayer, 
 and the Epistles of St. Paul abound in passages 
 exhorting to earnestness in prayer and thanksgiving 
 to God.* Yet never do any of the Apostles instruct 
 their converts, or by their own example intimate to 
 them, that it is their duty to give up to religion in 
 any of its forms a specific portion of their time. Had 
 the Apostles beheved there was a moral equity in the 
 Fourth Commandment, which was still obligatory, 
 although the Commandment literally construed was 
 not, it would have been their duty, and that of St. 
 Paul in particular, to warn their heathen converts of 
 this distinction, and of their obligation to comply 
 with it. Yet none of the Apostles individually took 
 this course, nor did the assembled Apostles in their 
 celebrated decree, the charter of Christian liberty in 
 regard to the law of Moses,f reckon among the 
 
 seems to be not quite in harmony with the injunctions in 
 Matthew, vi. 7, 8, and with the reasons there given for them : 
 " When ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do ; 
 /or they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 
 Be not ye therefore like unto tliem, ;for your Father knoweth 
 what things ye have need of before ye ask him." 
 
 * Romans, xii. 12; Ephes. v. 19, 20; vi. 18; Philipp. iv. 
 6; Coloss. iv. 2; 1 Thessal. v. 17, 18; 1 Timothy, ii. 1. 
 
 •)■ Acts, XV. 
 
Sec. I.] FOUKTH COMMANDMENT. 175 
 
 "things necessary" to be observed by converts from 
 tlie Gentiles the duty of devoting a seventh or any 
 other definite portion of their time to God in com- 
 phance with a moral equity to that effect inherent 
 in the Fourth Commandment. 
 
 The doctrine of the Christian Scriptures in refer- 
 ence to this subject seems to be that the vrhole of our 
 time is due to God ; not, however, in the ordinary 
 sense of devoting it to prayer and scripture reading, 
 psalmody and sermons, but in that sense which alone 
 is compatible with our nature and the necessity of 
 providing for our personal wants, and of attending to 
 our social duties, namely, such a reverential and 
 habitual mental acknowledgment of the constant 
 omnipresence of the Deity as may influence and 
 regulate all our thoughts, words, and actions, as 
 well in the common affairs of life as when occasion- 
 ally offering to Him our humble and hearty thanks 
 for the manifold blessings which his free bounty 
 bestows upon us. This may be, and inferentially it 
 certainly is, in my estimation, the Christian doctrine 
 of devotion to God as it was taught by Christ himself. 
 If it be objected that such is not the doctrine taught 
 by his Apostles, inasmuch as their exhortations are 
 frequent to earnestness and continuance in prayer and 
 thanksgivings, I reply that the main proposition for 
 which I am contending is not affected by this ob- 
 jection, even if it be valid. 1 can still assert, beyond 
 all possibility of contradiction, that the doctrine of a 
 definite fraction of our time, whether one seventh or 
 any other, being due to God, is nowhere to be col- 
 
176 MORAL EQUITY or THE [Chap. ill. 
 
 lected, even inferentially, either from the discourses 
 of Christ or from the teaching or example of his 
 Apostles. 
 
 Can, then, any proof of the doctrine be elicited 
 from the Jewish Scriptures? This, which was the 
 other question for consideration, I now proceed to 
 discuss. 
 
 In their first aspect these scriptures may seem to 
 favour the doctrine. The text in Genesis speaks of 
 the seventh day as having been sanctified ; and in the 
 Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue there is 
 an express injunction to keep the Sabbath-day to 
 sanctify it. 
 
 As to the sanctification of the seventh day at the 
 Creation, I have shown in the preceding chapter that, 
 whatever may be meant by sanctifying the day, its 
 sanctification was by the historian of the creation 
 considered to have reference to God alone, and not 
 in any respect to man ; it therefore follows that no 
 command was given to mankind at the Creation to 
 sanctify the seventh day ; and where there is no com- 
 mand, there is no substratum upon which to found 
 the moral-equity doctrine. If, on the other hand, it 
 be assumed that the text in Genesis contains or 
 implies a command to sanctify the seventh day, then 
 the moral-equity doctrine, as I have before noticed,* 
 is superfluous. For if a Sabbath command was given 
 at the Creation it would be binding on all mankind 
 and in all ages ; and there would in that case be no 
 
 * See ante, p. 164. 
 
Sec. II.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 177 
 
 need to have recourse to the Fourth Commandment, 
 or to any equitable inference from it, to prove the 
 obhgation to observe one day in seven. It is, in fact, 
 only on the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue 
 that the question of a moral equity to observe a 
 seventh day can properly arise ; and, accordingly, it is 
 to that commandment only that the advocates of this 
 equity appeal. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 I WILL at once strike at the root of the moral-equitj; 
 theory by an emphatic denial that the Fourth Com- 
 mandment either enjoins, or infers, the appropriation 
 of the seventh day, or any portion of it, to the service 
 of God. I deny that by keeping holy the Sabbath- 
 day the Commandment intends the performance of 
 any religious act, or the observance of any duty but 
 that of abstaining from work throughout the Sabbath- 
 day. 
 
 The words of the Commandment, as we read it in 
 Exodus, are, — "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep 
 it holy ; * six days shalt thou labour and do all thy 
 
 * In Deuteronomy: — "Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify 
 it." The Greek word used in the Septuagint for the phrases 
 keep holy and sanctify, is the same {uytdi^iiv) ; and the Hebrew 
 word, as I am informed, is also the same for both these plirases. 
 
 N 
 
178 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 work, but tlie seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord 
 thy God, ill it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor 
 thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy 
 maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is 
 within thy gates." 
 
 In the construction to be put upon this command- 
 ment with reference to the subject in discussion, 
 everything depends upon the signification to be given 
 to the Hebrew word which we translate sandifij or 
 keei) holy. It will be recollected that its abstract or 
 primary meaning, as stated by Parkhurst (see ante, p. 
 48), is "to separate or set apart from its common 
 and ordinary to some higher use or purpose ; " but 
 the higher pm'pose need not be a religious purpose. 
 This is quite clear from the use made of the word in 
 Joshua, XX. 7, where (translated appohite'd) it relates 
 exclusively to one of the civil and municipal institu- 
 tions of the Jewish nation (see p. 49) ; and Parkhurst 
 has himself (see also pp. 48, 49) noticed two instances 
 in which it is used in reference to a purpose not re- 
 ligious, namely, the setting apart or selecting persons 
 or nations for purposes of war. It may be said, and 
 very justly, that the object of these warlike purposes 
 was religious, that of the instance first quoted (Jere- 
 miah, xxii. 7) being an exhortation to repentance, 
 and that of the other (Jeremiah, li. 27, 28) being a 
 threat of divine vengeance against Babylon and all 
 the inhabitants of Chaldea for the evil they had done 
 in Zion. (v. 24.) In the same sense the Fourth 
 Commandment has also in view for its higher purpose 
 a religious object, for, undoubtedly, the setting apart 
 
secil] fourth commandment. 179 
 
 of the seventh clay of the week as a day of rest from 
 labour, and thus distinguishing it from the other six 
 days, was commanded in order that the Sabbath 
 might become, as it was afterwards declared to be 
 (Exod. xxxi.), a sign to distinguish God's chosen 
 people for ever thenceforth from every other nation 
 upon earth. The Fourth Commandment, therefore, 
 may very properly be understood to intend a religious 
 purpose, and yet not to intend the performance of 
 any religious rite. It commences with an injunction 
 to sanctify the seventh day, — set it apart from its 
 common and ordinary purpose, — and then goes on to 
 make known what its special purpose was to be, 
 namely, an entire cessation from labour during the 
 day thus set apart. It is so eminently clear that such 
 is the whole design of the Fourth Commandment in 
 its present form, that scarcely, to my apprehension, 
 would the same design have appeared more clear had 
 the command been delivered in these words : — ''Sanc- 
 tify the seventh day by doing no luorh therein!' 
 
 I now proceed to establish by argument the pro- 
 position that abstinence from work was the only duty 
 enjoined by the commandment.* I begin by remark- 
 ing that this construction of it is in accordance with 
 
 * Here is afforded a fitting occasion to remind the reader that 
 if, in the result of the discussion, it shall appear the word 
 sanctify in the Fourth Commandment does not imply the per- 
 formance of any religious rite, this result will justify the remark 
 which I have made to that effect in p. 50, and confirm the 
 opinion which I have there maintained, that the sanctijication of 
 the seventh day at the creation (Gen. ii. 3) had reference to 
 God, and not to man. 
 
180 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 tlie obvious inference to be drawn from the following 
 ordinance of the Mosaic law, in which there is not the 
 slightest intimation that any religious rite or ceremony 
 was required to be observed on the Sabbath-day : — 
 " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Speak 
 thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily, 
 my Sabbaths ye shall 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. Ye 
 shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy unto 
 you. Every one that defileth it shall surely be put to 
 death; for whosoever doetli any work therein that 
 soul shall be cut off from among his people." Exod. 
 xxxi. 12-14. 
 
 From this ordinance it appears, that whosoever of 
 the people of Israel should do any work on the Sab- 
 bath would thereby defile it, that is, would not keep 
 it holy ; it may justly be concluded, therefore, that 
 e converso whosoever should abstain from work during 
 the Sabbath would thereby keep it holy. We are, 
 however, so accustomed from our earliest years to con- 
 sider public prayer and other offices of religion indis- 
 pensable to the holy observance of any day at this 
 time, that we are too ready to imagine and take for 
 granted it was even so in the olden time, when the 
 Decalogue was promulgated from Mount Sinai ; but 
 there is no passage in Scripture which authorises the 
 belief, that either prayer or sacrifice was then essential 
 to the sanctification of a day. As to prayer, those 
 who are conversant with the Mosaic writings know 
 full well that there is " no precept of prayer in the 
 
Sec. II.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 181 
 
 law of Moses."* We, therefore, do not look for any 
 injunction oi prayer in the Decalogue Commandment ; 
 but neither is there to be found in it any injunction 
 as to sacrifice, the common mode of worship in the 
 early period of the world. It is true that in the Book 
 of Numbers (xxviii. 9, 10), we meet with a direction 
 respecting sacrifice on the Sabbath-day. On that day 
 the ordinary daily sacrifice, which consisted of a meat- 
 offering and a drink-offering in the morning, and of 
 the same in the evening (Exod. xxix. 38-42), was 
 thenceforth to be doubled in quantity. But this com- 
 mand, to double the ordinary daily sacrifice on the 
 Sabbath-day, not having been given till nearly forty 
 years after the promulgation of the Fourth Command- 
 ment, is in itself a proof that the addition to the daily 
 sacrifice, although intended in honour of the Sabbath, 
 was not necessary to its sanctification ; for the day 
 had been, during all this long interval, sanctified and 
 kept holy without it.f 
 
 Nor could the ordinary daily sacrifice, when per- 
 formed on the Sabbath-days, before the command was 
 
 * Tillotson — See Birch's Life of Archbishop Tillotson, p. 95. 
 Ed. 1752. 
 
 f On the first day of the third month after the Israelites had 
 quitted Egypt, and which was in the year before Christ 1491, 
 they entered the desert of Sinai (Exod. xix. 1, 9). On the third 
 day the ten commandments were proclaimed from the Mount 
 (v. 16). The command to offer a double sacrifice on the Sabbath- 
 day was not given till after the Israelites had encamped in the 
 plains of Moab in the year before Christ 1452. (Numbers, xxii. 
 1 ; xxviii. 9.) 
 
182 MORAL EQUITY OF THE LChap III. 
 
 given to double it on those days, be in any respect 
 essential to their sanctification ; for the command to 
 keep holy the Sabbath-day had been promulgated and 
 acted upon for nearly a year before the command for 
 the daily sacrifice came into operation ; * yet no one 
 doubts but that, throughout this interval also, the 
 people of Israel, although offering no sacrifice, or, if 
 any, none but occasional and voluntary sacrifices, kept 
 holy the Sabbath-day. f Sacrifice, therefore, could not 
 
 * There is no commaud for the performance of daily sacrifice 
 during the construction of the Tabernacle, nor is there any evi- 
 dence or ground for conjecture that, during this period, daily 
 sacrifice was in fact performed. The previous history tends to 
 show that everything was, and would remain uncertain, as to the 
 duty of sacrifice, until the Divine Will respecting it should be 
 made known in the wilderness. See Exod. v. 1—3, and Exod. 
 viii. in the 27th verse of which chapter it is said, " We will go 
 three days' journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord 
 our God as he shall command us." 
 
 f The promulgation of the Fourth Commandment was, as 
 before mentioned, on the third day of the third month in the 
 first year after the departure from Egypt. Moses subsequently, 
 under Divine authority, gave directions for the building of a 
 Tabernacle (Exod. xxv.), and for the making of an altar (Exod. 
 xxvii.), whereon the various sacrifices were to be offered that were 
 prescribed by commands in the Mosaic law; and one of these 
 was the command for the daily sacrifice (Exod. xxix. 38). But 
 the Tabernacle and its altar were not completed till the first day 
 of the second year after the departure out of Egypt (Exod. xl. 
 17). There had thus occurred an interval of ten months, less 
 only by three days, from the time when the Fourth Command- 
 ment was delivered, an interval during which no daily sacrifice 
 was performed. 
 
Sec. II.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 183 
 
 be necessary to its holy keeping, and, consequently, 
 all that was necessary for that purpose was abstinence 
 from work. 
 
 That this constituted the true and only character- 
 istic of the holy keeping of the Sabbath-day, is a 
 Scripture truth which receives further illustration 
 from the 23d chapter of Leviticus, wherein are set 
 forth " the feasts of the Lord," of which the seventh- 
 day Sabbath was one. They are enumerated as 
 follows : — • 
 
 First : The Feast of the Seventh-day Satjbath. — 
 " Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day 
 is the Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation ; ye shall 
 do no work therein : it is the Sabbath of the Lord in 
 all your dwellings." (v. 3.) 
 
 Second : The Feast of the Passover, called also the 
 Feast of Unleavened Bread. — " Li the fourteenth day 
 of the first month, at even, is the Lord's Passover ; 
 and on the fifteenth day of the same month is the 
 Peast of Unleavened Bread unto the Lord ; seven days 
 ye must eat unleavened bread. Li the first day ye 
 shall have an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile 
 work therein : But ye shall offer an offering made by 
 fire unto the Lord seven days ; in the seventh day is 
 an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work 
 therein." (v. 5-8.) 
 
 Third: The Feast of Pentecost. — Directions are 
 given for sacrifices on that day, and then it is added, 
 " Ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may 
 be an holy convocation unto you ; ye shall do no 
 servile work therein." (v. 2L) 
 
184 MORAL EQUITY OF THE LChap. III. 
 
 Fourth : The Feast of Trumpets. — " In the seventli 
 month, m the first day of the month shall ye have a 
 Sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy 
 convocation ; ye shall do no servile work therein, but 
 ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord." 
 (v. 24, 25.) 
 
 Fifth : The Feast of Atonement. — " On the tenth 
 day of this seventh month there shall be a day of 
 atonement ; it shall be an holy convocation unto you, 
 and ye shall afflict your souls, and ofter an offering 
 made by fire unto the Lord, and ye shall do no work 
 in that same day" (v. 27, 28) .... " And whatso- 
 ever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, 
 the same soul will I destroy from among his people ; 
 ye shall do no manner of work .... it shall be 
 unto you a Sabbath of rest." (v. 30-32.) 
 
 Sixth : The Feast of Tabernacles.— " The fifteenth 
 day of this seventh month shall be the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles for seven days unto the Lord. On the first 
 day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no 
 servile work therein ; seven days ye shall offer an 
 offering made by fire unto the Lord : on the eighth 
 day shall be an holy convocation unto you, and ye 
 shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord ; it 
 is a solemn assembly, and ye shall do no servile work 
 therein." (v. 34-36.) 
 
 From this enumeration of the Levitical feasts it 
 appears that a Sabbath-day — that is to say, a day of 
 rest from labour, whether with or "without sacrifice 
 performed upon it — was accounted a holy day, and 
 that a day on which a sacrifice was commanded to be 
 
Sec. II.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 185 
 
 performed, but which was not also to be a Sabbath 
 day, was not holy. Thus, no sacrifice was required 
 on the feast of the seventh-day Sabbath (Levit. xxiii. 
 3),* and yet it was accounted a holy day, " an holy 
 convocation," whilst those days in the other feasts 
 for w^hich there is enjoined no observance besides that 
 of sacrifice were not accounted holy days, — days of 
 holy convocation. It results from these two facts that 
 abstinence from work on a day which is commanded 
 to be kept holy constitutes the holiness of the day.f 
 
 * The command for a doul)le sacrifice on the seventh-day 
 Sabbath had not yet been given. The festival commands, in 
 the 23d chapter of Leviticus, were given in the year b.c. 1490; 
 the double-sacrifice command not till the year b.c. 1452. See 
 ante in a note, p. 181. 
 
 f It will have been noticed in the descriptions of the 
 Levitical feasts, that on some days all work was prohibited, and 
 on others only servile work. However, that the latter were, 
 notwithstanding, liohj days, is quite clear ; for the same phrase, 
 " an holy convocation," is used to designate those days, as well 
 as the days on which no work was to be done, and the day of the 
 Feast of Trumpets is expressly called a Sabbath, although on 
 that day servile work alone was prohibited. 
 
 The two holy days on which no work whatever was permitted 
 being the day of the Feast of the Sabbath, and the day of the 
 Feast of Atonement, — a feast which was obviously designed to 
 be one of very great solemnity. The only result of the distinc- 
 tion above noticed seems to be, that although all days of holy 
 convocation were holy days, the feast-days of the Sabbath and 
 Atonement were to be esteemed pre-eminently holy. But if the 
 holy days thus differed in the degrees of their holiness, it is, 
 nevertheless, manifest that abstinence from work, whether entire 
 or partial, on a day commanded to be kept holy, constituted the 
 essence of its holiness. 
 
186 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap, III. 
 
 But in bringing so prominently before the reader 
 the phrase thus invariably used to designate a holy 
 day in the Levitical feasts, am I not placing in danger 
 the very proposition for which I am contending ? 
 May it not be objected, that as the word " convo- 
 cation" means " an assembly," so " an holy convo- 
 cation" must necessarily mean " an assembly for 
 purposes of devotion," and, consequently, the per- 
 formance of religious rites of some kind or other was 
 essential to the sanctification of a day which was 
 commanded to be kept holy ? Such, indeed, in the 
 opinion of some learned divines, is the inference 
 which ought to be drawn from the phrase in question. 
 Dr. Jennings, in his " Treatise on Jewish Antiquities," 
 says of the two Hebrew words, rendered " holy con- 
 vocations," that they " are most naturally to be 
 understood of assemblies for religious worship." 
 (Vol. ii. 159.) And he had previously expressed 
 himself to the same purport in speaking of the Sab- 
 bath day. "The Sabbath (he there says) was to be 
 celebrated by an holy convocation, or by the people's 
 assembhng for public worship." (p. 154.) 
 
 This interpretation, however, has not the universal 
 assent of the learned in the Hebrew language. Dr. 
 Geddes, in his version of the Pentateuch, adopts our 
 Bible translation, "an holy convocation;" but on 
 Exod. xii. 16, where the phrase occurs for the first 
 time, he has the following note : " An liohj convoca- 
 tion, or a proclaivied holij day ;" and the latter inter- 
 pretation, although Dr. Geddes does not happen to 
 notice the circumstance, appears to be sanctioned by 
 
Sec. II.J FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 187 
 
 the high authority of the Greek Septuagint and the 
 Latin Vulgate ; for the translation in those two 
 ancient versions, like the phrase, " a proclaimed 
 holy day," has no noun substantive corresponding 
 with the word " convocation."* 
 
 * The Septuagint is a name given by divines and critics to a 
 celebi'ated version of the Old Testament out of Hebrew into 
 Greek. It is said to have been made by seventy-two Jewish 
 interpreters, in obedience to an order of Ptolemy Philadelplius, 
 king of Egypt; but although it has its name from this tradition, 
 it is more probable, and Dr. Hody is thought to have proved, 
 that this version was made by the Jews living at Alexandria for 
 the use of themselves and many thousands of their brethren, 
 ■who were then settled in Egypt, and who, living among the 
 Greeks, generally used the Greek language. The whole Hebrew 
 Bible, according to the same authority, was not translated into 
 Greek at once, the Pentateuch being first translated, and this 
 about 285 years before Christ. (Rees's " Cyclopi3edia," art. 
 Septuagint.) Some particulars respecting the Septuagint version 
 have been before given in a note to p. 4. 
 
 The Vulgate is a very ancient Latin translation of the Bible, 
 both of the Old and the New Testament. The ancient Vulgate 
 of the Old Testament was translated, almost word for word, from 
 the Greek of the Septuagint. The author of that version is 
 not known. It was for a long time designated by the name of 
 the Italic or Old Version, as being of veiy great antiquity in the 
 Latin Church. It was the common (vulgar) version before St. 
 Jerome made a new one, whence it has its name, Vulgate. The 
 Vulgate was held by St. Augustine to be preferable to all the 
 other Latin versions then extant, as rendering the words and 
 the sense of the sacred text more closely and justly than any 
 of the rest. It has since been re-touched from the corrections of 
 St. Jerome, and it is this mixture of the ancient Italic version 
 of the Old Testament, and some corrections of St. Jerome, which 
 is now called the Vulgate, and which the Council of Trent has 
 declared to be authentic. (Rees's " Cyclopaedia.") 
 
188 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 The 28d chapter of Leviticus begins with the 
 following injunction to Moses, as given in om* Bible 
 translation : " Speak unto the children of Israel, and 
 say unto them : Concerning the feasts of the Lord 
 which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations." 
 (v. 2.) This, in the Latin Vulgate, is rendered : 
 " Loquere filiis Israel, et dices ad eos : Hse sunt feria^ 
 Domini, quas vocabitis sanctas." (" Speak unto the 
 children of Israel, and say unto them : These are the 
 feasts of the Lord which ye shall call liolyT) The 
 Septuagint has : Aakr,aov roig violg 'laPw^X za,) Igzig Tr^oL. 
 ccvrovg' A/ io-^ra) Kv^iov oig zaXiairs uvTccg zki^rag 
 ayiag. (" Speak unto the children of Israel, and say 
 unto them : These are the feasts of the Lord which ye 
 shall call proclaimed holi/") 
 
 The next verse relates to the Feast of the Sab- 
 bath, and our Bible translates the first part of it 
 thus : " Six days shall work be done ; but the 
 seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, an holy convoca- 
 tion." The Vulgate has : " Sex diebus facietis opus ; 
 dies Septimus, quia Sabbati requies est, vocabitur 
 sanctus." (" Six days shall ye do work: the seventh 
 day, because it is the rest of the Sabbath, shall be 
 called Jiolt/.'") The Septuagint has : "E? ^fJbsoag 'Troirjazig 
 g^ya, ry Vz >i[/^i^cc ry SjS^o^i^? (Tcc(S(icc,ra ocvuTavaig xXtjt^ 
 ocyioi rco Ku^ico. {" Six days shall ye do works, but on 
 the seventh day, the Sabbath, a rest called holy to the 
 Lord.") 
 
 It is needless to multiply instances from Leviticus, 
 or to quote any from Numbers. The same phrase- 
 ology is found there as in Leviticus, except that in 
 
Sec. II.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 189 
 
 the Septuagint the adjective iTripcXtjrog is sometimes 
 used instead of the adjective %.Xyjr^ (k'TriySkrirog ayloc.) 
 Enough is here cited from the Vulgate and the Sep- 
 tuagint to show, that in the opinion of translators 
 skilled in the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament, 
 the Hebrew words which our Bibles render " holy 
 convocations," are not necessarily, nor " most natu- 
 rally to be understood of assemblies for religious 
 w^orship." 
 
 There is, however, one instance in our Bible 
 translation of the 23d chapter of Leviticus, in which 
 the word " assemhhf is used, and this in reference to 
 a day appointed to be an holy convocation. It occurs 
 in connexion with the description of the Feast of 
 Tabernacles. That feast was to last seven days ; and 
 after the directions given for its observance, there is 
 added the follo\^dng : " On the eighth day shall be an 
 holy convocation unto you, and ye shall offer an offer- 
 ing made by fire unto the Lord — it is a solemn assem- 
 hly, and ye shall do no servile work therein." (v. 36.) 
 
 Li this instance the Vulgate appears to favour our 
 Bible translation by the use of the word ccetus (assem- 
 bly). " Est enim coefus atque collect^,'' is the phrase 
 there used. Nevertheless I shall show from competent 
 authority, that it is, to say the least, extremely doubt- 
 ful whether our Bible translation, " a solemn assem- 
 bly," be a correct rendering of the original. 
 
 First : As regards the word ccetus in the Vulgate, 
 it is to be observed that there is not in the Septuagint 
 any word or phrase signifying an assembly.* 
 
 * The words " atque coUectce" are evidently au addition by 
 way of paraphrase, and not a translation of any words in the 
 
190 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 Secondly -. Dr. Geddes, although he says of the 
 translation^ " it is a solemn assembly," that he takes 
 this to be the real meaning of the Hebrew,* omits in 
 his own translation the word " solemn," the epithet 
 which in our Bible translation creates the impression, 
 that the day in question was, as Dr. Jennings asserts 
 of an holy convocation, a day of assembling for reli- 
 gious worship. The translation of Dr. Geddes is 
 simply, "It is an assembly-day;" and this it might 
 be, and yet not one of religious worship. 
 
 Thirdly : Michaelis and Rosenmiiller are of opinion 
 the Hebrew phrase is derived from an Arabic word 
 which signifies to press, and denotes therefore a fes- 
 tival when grapes were to be pressed, or the wine- 
 press-feast. Dr. Geddes, from whom I obtain the 
 
 original. Neither the Septuagint nor our Bible translation has 
 any words corresponding with them. What meaning was in- 
 tended to be given to " colJectae" in this instance, is, I appre- 
 hend, rather doubtful. Considering that the Vulgate now in use 
 (see note ante, p. 1 87) may be regarded as a translation made in 
 the time of Jerome (the latter end of the fourth centm-y), it is 
 not improbable that religious meetings may be meant by it, for 
 "collectse" seems to have been the name given to the secret 
 meetings of Christians for the celebration of the Lord's Supper 
 in the time of the Dioclesian persecution. See the narrative of 
 the Martyrdom of Saturninus, and others, a.d. 304, in Ruinart's 
 Acta Martyrum, and of which there is a brief statement in vol. i. 
 of " The Sabbath," p. 264. If, however, this should be the 
 meaning attributed to collects by the Vulgate, it is still to be 
 remembered that the words " atque collectge," have no words 
 coiTesponding to them in the original ; and that the Septuagint 
 has no word or phrase corresponding to ccetus in the Vulgate. 
 
 * " Critical Remarks on the Pentateuch," in loco. Lev. 
 xxiii. 36. 
 
Sec. II.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 191 
 
 information, that this is their opinion,* does not agree 
 with them in it, and states reasons for his dissent, 
 which appear to be of great weight. Still, when we 
 find so distinguished a critic as Michaelis, and a writer 
 of such repute as Rosenmiiller, concurring in the 
 above interpretation, we have at least a proof that 
 great uncertainty exists as to what may be the true 
 meaning of the original.! 
 
 Fourthly : The Septuagint translation is l^ohiov, 
 which, as lexicographers agree, signified verses sung 
 by a chorus at the theatre on the conclusion of a 
 play, j Hence, as applicable to the present discussion, 
 it may well be supposed to signify the day which 
 celebrated the conclusion of the festival ; for it is to 
 be recollected that the day called (as translated in our 
 Bibles) " a solemn assembly" was the eigUtU day, the 
 day that followed the close of a festival of seven days. 
 Still more remarkable of this so-called assembly-day 
 is the circumstance, that the feast to which it was 
 annexed (the Feast of Tabernacles) was the concluding 
 feast of the Jewish year, so that l^obiov is also, on this 
 account, peculiarly appropriate to the subject-matter, 
 
 * " Critical Remarks," Lev. xxiii. 36. 
 
 \ The intei-pretation of Michaelis and Rosenmiiller seems 
 to derive some support from the fact — and perhaps, therefore, 
 may be partly founded upon it — that the Feast of Tabernacles 
 was celebrated at a season of the year when the vintage had just 
 been gathered in : " Thou shalt observe the Feast of Tabernacles 
 seven days after that thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy 
 wine." Deut. .\vi. 13. 
 
 \ " Exodium, sive carmen quod in exitu fabulfo canitur." 
 (Hederic.) 
 
192 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 and, therefore, the more Hkely to be the true Greek 
 interpretation of the original Dr. Geddes, though 
 not actually acknowledging it to be so, says, when 
 expressing his reasons for disagreeing with Michaelis 
 and Rosenmiiller as to their interpretation : " I would 
 rather with Hezel* follow" (the) " Septuagint, and 
 render" (the original) " ' the close of the Festival^ or, 
 as the Scots call the Epiphany, TJp-lioly-day, i.e. the last 
 of the Christmas holidays." In a note Dr. Geddes 
 adds, that in Matthews's Biblef the original is trans- 
 lated, "It is the end of the feast ;" and to this interpre- 
 tation Dr. Geddes appears to have become still more 
 strongly inclined when he was afterwards translating 
 V. 8 of the IGth chapter of Deuteronomy, where, in re- 
 ference to the feast of unleavened bread, the phrase in 
 question again occurs. Our Bible translation is, " On 
 the seventh day shall be a solemn assemhly to the Lord 
 
 * Hezel (or Hetzel) was born at Kcenigsberg, in Franconia, in 
 1754. He studied at the University of Jena, to which he went 
 in 1772. In 1770, he announced his intention of publishing a 
 Commentary on the most difficult passages in the Bible, and 
 afterwards of a Commentary on the whole Bible. The reputation 
 which he gained by the publication of this great work procured 
 for him, in 1786, the Professorship of Biblical Literature at 
 Giessen, from which University he w^ent, in 1801, to that of Dor- 
 pat, to fill there the chair of Professor of the Oriental Languages. 
 He died in 1824. ("Biographie Universelle," Paris, 1840.) 
 
 f The Bible known by the name of Matthew^s's Bible is 
 Tyndale and Coverdale's version, revised, after Tyudale's death, 
 by Coverdale and Piogers. The latter having added a translation 
 of the Apocrypha, dedicated the whole work to Henry VIII., 
 and published it in 1537 under the borrowed name of Thomas 
 Matthews. (Rees s " Cyclopaedia.") 
 
Sec. II ] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 1 93 
 
 thy God; thou shalt do no work therein." The Sep- 
 tuagint has, l^ohioy io^r-^ Kvoim r^ 0s^ aov. Dr. 
 Geddes, instead of translating the phrase, as in the 
 previous instance of it, " an assembly-day," trans- 
 lates it in this instance " a festival," and is content 
 to place the rendering " an assembly-day " as an aiiter 
 in a note. In his volume of " Critical Remarks," on 
 Deut. xvi. S, he states his reasons for not giving a 
 more determinate translation. " I have (he says) 
 in my version of Levit, xxiii. 36, rendered it, with 
 our common version, ' an assembly-day ;' but as I am 
 not sure if the people actually assembled on that day, 
 I have here followed Sep. and the Samaritan version, 
 and used a general term, which is suited to either 
 hypothesis ; for they might keep a festival to the Lord 
 either at home or at the sanctuary. Were I to draw 
 the meaning of the Hebrew term from the common 
 signification of its radical form, I would render it 
 a shdtinfj-up day, dies feriata." 
 
 It cannot be necessary to adduce any further 
 instances of a variance in translations of the Hebrew 
 phrase. There is, however, one other which is too 
 remarkable to be passed over, for in that the trans- 
 lators of our authorised version themselves admit the 
 phrase is susceptible of a translation totally different 
 from the translation which they give of it in their 
 text. There they translate the original, "it is a 
 solemn assembly ;" but in the margin their transla- 
 tion is, ''day of restraint" — ^restraint, it would seem, 
 from doing servile work therein, for such is the pro- 
 hibition in the command. A marginal note to the 
 
194 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 like purport is also to be found in some of the older 
 editions of the English Bible. In those which were 
 printed by royal authority in 1586 and 1609, the 
 note to "it is a solemn assembly" is as follows: 
 " or, a day wherein the people are stayed from all 
 work." 
 
 From this collection of translations which the 
 learned in the Hebrew language have given of the 
 phrase rendered in our Bibles " a solemn assembly," 
 it is undeniably clear, that there is no absolute cer- 
 tainty as to its exact and real meaning. This consi- 
 deration alone is sufficient to exclude and destroy all 
 pretensions to urge it as an objection to the argument 
 which has been here employed, to show that the 
 Hebrew words translated " holy convocations," do 
 not mean " assemblies for religious worship." But 
 a fortiori must that objection be discarded, if " the 
 close of the festival" be, as apparently it is, that trans- 
 lation of the other Hebrew phrase (in our Bibles 
 rendered a solemn assembli/) which possesses the best 
 claim to be adopted as its true interpretation.* 
 
 * The reader may, perliaps, for his further satisfaction, wish 
 to he informed of the several instances in which the phrase " a 
 solemn assemhly" is used in reference to the Jewish festivals 
 called "the feasts of the Lord." They are — 1. That of Levi- 
 ticus, xxiii. 36, already fully discussed. 2. Numbers, xxix. 35, 
 in which the Septuagiut has l^oticv 'ia-rxi vf^Tv, and the Vulgate, 
 " die octavo, qui est celeberrimus." 3. Deut. xvi. 8, of which the 
 Septuagint version has been given above. That of the Vulgate 
 is — quia coUecta est Domini Dei tui. 4. Nehem. viii. 18, 
 where the Septuagint has i^o^iov, and the Vulgate fecerunt col- 
 lectam. There are other instances of the use of this phrase in 
 
Sec. II.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 195 
 
 Having now disposed of the objection which our 
 Bible transUition of Levit. xxiii. 36 {it is a solemn 
 assemUy), appears, at first sight, to raise against my 
 argument upon the meaning of the phrase translated 
 " holy convocations," my proof remains clear, that its 
 true meaning cannot be, as suggested by Dr. Jen- 
 nings, " assemblies for rehgious worship." 
 
 the Jewish Scriptures (3 Kings, x. 20 ; 9 Cliron. vii. 9 ; Joel, i. 
 14, ii. 15 ; Zeph. iii. 18); but none of them are used in refer- 
 ence to the festivals commanded in Leviticus ; and in some 
 of them, those in Chronicles and Joel, to the phrase a solemn 
 assembly in the text, there is, as an aliter in the margin, viz. in 
 Chronicles, a restraint, and in Joel, day of restraint. Our atten- 
 tion may therefore be confined to the instances occurring in the 
 Pentateuch and in Neliemiah. 
 
 It will have been seen that in those instances the Septuagint 
 invariabl}^ has l^o'^iov, and that, therefore, the Hebrew is, in every 
 instance, so far as the Septuagint is an authority, susceptible of 
 being interpreted " the close of the festival." It will, however, 
 have been observed of the two last instances (Deut. xvi. 8, and 
 Nehem. viii. 18), that the Vulgate has collecta, which usually 
 signifies an assembly, and possibly may there mean a religious 
 assembly ; but I have to remai'k that the word collecta has also 
 another meaning, which is very pertinent to the subject in dis- 
 cussion, and quite in accord with the interpretation here given 
 to the Septuagint phrase e|o^<o» ; for collecta sometimes signifies 
 the reckoning at a club-feast, of which every one present at it 
 was called upon to pay his share, and this, it may be presumed, 
 when the feast was over, — at the conclusion of the festival — 
 " quoniam collectam a conviva exigis." Cicero (Ainsworth). 
 
196 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap III. 
 
 Section III. 
 
 Those who contend that " assembUes for religious 
 worship" is the true interpretation of the phrase 
 translated " holy convocations," argue as though they 
 were unconscious of the indisputable fact, that the 
 only form of worship known to the Israelites in the 
 time of Moses, as a religious duty, was sacrifice ;^ 
 and that by the Levitical laws relating to sacrifice, 
 the performance of that rite was confined to the pre- 
 cincts of the Tabernacle. t Such being the fact, it is 
 
 * Prayer, as the natural expression of a wisli addressed to 
 the Supreme Being that He would vouchsafe to confer a desired 
 blessing, and thanksgiving, as the natural effusion of a grateful 
 heart for a blessing conferred, were, we may well believe, re- 
 sorted to by the devout in the time of Moses, as they had been 
 before in the time of the Patriarchs (see ante, p. 119). Numerous 
 are the instances of prayer by Moses ; and in his song of triumph 
 and thanksgiving, after the overthrow of Pharaoh, he is said to 
 have been joined by the people, and, at the same time, Miriam 
 the prophetess is represented as leading forth the women to 
 testify their devotional gratitude by dancing to the music of their 
 timbrels ; but in every instance these acts of religious worship 
 were occasional and voluntary. Prayer was not, and, except in 
 the form of sacrifice, thanksgiving was not, enjoined as a duty 
 under the Mosaic dispensation. 
 
 ■\ By " a statute for ever," which is set forth in the 17th chap- 
 ter of Leviticus (v. 1-7), the children of Israel were commanded 
 to offer all their sacrifices at the Tabernacle. It conseqnently 
 became thenceforth unlawful for them to sacrifice elsewhere. If 
 the reader should wish to satisfy himself that orthodox theolo- 
 gians are of that opinion, he will find a ready access to the 
 desired information by consulting the notes upon v. 3 in D'Oyly 
 
S-c. III.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 197 
 
 not within the scope of rational beUef, that the Israehte 
 people — and I mean here to speak only of the adults 
 — coukl all be present at the celebration of religious 
 worship on the same day, whether on the Sabbath-day 
 or on any other day of holy convocation. 
 
 But, moreover, there is a circumstance relative to 
 sacrifice, which is so conclusive to prove attendance 
 upon it by the people to have been no part of their 
 Sabbath-day duty, that any argument to show it was 
 impracticable for the adidt Israelites to be all present 
 at the celebration of sacrifice on the Sabbath-day, 
 would seem to be superfluous. It is this — attendance 
 on sacrifice was never a duty of the people, excepting 
 those of them who at any time brought the victims to 
 the altar. In cases of voluntary offerings, or of offer- 
 ings imposed as penalties on individuals for their sins 
 or trespasses, those who brought the victims would 
 doubtless consider it a duty to remain whilst the 
 sacrifice was being performed. See Levit. iv. 22-26, 
 
 and Mant's edition of the Bible. There is also Scriptural confir 
 raatiou of the fact in the 2"2d chapter of Joshua, froni which it 
 appears, that when the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half- 
 tribe of Manasseh, after serving in the wars of Joshua in Canaan, 
 returned to the territory which Moses had allotted to them on 
 the other side Jordan (v. 4), they built an altar, and thereby 
 offended all the other tribes, the latter considering it to be an 
 encroachment on the exclusive privilege of sacrifice which was 
 attached to the altar of the Tabernacle. The offended tribes, 
 however, were satisfied by a solemn assurance given to them, 
 that the newly-built altar was intended as one of testimony only, 
 and was not to be then used as an altar for sacrifice. See 
 particularly v. US, 29. 
 
198 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. ill. 
 
 as to the mlers of the congregation, and v. 27-35, as 
 to the common people ; and in cases where the whole 
 people had sinned, the elders of the congregation were 
 to bring the victims, and would remain during the 
 sacrifice, (v. 13-21.) 
 
 Such were the provisions of the law with regard 
 to offerings that were voluntary or imposed as penal- 
 ties ; but, as to all the appointed sacrifices, attendance 
 on those was the duty of the priests alone, no precept 
 in the law of Moses enjoining the attendance of the 
 people.* 
 
 Decisively as this appears to prove that attend- 
 ance upon sacrifice could have been no duty of the 
 Sabbath-day, it may nevertheless be expedient to cor- 
 roborate this proof, by substantiating the remark pre- 
 viously made, that such attendance by the Israelite 
 people on their Sabbath-days must have been imprac- 
 ticable. Whoever should entertain the idea that it 
 was practicable, can never have duly reflected upon 
 the probable number of the Israelites when they 
 quitted Egypt, and upon the vast extent of the en- 
 campment which should include their entire popula- 
 tion. Conjectures on this subject, sufficiently near to 
 accuracy for our present object, may, however, be 
 
 * The duty peculiar to the Sabbath-day, so far as regarded 
 sacrifice, was that of offering a double sacrifice upon it (see ante, 
 p. 181). So completely was this no affair of the people, that if 
 we could suppose the case of the priests neglecting, on some 
 Sabbath-day, to perform the appointed sacrificial duty, the people 
 nevertheless would have kept that day holy, if they did no work 
 therein. 
 
Sec. III.] rOURTH COMMANDMENT. 199 
 
 formed from data which Scripture itself affords. We 
 find it stated, that of the males there were, from twenty 
 years old and upward, 603,550 that were able to go 
 forth to war (Numb. i. 45, 46), and that the number 
 of males of all ages above a month in the non-fighting 
 tribe of Levi was 2.3,800 (Numb, iii.) Hence estimates 
 have been made of the total number of the Israelites, 
 including women and children, and the mixed multi- 
 tude that left Egypt with them (Exod. xii. 41, 38). 
 In D'Oyly and Mant's notes to their edition of the 
 Bible, it appears by extracts there given from the 
 writings of the authors hereinafter mentioned, that 
 Calmet* estimated the total at between two and three 
 millions (note on Exod. xvi. 13), Stackhouse at about 
 three millions (note on v. 35), and Bishop Patrick at, 
 perhaps, in the whole " thirty hundred thousand" 
 (three millions). See note on Numb. xi. 21. In 
 addition to these, I have elsewhere met with an 
 estimate which carries up the number as high as 
 3,263,000. This last may well be thought extrava- 
 gant, and be rejected as such;t but if the data on 
 which all these calculations are made can be trusted, 
 w^e may safely conjecture that the total could not 
 have been less, or could have been but little less, than 
 two millions and a half. 
 
 -•= Calmet, a learned Benedictine and much-esteemed theolo- 
 gical wTiter, was born in 1G7'2, and died in 1757. 
 
 f See, in Dr. Adam Clarke's edition of the Bible, his note 
 on Exod. xii. 37. The errors, in his calculation, are mar- 
 vellous, and are so obvious as ta be, on that account, also tuily 
 surprisin<^'. 
 
200 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. in. 
 
 Next comes the still more embarrassing question, 
 What would be the extent of an encampment which 
 should • comprise within its limits such an immense 
 assemblage of human beings and of " flocks and herds, 
 even very much cattle," which they brought with them 
 out of Egypt? Exod. xii. 33, 38. 
 
 AVhat would be its extent in the mountainous 
 region of Sinai would seem to baffle all calculation.* 
 Such, however, it must have been as to justify the 
 opinion, that it was impossible for the adults, who 
 were stationed at the extremities of the camp, to 
 attend upon the religious worship performed at the 
 Tabernacle in its centre. f Dr. Robinson, indeed, 
 tells us in his book of travels (referred to in a note), 
 that in the region of Sinai, and in front of a moun- 
 
 * The space between the t\YO great gulfs of the Red Sea, 
 that of Suez on the west, and that of Akabah on the east, is by 
 travellers called the peninsula. Far within this peninsula lies 
 the district of Sinai. A modern traveller, Dr. Robinson, a 
 minister of the gospel in America, ascended Mount Catherine, 
 the highest peak in this district. " Our chief motive," he says, 
 " \vas the hope of obtaining a more distinct and extensive view of 
 the region of Sinai, and of the peninsula. Kor were our hopes 
 
 disappointed almost the whole course of the gulf of 
 
 Suez was visible with the African mountains beyond 
 
 Towards the Eastern quarter, between us and the whole length of 
 the Gulf of Akabah, the eje wandered over a sea of mountains, 
 black, abrupt, naked, weather-worn peaks, a fittiiig spot where 
 the very genius of desolation might erect his horrid throne." 
 ("Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia 
 Petraea, in the j^ear 1838," published in London in 1841.) 
 
 f Had the attendance been practicable, there was not want- 
 ing the opportunity for it, as an interval of one month and 
 
Skc. Ill] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 201 
 
 tain which the Christians call Horeb, but which the 
 Bedouins, he says, do not appear to know by that 
 name, he has discovered an open spot, that from 
 admeasurement made of it by himself, he is convinced 
 is large enough to have contained the whole Israelite 
 people, where " the Lord descended in fire and pro- 
 claimed the law;" and he has, therefore, no doubt 
 upon this being the scene of that awful event. His 
 opinion, it is obvious, has reference to a space requi- 
 site for the people when assembling in close contact 
 with each other, rather than to a space large enough 
 for their encampment. He, himself, admits that " the 
 encampment before the Mount might not, impro- 
 bably, include only the head-quarters of Moses and 
 the Elders and of a portion of the people, while the 
 remainder with their flocks were scattered among the 
 adjacent valleys." Yet, the plain thus discovered by 
 Robinson, and so important in his eyes, " no traveller," 
 he informs us, " has described, or even mentioned, 
 except in a slight and general manner." This is, cer- 
 tainly, somewhat extraordinary, if he is accurate in 
 his description of it ; and the more so, as a very intelli- 
 gent and observant traveller, who has since visited 
 Sinai, with Robinson's book in his hand, assigns a 
 totally different locality as the probable site of the 
 Israelite encampment before the Mount.* 
 
 twenty clays occurred between the time of setting up the Taber- 
 nacle at Sinai and that of brealt:ing ujj the encampment there. 
 Exod. xl. 17; Numb. x. 11. 
 
 * " Forty Days in the Desert, in the track of the Israelites," 
 by the author of " Walks about Jerusalem." 
 
202 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 There is, however, with reference to the point at 
 present in discussion, no necessity to decide between 
 these conflicting opinions as to the place and extent 
 of this encampment. Tor even when the Israelites 
 had quitted Sinai, and were afterwards for nearly 
 forty years wandering over, and at intervals encamp- 
 ing in, the wide-spreading plains of the Desert, attend- 
 ance upon the sacrifices of the Tabernacle must have 
 been impracticable to such of them as were located 
 at the extreme limits of the camp. The reader cannot 
 desire proof of a truism so obvious and undeniable 
 as this certainly is, if the data on which it is founded 
 be admitted,-— those data stating the number of men fit 
 for war at about 600,000 (Exod. xii. 37),* or, as the 
 result of the specific enumeration of the warrior tribes 
 in the Book of Numbers (i. 45, 46), at 603,550. 
 There are, I believe, no grounds for suspecting 
 any error in the extant copies of the texts here re- 
 ferred to as regards these totals, agreeing as they do 
 with those in the Septuagint version ; yet it may be 
 a question whether there is not some exaggeration in 
 the statements given of them. In the historical 
 books of the Old Testament we undoubtedly do 
 occasionally meet with striking and indisputable in- 
 stances of excess in numbers, as, for example, where it 
 
 * " About six hundred thousand on foot, tliat ivere vien," that is, 
 says Bishop Patrick, — fit for war, twenty years old and upwards 
 (D'Oyly and Mant's Notes on the Bible) ; in the specific enumera- 
 tion of the 003,550 in the Book of Numbers, they are all 
 described as being twenty years old and upwards, and able to go 
 forth to war. 
 
Sec. III.J FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 203 
 
 is related of Betli-shemesh, a small village in Judali,* 
 that the Lord " smote the men of Beth-shemcsh, be- 
 cause they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even 
 he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore 
 and ten men." (1 Sam. vi. 19.) The most orthodox 
 believers in biblical accuracy are compelled to allow 
 this to be an enormous error ; and, accordingly, the 
 critics in such matters have set themselves to vrork 
 in order to rectify it, bat, as appears from D'Oyly 
 and Mant's Notes on the passage in question, the 
 critics aforesaid are not agreed with each other how 
 this should be done. Again, in the first Book of 
 Kings (ch. xx.) it is related that Ben-hadad, king of 
 Syria, went up to Aphek to fight against Israel, and 
 that the army of the Israelites was " like two little 
 flocks of kids, but the Syrians filled the country." 
 (v. 26, 27.) "Nevertheless, so it was that . . . . 
 the battle was joined, and the children of Israel slew 
 of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one 
 day." (v. 29.) As the narrative implies that in 
 accomplishing this extraordinary feat the Israelites 
 had supernatural assistance, we are not at liberty to 
 raise a doubt upon numbers in this instance ; but 
 when it goes on to relate that " the rest [of the 
 Si/rians) fled to Aphek into the city, and there a wall 
 fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that 
 were left," we cannot but believe this number to be 
 erroneous, for, however miraculous the opportune fall- 
 
 * A small villaf/e, — so described by Bishop Patrick, in 
 D'Oyly and Mant's Notes. 
 
204 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 ing of the wall might be, the wall itself was of human 
 construction, and the number of men it might over- 
 whelm in its fall must be estimated in like manner 
 as we should estimate the possible number of those 
 who might perish by any ordinary accident of the 
 kind. On this principle it is absolutely incredible 
 that any wall in Apliek was of sufficient length and 
 height to crush in its fall twenty-seven thousand 
 men, even if, as soldiers, they took close order when 
 they lay down under it ; and, therefore, there is also in 
 this case of numbers a manifest and very great exag- 
 geration. 
 
 These instances, it is true, are taken from histori- 
 cal books which relate to a period long subsequent 
 to the time of Moses, but there are not wanting 
 grounds for conjecture, that in the Pentateuch itself 
 some instances occm^ of exaggeration in numbers, 
 and, in particular, that the number at which the 
 effective force of the Israelites is there stated 
 (603,550) is exaggerated. For there are passages 
 in Exodus and other books of the Pentateuch which 
 speak of the entire camp of the Israelites in terms 
 implying inferentially that it was not one of very 
 large dimensions, which, however, it must have been 
 if it contained a population of two millions, — the 
 lowest estimate that can be made of the Israelite 
 people if the number of their effective men was, 
 as stated, upwards of six hundi-ed thousand. See 
 Exod. xxix. 14 ; Levit. vi. 10, 11; viii. 17; ix. 11; 
 xiii. 46; Numb. x. 2, 3; xix. 2-7; Dent, xxiii. 
 12, 13, 14; and compare v. 16 of Exod. xvi. with 
 
Sec lH] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 205 
 
 V. 13-17 of the same chapter. That in all these 
 instances the camp spoken of means the entire camp 
 cannot admit of any reasonable doubt ; — to doubt it 
 in the instance from Levit. xiii. 46, where a direction 
 is given to let go the scape-goat into the wilderness, 
 is impossible. 
 
 On the other hand, the statement of the number 
 of effective men at 003,550 is positive, and is the 
 exact aggregate of the specific numbers in the enume- 
 ration of the warrior tribes given in the book of 
 Numbers ; it also agrees with the number stated in 
 Exod. xxxviii. 26, and it fairly tallies with the round 
 number given in Exod. xii. 87, — about 600,000 ; 
 nor is it in itself incredible that the children of Israel, 
 including the non-warrior tribe of Levi, should at the 
 end of the long period of 430 years have increased to 
 upwards of tw^o millions in number. But here lies 
 the difficulty in coming to such a conclusion. We 
 cannot interpret literally Exod. xii. 40, " Now the 
 sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in 
 Egypt, was 430 years." This period biblical critics 
 agree in opinion commenced from the time when 
 Abraham with his family went into Egypt, in conse- 
 quence of a famine in Canaan. The chronological 
 index to the quarto edition of our English Bible says : 
 "B.C. 1921, Abram .... in the 75th year of his 
 age, is commanded by God to enter upon the land of 
 Canaan, Gen. xii. 1, 2, 3 In the year follow- 
 ing, a fciniine in the land of Canaan forceth Abram 
 with Ids family to go into Egypt, v. 10. Eroni this 
 fir.st coming into Egypt, to the departure of the 
 
206 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap III. 
 
 children of Israel out of it, are reckoned 430 years. 
 Exod. xii. 40; Gal. iii. 17." 
 
 Dr. Geddes, in his "Critical Remarks," on Exod. 
 xii. 37, has the following : " The present Hebrew text 
 says, that the sojournment which the children of Israel 
 had made in the land of Egypt was 430 years ; but 
 the Samaritan text and version, and the Septuagint 
 translation have, ' the sojournment which the children 
 of Israel and their forefathers had made in the land 
 of Canaan and in the land of Egypt was 430 years,' 
 and he accordingly so translates the text (Exod. xii. 
 40) in his version of the Pentateuch. We have next 
 to consider how many of the 430 years elapsed be- 
 tween the first coming of Abraham into Egypt and 
 the coming of Jacob (also called Israel, Gen. xxxii. 28,) 
 into that country, and how many elapsed from that 
 time to the departure of his posterity, the Israelites, 
 out of it. Here we have Scripture dates to guide us, 
 and they show that each of these periods was 215 
 years. Eor it appears by those dates, that from the 
 time of Abraham's coming into Canaan to the birth 
 of his son Isaac was 25 years, Abraham being 75 
 years old when he came into Canaan, Gen. xii. 4, and 
 100 years old when Isaac was born. Gen. xxi. 5; 
 and it further appears that Isaac was 60 years old 
 when his son Jacob was born. Gen. xxv. 26; and 
 Jacob 130 when he w^ent down into Egypt, Gen. 
 xlvii. 9; these several numbers (25, 60, and 130,) 
 making up 215 years, and consequently the number 
 of years remaining of the 430 was also 215. This 
 division of the period was recognised by Joseplius, 
 
Sec. III.J FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 207 
 
 whom Dr. Gecldes quotes as saying, " The Israehtes 
 left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the 15 th day 
 of the moon, in the 430th year after the coming of 
 our father Abraham into Chanaan, and in the 215th 
 year after the migration of Jacob into Egypt." The 
 period of 215 years may therefore be taken as the 
 datum on which to calculate the probable number of 
 Jacob's descendants who departed out of Egypt under 
 the command of Moses. Had we been left uninformed 
 of the extraordinary fact, that the first 215 of the 430 
 years comprised only three generations, and had we 
 thus been at liberty to calculate the number of the 
 Israelites at the end of the whole period without 
 reference to the time when Jacob is historically stated 
 to have gone into Egypt, there would, according to 
 the ordinary progress of descents in after-times, have 
 been no just reason to doubt the statement, that the 
 Israelites when they left Egypt numbered upwards of 
 600,000 effective men, and that, consequently, the 
 whole population might amount to two millions, but 
 that it should reach that amount in the space of 
 215 years would seem to be scarcely possible. The 
 number of Jacob's family when he went to settle in 
 Egypt, including himself, his son Joseph, and Joseph's 
 two sons, amounted only to 70 :* this, however, is 
 exclusive of females, who may be supposed to have 
 been equal in number, making a total of 140. To 
 
 ^- The number is thus made up : Jacob's sons and grand- 
 sons descended from Leah, 32; from Zilpah, 10; from Rachel, 
 14 ; from Billah, 7, — m all 69, and with himself, amounting to 
 70. 
 
208 MORAL EQUITY OF THE r<'HAP. IH. 
 
 this some addition must be allowed on account of the 
 servants that probably accompanied them, not only- 
 household servants, but shepherds to assist in looking 
 after the flocks and herds which they took with them 
 into Egypt. (Gen. xlvi. 32; xlvii. 1.) These, though 
 not children of Israel, would be the parent stock of a 
 portion of that immense multitude, which was desig- 
 nated as the congregation of the children of Israel in 
 after times. The aggregate number of persons, how- 
 ever, who accompanied Jacob into Egypt, would, with 
 all these additions, remain so insignificant as to render 
 it improbable that the number of the Israelite people 
 should at the end of 215 years amount to two 
 millions.''' 
 
 But although it would thus appear that the entire 
 consfregation of the children of Israel in the time of 
 
 * Upon this question, the numbering of the people, that is 
 to say, of the military portion of them, 474 years afterwards by 
 the order of David, might have yielded some aid, if it had been 
 precisely of the same description as that which was made of 
 the effective men among the Israelites in the time of Moses ; 
 hut it was not so, the last-mentioned was of all the men who 
 were of an age and vigour of body to be " able to go forth to 
 war," and not of those only, if any there were, who had been 
 trained to that service ; whilst the numbering in David's time 
 was of men " who draw the sword " (2 Sam. xxiv. and 1 Chron. 
 xxi.), men regularly disciplined and completely armed, and most 
 of whom, it is probable, had actually served in David's wars. 
 
 Again, the armies of David, enormously large as they were, 
 consisting of 1,300,000 men (Samuel, ver. 9), or 1,570,000 (as 
 stated in Chronicles, ver. 5), did not, it may be presumed, com- 
 prise all who were able to go forth to war, as was the case in the 
 census taken of the Israelite people in the wilderness of Sinai. 
 
Sec. Ill] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 209 
 
 Moses mio;ht not be so o;reat as the statements in the 
 Pentateuch relative to nnmbers would indicate, it is 
 nevertheless beyond all doubt, that the Israelites then 
 were, and had long been, a very numerous people; 
 they had become formidable to Pharaoh on that 
 account before the commencement of their bondaoe 
 in Egypt, Exod. i. 8-10; and they were of a race 
 prophetically prolific* In any view of the question, 
 therefore, their number cannot be so far reduced as 
 to render it credible that the adult portion of the 
 Israelite community could have attended the sacrifices 
 of the Tabernacle on the Sabbath day ; but, had even 
 this been possible, the fact would avail nothing in any 
 attempt to prove that attendance upon sacrifice was a 
 Sabbath-day duty. If a duty of that day in the 
 wilderness and in the time of Moses, it must have 
 
 * " Prophetically jnolijic ;" the following are the prophecies 
 here referred to : " And the Lord said unto Abram .... I will 
 make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can 
 number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be num- 
 bered." Gen. xiii. 14, 16. "Look now toward heaven and tell 
 the stars, if thou be able to number them : and he said unto him, 
 So shall thy seed be." Gen. xv. 5. " I will multiply thy seed as 
 the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea- 
 shore." Gen. xxii. 17. 
 
 The recording of these prophecies by Moses is a clear proof 
 that in his time the Israelites had become an exceedingly 
 populous nation ; and would be so, even on the supposition it 
 were not true that God, as is here stated, foretold to Abraham 
 the extraordinary fecundity of his race ; for no historian would 
 record, and profess to believe, the traditional prophecy of a 
 progressive event relating to his own country, unless it had. 
 up to his time been manifestly fulfilled. 
 
 P 
 
210 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 been so for ever after ; yet this it could not be, as the 
 observance of such a duty from the time that the 
 Israelites possessed themselves of the land of Canaan 
 became impossible to any but the comparatively few, 
 who dwelt in, or within a moderate distance of, the 
 city where the Tabernacle was set up. Eleven out 
 of the twelve tribes, and a great part of the remain- 
 ing tribe, scattered as they were over the length 
 and breadth of the land of Canaan, would thus of 
 necessity and for ever be excluded from attendance 
 upon sacrifice on the Sabbath day. The truth of this 
 remark is too evident to require proof, yet it may 
 perhaps be made more impressive by glancing at some 
 of the facts connected with the history of the invasion 
 of that country. 
 
 The Israelites, as the Scripture narrative informs 
 us, after wandering for forty years in the wilderness, 
 emerged from it in battle array under the command 
 of Joshua, to take possession of the promised land ; 
 and, with this object in view, to exterminate or expel, 
 or render tributary, all its inhabitants, — an enterprise 
 which it took them and their descendants some hun- 
 dreds of years to accomplish.* They were not indi- 
 vidually the same with those who came with Moses 
 out of Egypt ; for of the 603,550 numbered at Sinai, 
 as being twenty years old and upward, and able to go 
 
 * The conquest of Cauaau was not finally effected till the 
 reign of David, for till then the Jebusites, who were the original 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem, held out in Zion, the fortress of that 
 city ; but it was at length captured by David in the year B.C. 
 1048. ('2 Sam. v. 7.) 
 
Sec. III.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 211 
 
 forth to war, all had died in the wilderness, two only 
 excepted, — Caleb and Joshua (Numb. xxvi. 64, 65). 
 In the meantime a new generation had sprung up, 
 and a muster being made of the warrior tribes in the 
 plains of Moab the year before their entrance into 
 Canaan, it appeared that the number of males, who 
 were then twenty years old and upward, and able to 
 go forth to war, was 601,730 (Numb. xxvi. 1, 2, 51). 
 If it be probable that the former number (603,550) 
 is exaggerated, so must this be, especially when it is 
 considered that none of the 601,730, Caleb and 
 Joshua excepted, could be forty years old. We are 
 not, however, to suppose that all the effective men, at 
 whatever low number they may be estimated, were 
 actually at any one time embodied and equipped for 
 military service. For, as before remarked, they are 
 described merely as men that were able to go forth 
 to war, which may well mean nothing more than con- 
 scripts, ready to be called out in succession, and 
 trained for actual service as occasion might require. 
 Still it may be said, that an army destined for the 
 conquest of Canaan could scarcely be other than a 
 very large army. In any ordinary case of the kind, 
 this might and must be said ; but in the present wd. 
 are to recollect that the adventurers expected thej 
 should, and that the narrative tells us they did, re- 
 ceive supernatural aid ; and, consequently, reasoning 
 upon their probable numbers is thereby to some ex- 
 tent precluded. It appears, however, that they re- 
 ceived this aid only occasionally, for they were some- 
 times, even in cases of great difficulty, left to their 
 
212 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 own resources. An instance is to be found in Judges, 
 i. 19, and indeed it is one that, considering the re- 
 mark by which it is preceded, is not a httle surprising: 
 " And the Lord was with Judah ; and he drave out 
 the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive 
 out llie inhabitants of the valley, because they had 
 chariots of iron." But whatever may have been the 
 numbers of the invading army, so great were its suc- 
 cesses in the outset, that within seven years from 
 their entrance into Canaan the Israelites had esta- 
 blished themselves in the interior of the country, and 
 the Tabernacle was set up in Shiloh (Joshua, xviii. 1) ; 
 a city of which, notwithstanding the numerous re- 
 verses and disasters which befell them in their wars 
 with the Canaanites, they appear to have ever re- 
 tained uninterrupted possession. A short time pre- 
 vious to the setting up of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, 
 and whilst there yet remained " very much land to be 
 possessed," Joshua, as we are informed, was com- 
 manded to divide the whole land amongst such of the 
 tribes as had not already had an inheritance allotted 
 to them by Moses on the other side of Jordan (Josh, 
 xiii. 1, 7). A prospective division was accordingly 
 made of it, and in the result the northern districts 
 were allotted to the tribes of Asher, Naphtali, and 
 Dan. (ch. xix.) Now, the land of Canaan was up- 
 wards of two hundred miles in length from north to 
 south ;* and the city of Shiloh was considerably more 
 
 * Canaan. " Its length from the city of Dan, since called 
 Cesarea Philippic which stands at the foot of these mountains 
 
Sec. III.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 213 
 
 than one Inindred miles distant from the northern 
 frontier. It follows, therefore, that the tribes of Asher, 
 Naphtah, and Dan, whose allotted territories extended 
 to that frontier, could not during the period (probably 
 more than 300 years) that the Tabernacle remained 
 in Shiloh,* attend the sacrifices that were offered 
 there on the Sabbath-day. The same remark will 
 apply to the appointed place of sacrifice in all the 
 
 (the mountains of Libanus) to Beer-sheba, is about seventy 
 leagues, or two hundred and ten miles." — D'Oyly and Mant's 
 Note on Genesis, xii. 5. 
 
 * The Tabernacle was pitched in Shiloh by Joshua in the 
 year b.c. 1444 (Josh xviii. 1); and we read in 1 Sam. i. 3, that 
 Elkanah, who was the father of Samuel, •' went uj:) out of his 
 city yearly to worship, and to sacrifice unto the Lord of Hosts 
 in Shiloh ;" and, in particular, that he did so at one time about 
 the year b.c. 1171. Thus we have actual information that the 
 Tabernacle was resorted to for a period of 273 years at the least. 
 It appears to have been subsequently removed to Gibeon, a city 
 to the south-west of Shiloh, not quite half-way between Shiloh 
 and Jerusalem, and there it was remaining in the days of David 
 and Solomon. For when David brought the ark of God into 
 Jerusalem, and placed it in a tent, or tabernacle, there, and 
 offered sacrifice before it, and appointed Levites and musicians 
 to its service, we find that he at the same time appointed Zadoc 
 and other priests to offer sacrifices continually before the Taber- 
 nacle of the Lord in the high place that was at Gibeon (1 Chron. 
 xvi. 1, 4, 5, 39, 40); it thus appearing that it was accounted 
 lawful to sacrifice before each of them. We read also that Solo- 
 mon, previously to the building of his temple in Jei'usalem, went 
 to sacrifice at the Tabernacle in Gideon. See 2 Chron. i. 3, 
 where it is also stated that this tabernacle was the very same 
 that Moses had made in the wilderness. The like statement 
 relating to it occurs in 1 Chron. xxi. 29. 
 
214 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 subsequent epochs of the Jewish history; — to the 
 Tabernacle set up by David in Jerusalem to receive 
 the ark of the Lord, — to the Temple built there by 
 Solomon, with the divine sanction, in lieu of the Ta- 
 bernacle set up by David ; and to the other temples 
 which successively replaced that of Solomon, the last 
 of which was destroyed by Titus in the 71st year of 
 the Christian era. Never at any time was it possible 
 for the tribes who dwelt on or near the north border 
 of Canaan, to attend upon the celebration of sacrifice 
 on the Sabbath days. Yet no one doubts but that 
 w^henever, during all this period, the Jewish people 
 did observe the Sabbath,* they kept holy the Sab- 
 bath day in the manner intended by the Fourth Com- 
 mandment, as it was understood by Moses himself, 
 and was by him directed to be kept. 
 
 Need I say more to convince the reader that to 
 refrain from work w^as the only requisite to the due 
 
 * " Whenever .... the Jewish people did observe the Sabbath." 
 It is necessary thus to qualify the general remark ; for after the 
 defection of the ten tribes upon the death of Solomon, and the con- 
 sequent division of the Jewish nation into the separate kingdoms 
 of Israel and Judah, the Mosaic ordinances at various times 
 fell into disuse, and were often replaced by the grossest idolatry. 
 In the former case it is but little probable, and in the latter it is 
 not credible, that the Sabbath ordinance should have continued 
 to be observed. The disregard of the Mosaic institutions by the 
 subjects of the kings of Israel, was to some extent the inevitable 
 result of their separatiou from the two other tribes, as they were 
 thereby cut off from all communication with Jerusalem and its 
 temple, where alone the rites of sacrifice could be duly cele- 
 brated in accordance with the Mosaic law. (1 Kings, xii. 26, 27.) 
 
Sec. IV] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 215 
 
 and full observance of the Sabbath ? Prayer, it is 
 certain, Avas not a religious duty in the time of Moses, 
 and sacrifice — when it came to be enjoined as a duty 
 — was the duty of the priests alone ; and the per- 
 formance of it being restricted to one place, attend- 
 ance upon sacrifice was impracticable to the nation at 
 large, and consequently could not have been a Sab- 
 bath-day duty. The whole of that duty, whatever it 
 might be, must have been such as it was possible for 
 all to fulfil, since all Avere commanded to observe the 
 Sabbath day. 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 Seeing, then, that neither prayer nor attendance 
 upon sacrifice was required for the due observance of 
 the Sabbath, what mode of observing it could there 
 be besides that which is prescribed by the Command- 
 ment itself, — abstinence from all manner of work on 
 the Sabbath day? 
 
 Scripture-reading could be no duty of the Sab- 
 bath instituted in the wilderness. This proposition, 
 to me, appears in every point of view so obviously 
 undeniable, that I hesitate in entering upon a dis- 
 cussion respecting it. Sabbatarians, however, seem 
 to argue as though Scripture-reading had been a 
 duty of the wilderness-Sabbath, and expressly con- 
 tend that in the times immediately succeeding the 
 
216 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. Ill 
 
 death of Moses the IMosaic writings must have been 
 read when the people assembled for public worship 
 on the Sabbath day. Thus, Dr. Jennings,* after 
 quoting St. James as speaking of Moses having been 
 read in the synagogue " of old time," says : " And, 
 indeed, it can hardly be imagined that the bulk of a 
 nation, which was the only visible Church of God in 
 the world, should in their purest times — in the days 
 of Joshua, Samuel, and David — seldom or never pay 
 him any public worship ; and this must have been 
 the case if they had no other place for it besides the 
 Tabernacle : and on this supposition, likewise, the 
 Sabbath could not be kept according to the law, 
 which required a holy convocation on or for that day, 
 in or among all their dwellings, or throughout the 
 whole land. (Levit. xxiii. 3.)"f 
 
 This last remark, as well as that which precedes 
 it, has reference only to times after the death of 
 Moses, but so far as regards Sabbath duties it is 
 equally applicable to his time. Much of the Levitical 
 law was, no doubt, prospective, and could not come 
 into operation until after the settlement of the 
 Israelites in Canaan ; such part of it, however, as 
 related to the Sabbath was of immediate obligation. 
 If, therefore, the law required an holy convocation — 
 that is, as Dr. Jennings expounds the phrase, an 
 assembly for public worship, to be held on the Sab- 
 bath days in all their dwellings, in the pure times of 
 
 * " Jewisli Antiquities," ii. 48. 
 
 f The words ''or among,'" and the words ''throughout the 
 lohole land," form no part of the text referred to.- 
 
Sec. IV.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 217 
 
 Joshua, Samuel, and David — it required such as- 
 sembhngs in the time of Moses, during the sojourn 
 of the Israehtes in the wilderness ; yet not a trace 
 appears of any such having been then held,* and the 
 very supposition of Moses having been read in all 
 their dvvelHngs throughout the Israelite camp on their 
 Sabbath days would be, to the last degree, extrava- 
 
 * It may, perhaps, have been expected that I should here 
 seek to avail myself of the aid which is apparently d,fforded to 
 my argument by the injunction given to the people of Israel on 
 the first institution of the Sabbath : " Abide ye every man in 
 his place. Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day" 
 (Exod. xvi. '29); an injunction which, if construed literally, and 
 considered as a general law for the due observance of the 
 Sabbath ordinance, would be conclusive proof that no assemblies 
 for religious worship were held on the Sabbath day in the time 
 of Moses. That the Jews in after- times acknowledged this 
 injunction as a law of perpetual obligation is well known ; their 
 custom of not travelling on the Sabbath day to a greater dis- 
 tance than what they called a Sabbath day's journey being 
 founded upon it. Nevertheless, it seems to me that I ought not 
 to lay any stress upon this injunction, however favourable the 
 inference from it would be to my argument, because in what- 
 ever sense it might be regarded in times long after the death of 
 Moses, I cannot but think, looking to the whole narrative, the 
 injunction was not designed as a perpetual law of the Sabbath, 
 and was simply a prohibition to the Israelites in the wilderness 
 from going out to gather manna " on the seventh day." I may 
 remark, however, in conclusion, that the unqualified command to 
 them to abide in their several places on that day, no exception 
 being made of assembling for public worship, is positive proof 
 that Moses did not then require the people to hold assemblies 
 for that purpose on the Sabbath day, and affords a strong pi'e- 
 sumption that he never did require this of them at any time 
 thereafter. 
 
218 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 gant and absurd/' But, although the Sabbatarians 
 do not actually put forward this supposition, they 
 treat the whole subject, as we see by the quotation 
 from Dr. Jennings, in a manner which renders it 
 expedient, if not requisite, to bestow some considera- 
 tion upon the question, whether when Moses, by divine 
 command, instituted the Sabbath in the wilderness, 
 there was any Scripture, that is to say, any Mosaic 
 writing, in existence. If there was, it clearly could be 
 only the Book of Genesis. Now, with regard to the 
 most important part of that book, the account therein 
 given of what the Creator thought, said, and did at 
 the Creation, it is to be observed, that as Moses could 
 have derived his knowledge of it only from some 
 divine communication vouchsafed to him, it is not 
 possible he could have written it before he received 
 his call ; and this, it is certain, he did not receive till 
 " the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame 
 of fire out of the midst of a bush . . . and God called 
 unto him out of the midst of the bush." (Exod, iii, 
 2, 4.) From this time to that of his receiving the 
 command to institute the wilderness-Sabbath, not the 
 slightest indication is there to be found in Scripture 
 of his having been occupied Avith any other object 
 than his mission to Pharaoh, and his superintendence 
 of the Israelite host in their departure from Egypt, 
 
 * The lowest estimate which has been made of the number 
 of the Israelites in the wilderness is 2,000,000. Allowing, 
 therefore, ten persons to each family, there would be 200,000 
 dwellings, in which Moses was to be read, and 200,000 copies of 
 the Mosaic writing to be distributed for that purpose ! 
 
Sec, IV.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 219 
 
 and their journey to the wilderness. But if the first 
 part of the Booiv of Genesis was not written till after 
 the call of Moses, it may surely be assumed that the 
 rest of it was not. It is, indeed, incredible, without 
 evidence of the fact, and there is none that the last 
 part of the book should have been written before the 
 first. Hence it would follow that when the Ten 
 Commandments were proclaimed from Mount Sinai 
 there was no Scripture to read, and, consequently. 
 Scripture-reading could then form no part of the 
 Sabbath-day duty. Did it become a duty when at 
 length there was Scripture to read ? What are the 
 facts that bear upon this question ? 
 
 As to that part of the Mosaic writings which is 
 called the Law, Moses had not finished writing the 
 Booh of the Laiu tdl just before his death. (Deut. 
 xxxi. 24, 2G.) If it be remarked that this is not the 
 book of the law which he first Avrote, the reply is, 
 that Deuteronomy is the only book which he has 
 called the Book of the Laio, — that it was the book of 
 Deuteronomy which he directed to be preserved and to 
 be placed in the side of the ark for that purpose (Deut. 
 xxxi. 26), — that he gave no direction for preserving 
 any other book, — that it was this book, which, 800 
 years after his death, was found by Hilkiah the high- 
 priest in the reign of Josiah, king of Judah (2 Chron. 
 xxxiv. 14, 15), — and that the manner of relating the 
 discovery of it implies, that the existence of any other 
 book of the law, or of any other copy of this book, 
 was then unknown to the people. There can be no 
 doubt but that the book of Deuteronomy was the 
 
220 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. in. 
 
 book of tlie Law which was so found, for in v. 24 of 
 the same chapter, we read, " Thus saith the Lord, 
 Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon 
 the inhabitants thereof, even all tlie curses that are 
 written in the book which they have read before the 
 king of Judah." Now the curses occur nowhere in 
 the Pentateuch except in the book of Deuteronomy. 
 Finally, that this is the book of the Law which 
 Joshua is said to have read to the people after his 
 first successes in Canaan is clear, from the notice 
 taken by the narrator of his reading to them the 
 blessings and cursings of the Law ;* for the blessings 
 as well as the cursings occur only in the book of 
 Deuteronomy. (Chapters xxviii. and xxvii.) 
 
 It might, indeed, have been expected that this 
 book would never have been lost, for one of the 
 injunctions contained in it is, that it should be read 
 to the people at the end of every seven years (xxxi. 
 10, 11) ; but there is no trace of a custom of reading 
 the law in compliance with this injunction ; and if 
 such a custom ever prevailed, it had certainly fallen 
 into disuse 288 years before the time of king Josiah. 
 (B.C. 624.) For it is related of his pious predecessor, 
 king Jehoshaphat, that he sent (in the year b.c. 912) 
 to some of his princes " to teach in the cities of 
 
 Judah, and with them he sent Levites and 
 
 priests, and they taught in Judah, and had the book 
 of the Law of the Lord loith them, and went about 
 
 * "And he read all the words of the Law, the bless- 
 ings and cursings according to all that is written in the book of 
 the Law." Josh. viii. 34. 
 
Sec IV.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 221 
 
 tliroiighout all the cities of Judali and taught the 
 people." (2 Chron. xvii. 7-9.) It is, however, neither 
 said nor intimated that he did this in compliance with 
 any cnstom of reading the law to the people at stated 
 periods. It seems to have been a pnrely voluntary 
 act on his part. We may safely therefore infer that 
 such a custom did not then exist. On the other 
 hand, from the ])assage above quoted, it is evident 
 that the book of the Law was not lost till after the 
 reign of Jehoshaphat. It has been conjectured that 
 it was taken out of the ark and secreted by the care 
 of some godly priest in the time of one of the idola- 
 trous kings of Judah, perhaps of Manasseh, whose 
 long reign, with the exception of a short interval, 
 immediately preceded the reign of Josiah. But what- 
 ever became of this book of Deuteronomy after the 
 death of Moses, it is clear from passages in the book 
 itself, which have been here referred to, that he did 
 not finish the writing of it till just before that event. 
 Consequently, so far as the question depends upon 
 the book of Deuteronomy, there could have been no 
 Scripture-reading either as a duty or an occupation 
 on the Sabbath days which the Israelites passed in 
 the wilderness. 
 
 I am aware that a modern writer of great emi- 
 nence has, in a work distinguished by its profound 
 critical research into the history and sacred writings 
 of the Jewish nation, avowed it to be his opinion, that 
 the book of Deuteronomy was not written by Moses,* 
 
 * " If we could persuade ourselves that Moses wrote the 
 
222 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. ill. 
 
 nor found, as a lost scripture, in the reign of king 
 Josiah.* With those who assent to this opinion, my 
 remarks on that hook of the law will have been super- 
 fluous ; but my controversy is with Sabbatarians, and 
 they for the most part reject at once all unorthodox 
 criticisms on the Bible, and not one of them would 
 admit that Moses did not write the book of Deu- 
 teronomy. It is, however, quite clear, that whoever 
 was its author, the book was not written in time to 
 supply Scripture-reading in the wilderness. 
 
 It will, no doubt, as I have already intimated, be 
 contended that there had been books relating to the 
 Law written by Moses long before the book of Deu- 
 teronomy, and that therefore there was Scripture of 
 which the Israelites might have availed themselves for 
 their edification in the leisure of their wilderness- 
 Sabbaths. Reference will be made to that vast com- 
 pilation of statutes and judgments, which, intermixed 
 with much historical narrative Moses has recorded in 
 the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and of 
 which the book of Deuteronomy is said to be a repe- 
 tition, as the name given to it implies. f It may also 
 
 book of Deuteronomy." (History of the Hebrew Monarchy from 
 the Administration of Samuel to the Babylojiish Captivity. P. 87. 
 London, 1847.) 
 
 * " No nation, while unconquered, ever yet lost the sacred 
 hooks of its religion and forgot their existence : to pretend a 
 discovery is to confess an invention." [Hebrew Monarchy, see 
 p. 331, where this remark occurs, and the three preceding 
 pages.) 
 
 t Dr. Gray says of Deuteronomy, that that title was given 
 t-o it by the Seventy, it signifying (from hvn^oi and vof^oi) a repe- 
 
Sec. IV] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 223 
 
 be remarked, that altliongh Moses did not call this 
 code of statutes and judgments the Book of the Law, 
 he has given to a portion of them the name of the book 
 of the Covenant. (Exod. xxiv. 7.) This definite por- 
 tion of the Law begins Avith the 21st chapter of 
 Exodus : " Now these are the judgments which thou 
 shalt set before them," (the children of Israel), and it 
 ends with the 23d chapter. In the next chapter it is 
 said : " And Moses came and told the people all the 
 words of the Lord and all the judgments (xxiv. 3) 
 
 and Moses wrote all the words of the Lord 
 
 (v. 4) and he took the book of the Covenant," 
 
 (the words which he bad written, see v. 7 and 8,) 
 " and read in the audience of the people." 
 
 It will then be further remarked that this book of 
 the Covenant was w^ritten immediately after Moses 
 had been spoken to from the Mount, and that he was 
 thus spoken to immediately after the promulgation of 
 the Ten Commandments, so that there was Scripture 
 to read before Moses was called up into the Mount 
 to tarry there forty days and forty nights, and, conse- 
 quently, before he compiled that great mass of statutes 
 and judgments in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, 
 which is generally called the Law. 
 
 Assuming all these remarks to be just, What is 
 the inference to be collected from them in regard to 
 the main question, whether Scripture reading was a 
 duty of the Sabbath day in the time of Moses ? In 
 
 tition of the Law, and that it contains a compendious repetition 
 of it enlarged with many explanatory and other additions. [Key 
 to the Old Testament, p. 117.) 
 
224 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 the first place, it seems very clear tliere was no Scrip- 
 ture to read when the wilderness-Sabbath was insti- 
 tuted, and that there was not any until Moses wrote 
 the book of the Covenant after the promulgation of 
 the Ten Commandments ; in this interval, therefore, 
 Scripture-reading could not have been a duty, and the 
 Sabbath days were kept holy without it. In the next 
 place, the Israelite people were incompetent to the 
 task of reading, and, although the duty of reading 
 Scripture, if it was a duty, would, in effect, be fulfilled 
 by listening to those among them who could read if, 
 they had not the opportunity, if even they should have 
 had the inclination, so to fulfil this duty. Por such a 
 purpose we must suppose provision to have been made 
 for their assembling in their several localities on the 
 Sabbath-days, a supposition devoid of all evidence to 
 support it, and involving in it the absurd supposition, 
 before noticed, that a prodigious number of copies 
 of some Mosaic writing was made and distributed for 
 that purpose. Besides which, it is to be remarked, 
 that if there was any one piece of Scripture more than 
 another which it is probable Moses would appoint to 
 be read to the people, it would be that which he 
 himself read to them — the book of the Covenant. Yet 
 it nowhere appears that he directed it to be read, 
 either on the Sabbath days or at any other stated 
 periods. In connexion with this remark, what we 
 find in Deuteronomy on the subject of Scripture-read- 
 ing is extremely important ; for, as before observed, 
 we are there told that the book of the Law was to be 
 read to the people at the end of every seven years 
 
Sec. IV.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 225 
 
 (xxxi. 10), a command which is clear inferential proof 
 that it was not to be read to them in the interval, — • 
 therefore not on the Sabbath days. If, then, Moses 
 be supposed to have given a direction for the reading 
 of the book of the Covenant at stated periods, we may 
 justly presume it would be in conformity with that 
 which he has actually given in Deuteronomy respect- 
 ing the book of the Law, and, consequently, that 
 Sabbath days were not times appointed for the reading 
 of it. 
 
 All these considerations combine to render it 
 certain that Scripture-reading, by or to the Israelites, 
 on their Sabbath days, could not have been a duty in 
 the lifetime of Moses. Yet, that under his superin- 
 tendence, and by his instruction, the Sabbath was, 
 during their forty years' abode with him in the wil- 
 derness, observed by them in every particular essential 
 to its complete observance, in obedience to the Pom^th 
 Commandment, is a Scripture fact which no Sabbata- 
 rian will be disposed to deny. 
 
 There is only one other alleged duty of the Sab- 
 bath day which still remains to be noticed, — that of 
 holy meditation on the greatness and goodness of God. 
 Could this be a duty requisite to the holy keeping of 
 the Sabbath day in the time of Moses ? Was it, in 
 consequence, practised by the Israelites whilst under 
 his guidance and command? These are questions 
 which it is difficult to discuss with becoming gravity 
 in reference to the Israelites at that period of their 
 history ; so absurd would be the notion that such a 
 duty would, or could, be then complied with. If it were 
 
 Q 
 
226 MORAL EQUITY OF THE LChap. iil 
 
 then a duty, it was a duty common to every individual 
 in their congregation, for all were bound to keep 
 holy the Sabbath day according to the intent of the 
 Commandment, whatever that intent might be ; yet 
 but few of them, comparatively, could be capable 
 of devoting themselves to holy meditation, and those 
 who should thus devote themselves would do so, not 
 in obedience to the commandment, but as a voluntary 
 act of devotion. Such an exercise of the mental 
 faculties by way of occupation on a day of leisure, 
 whether as an effort of piety, or as a resource for 
 diminishing the tedium of an idle day, far exceeded 
 the capacity, and was little suited to the inchnation, of 
 that ignorant multitude whom Moses had just before 
 redeemed from Egyptian bondage. When such a 
 "perverse and crooked generation"* betook them- 
 selves to reflection, their thoughts would be on their 
 lost luxury, the fleshpots of Egypt, rather than on the 
 greatness of God as displayed in the wonderful works 
 of creation, or on his goodness and lovingkindness as 
 manifested to all his creatures. With such a people, 
 we may assuredly believe, holy meditation could not 
 have been made requisite to the due observance of the 
 Sabbath day. 
 
 True it is, that in the book of Deuteronomy we 
 find a passage wherein the Israelites are exhorted to 
 holy meditation, — meditation on the commandments, 
 statutes, and judgments, which had been bestowed 
 upon them. " Hear, Israel, the Lord our God is 
 
 * Deut. xxxii. 5. 
 
Sec. IV] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 227 
 
 one Lord ! and thou shalt love tlie Lord thy God with 
 all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
 might ; and these words* which I command thee this 
 day shall be in thine heart ; and thou shalt teach 
 them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of 
 them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou 
 walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and 
 when thou risest up." Deut. vi. 4-7. 
 
 On reference to the first verse of the chapter, it 
 will be seen that this exhortation has no bearing upon 
 the question immediately before us, which relates 
 solely to the manner of observing the Sabbath in the 
 wilderness ; for it is an exhortation setting forth com- 
 mandments, statutes, and judgments, that the people 
 " might do them in the land (of Canaan) whither" 
 they were going " to possess it." The Book of 
 Deuteronomy not having been written till just before 
 the death of Moses, the exhortation was, in fact, 
 
 * " Words" — meaning, in this place, coynmandments. And 
 " these words which I command thee this day," — meaning all the 
 commandments, statutes, and judgments that follow, many of 
 which are repetitions of some that are to be found in preceding 
 books of the Pentateuch. The twenty-four chapters which follow 
 the exhortation above quoted, and which form the remaining 
 portion of the book of Deuteronomy, are devoted to the enume- 
 ration of the commandments, statutes, and judgments referred 
 to in that quotation, intermixed, however, with narratives of, and 
 reproaches for, the past disobedience of the Isi'aelites, and with 
 promises of good to them, if they should thereafter be obedient, 
 and threats of evil to them if they should not. — See ch. xxx. 
 15-19. 
 
228 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 addressed to them when they were on the pomt of 
 quitting the wilderness, and it consequently could 
 not have been intended for their guidance while 
 sojourning there. Even as apphcable to them when 
 settled in the Promised Land, the language in which 
 it is expressed is of a nature that can scarcely admit 
 of being literally construed. This becomes still more 
 apparent from the two verses that follow those above 
 quoted : " And thou shalt bind them (the words 
 which I command thee this day) for a sign upon thine 
 hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine 
 eyes, and thou shalt write them upon the posts of 
 thy house, and on thy gates" (v. 8, 9); the true 
 meaning of which has been thus judiciously inter- 
 preted : " Thou shalt retain as constant a sense of 
 them, as if they were always before thee, and literally 
 bound on thy wrists, or written upon the door-posts 
 of thine house." — See Isaiah, xlix. 16 (Annotated 
 Bible of 1774.) 
 
 If it be said that the settlers in Canaan, and their 
 descendants, were a people very different to those 
 whom Moses had emancipated from Egyptian bond- 
 age, and cannot be supposed to have been incapable 
 of indulging in those holy meditations which Moses, 
 in his dying exhortation to his countrymen, enjoined 
 as a duty, the answer is, that this might be true of 
 the priests and scribes, and some of the devout in the 
 highest classes, but could not be so of the generality, 
 for they were still illiterate, and at all times ignorant 
 of the Book of the Law, except when occasionally, 
 
Sec. IV.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 229 
 
 though rarely, teachers were sent amongst them to 
 instruct them in it, — an instance of which, as hath been 
 before noticed,* occurred, in the reign of Jehoshaphat. 
 
 I would also desu*e the candid reader to mark 
 well, that in the exhortation of Moses there is no 
 direction, no intimation even, that the practice of 
 holy meditation was to be especially a duty of the 
 Sabbath day ; yet, had Moses esteemed it as a duty 
 essential to the perfect observance of that holy day 
 in after times, although it could not be so in the 
 wilderness, can it be doubted that he would have 
 availed himself of this occasion to enforce it ? 
 
 In truth, the pm-port of his exhortation being to 
 advise the Israelites to have the commandments, 
 statutes, and judgments of God, always in their hearts, 
 and present to their thoughts at all hours of the day, 
 yet not especially on any stated day, resembles in this 
 respect, and harmonizes well with that of the Christian 
 Scriptures, which teach us that in a religious sense 
 the whole of our time, and not one-seventh, or any 
 other definite portion of it, is due to God.f 
 
 There remains, then, for the Israelites, in the time 
 of Moses, no assignable duty indispensable to the 
 observance of the Sabbath, save that of strict obe- 
 dience to the injunction in the Conunandment, to do 
 on the Sabbath-day no manner of work. 
 
 - See ante, p. 220. f See ante, p. 175. 
 
230 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 Section V. 
 
 But here it may be urged, that although the Jewish 
 Scriptures do not contain evidence of any command 
 to observe the seventh day by offices of rehgion, 
 as well as by abstinence from work, they do afford 
 evidence, which is amply confirmed by the Christian 
 Scriptures, that after the death of Moses, if not in his 
 lifetime, the Sabbath day was thus observed. When 
 synagogues, it will be said, became established, public 
 prayer was offered up in them on the Sabbath days, 
 and the Scriptures were there read and expounded to 
 the people. The fact is readily admitted, that such 
 became the practice in regard to the religious ob- 
 servance of the Sabbath day ; yet it does not follow 
 that this mode of observing the day had become 
 requisite to the due observance of it. Nor could it 
 have become so unless there had been some Divine 
 command for this addition to the duty of the Sabbath, 
 and there had been none/* 
 
 =1= The only additions made by Divine authority to the duty 
 of the Sabbath-day, subsequent to the promulgation of the 
 Sabbath command from Mount Sinai, were two. 
 
 First, the order to make bread, called the shcw-hread, and to 
 set it upon the table before the mercy-seat of the ark, and to 
 change it for fresh bread every Sabbath day. (Exod. xxv. 30, 
 and Levit. xxiv. 5-8.) This new Sabbath duty, it is evident, 
 concerned the priests only. The people, therefore, had per- 
 sonally no new Sabbath duty to perform, and kept the Sabbath 
 day holy, as before, simj)ly by abstaining from work on that day. 
 
Sec. v.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 231 
 
 Nor do Sabbatarians contend that assemblies of 
 the people for public worship on the Sabbath-day, 
 similar to the synagogues spoken of in the Jewish 
 and Christian Scriptures, were in use in the time of 
 Moses. They, however, do insist that assemblies for 
 public worship were then held, quoting, as we have 
 seen, as their authority for this opinion the injunction 
 in the 23d chapter of Leviticus, v. 3, for a holy con- 
 vocation on the Sabbath-day.* That this opinion is 
 
 The second addition made to the duty of the Sabhath was by 
 the command in Numbers (ch. xxviii.), for doubling the sacrifices 
 of the Tabernacle on the Sabbath day. The performance of 
 this duty also was the sole concern of the priests. The people, 
 however, as in all cases of sacrifice, being at the charge of 
 furnishing the victims and other offerings. 
 
 The direction in Exodus (ch. xxxv. 3), not to kindle a fire on 
 the Sabbath day, seems to be an explanation of the Command- 
 ment in the Decalogue, rather than an addition to it. 
 
 Whether the passage in Isaiah (ch. Iviii. 13, 14) contains, as 
 some contend it does, new directions for the due observance of 
 the Sabbath, is a question which cannot be discussed but at con- 
 siderable length. I, therefore, reserve the discussion of it for a 
 note at the end of the chapter. See Note B. 
 
 * See the extract from Dr. Jennings's " Jewish Antiquities," 
 a7ite, p. 216. The first remark in it relates only to the days 
 of Joshua, Samuel, and David, but the Doctor adds : " On this 
 supposition likewise" (of there being no public worship of God 
 by the Jewish people of those days), " the Sabbath could not be 
 kept according to the law (Levit. xxiii. 3), which required a holy 
 convocation on or for that day (the Sabbath day\ in or among all 
 their dwellings." Now this law, it is very certain, was as appli- 
 cable to the time of Moses as to the days of Joshua, Samuel, and 
 David, and, therefore, the inference from this last remark by Dr. 
 
232 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 erroneous I have already demonstrated, and therefore 
 it may be superfluous to go into the question of the 
 origin of synagogues ; for if they cannot be traced up 
 to the time of Moses, which they cannot be, it is 
 clear the use of them can afford no ground for ob- 
 jecting to the opinion that the Sabbath day of the 
 Fourth Commandment could be duly kept without 
 any act of worship or other religious rite being per- 
 formed upon it. Nevertheless, the anxiety manifested 
 by Sabbatarians to prove the early origin of syna- 
 gogues, and thence to insinuate the possibility of the 
 use of them in the time of Moses, is such as to render 
 some inquiry into their origin expedient at least, if 
 not absolutely requisite. 
 
 That synagogues first came into use on the return 
 of the Jews from their Babylonish captivity (b.c. 536), 
 is the general opinion amongst the learned in Jewish 
 history. Dean Prideaux, one of the most eminent of 
 our English divines, supports the general opinion by an 
 argument, which may be thus shortly stated : — Ezra 
 having, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, 
 finished his revisal of the law of God, wrote it out in 
 the Chaldee character (the Chaldee having, as a con- 
 sequence of their long captivity, become the vulgar 
 language of the Jewish people), and on the occasion of 
 celebrating the feast of Tabernacles at Jerusalem, he 
 read the book of the law to the people, assembled in 
 
 ■Jennings must be, that in his opinion, " assemblies for religious 
 worship" (for so he interprets holy convocations, " Jewish Ant." 
 p. 159) were actually in use even in the days of Moses. 
 
Sec. V.| FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 233 
 
 one of the large streets of the city ; for this purpose a 
 scaffolding Imd been erected, and there he read it out 
 in the Hebrew text, and as he did read it in that 
 language, the Levites who were with him read it, 
 period by period, in the Chaldee. This they did day 
 by day, till they had gone through the whole law. 
 For his statement of these facts, the Dean's authorities 
 are the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. He then g-oes 
 on to state, that from this time the people got the 
 most learned of the Levites and Scribes that were best 
 skilled in the law of God, to read it unto them in 
 every city, which they at first did, no doubt, in the 
 same manner as Ezra had done, that is, by gathering 
 the people together in some wide street, or other open 
 space of their city ; but the inconvenience of this 
 being soon felt, especially in the winter and stormy 
 seasons of the year, they erected houses, or taber- 
 nacles, wherein to meet for this purpose ; and this was 
 the original of synagogues among them. " That they 
 had no synagogues before the Babylonish captivity is 
 plain (says the Dean), not only from the silence which 
 is of them in all the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
 but also from several passages therein, which evidently 
 prove that there could be none in those days." He 
 then gives references to various passages, which show 
 that there could be no copies of the law in the cities 
 of Judaea before the return from the captivity ; and he 
 thence infers (remarking that it is a common saying 
 among the Jews), that where there was no book of 
 the law there could be no synagogue.* 
 
 * " The Old and New Testament Connected :" by Humphrey 
 
234 MORAL EQUITY OF THE LCuap. III. 
 
 Probability, considering the facts above stated 
 relative to the proceedings of Ezra on the retnrn from 
 the Babylonish captivity, so strongly favours the 
 opinion that synagogues were then first introduced 
 into Judsea,* that this opinion, there can be little 
 doubt, would have met with universal assent, were it 
 not for a few texts, which are supposed by some to 
 afford sufficient grounds for believing that synagogues 
 had a much earlier origin. 
 
 The 74th Psalm is quoted, as indicating that there 
 were synagogues in Judsea at least as early as in the 
 time of David, since, in the 8th verse, it is said, " they 
 have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land." 
 But the calamities which are deplored in this Psalm 
 did not happen to the Jewish people in, nor till long 
 after, the time of David, and, therefore, it could not 
 have been composed by him, or by any of his contem- 
 poraries. Nor, indeed, is it ever attributed to David 
 himself. It is called a Psalm of Asaph ; it was, how- 
 ever, " not composed by that famous Asaph who 
 flourished in David's time, but by some (one) of his 
 posterity, who is called by their father's name, as this 
 
 Prideaux, D.D., Dean of Norwich, 19th edition; London, 1825. 
 Vol. i. p. 441-444. 
 
 * Into Juclcca. — It is by some asserted, that when the Jews 
 were in captivity, they were accustomed to have the law read 
 to them on the Sabbath days in certain fixed places, so that, in 
 effect, there were synagogues among them before their return to 
 Judeea. Whether this be historically true or not, the fact, if it 
 be so, affords no inference bearing upon the discussion which 
 led me to the question at what period synagogues first came into 
 use. 
 
Skc. v.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 235 
 
 Psalm speaks of the destruction of the Temple, and of 
 Jerusalem, and of God's people, by the Chaldeans."* 
 And Dr. Wells, in D'Oyly and Mant's Notes on the 
 Bible, says of this Psalm, that it " was occasioned by 
 the desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the 
 rest of the country of Judaea, made by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar or the Babylonisli forces." This date to the 
 Psalm, it must be admitted, would, if the Psalm is 
 rightly translated in our version, carry back the origin 
 of the use of synagogues to a period anterior to the 
 return from the Babylonish captivity, and yet not to 
 a period so remote as to affect the present argument. 
 But we are told by Dean Prideaux that " in the ori- 
 ginal the words are col moadhe El, that is, all the assem- 
 blies of God, by which," he says, " I must acknowledge 
 must be understood the places where the people did 
 assemble to worship God ; but this doth not infer 
 that those places were synagogues, and there are none 
 of the ancient versions excepting that of Aquila, that 
 so render this passage." (vol. i. 462.) They were, he 
 says, those open enclosures which, in after times, were 
 called Proseucha, " and into one of them our Saviour 
 is said to have gone to pray, and to have continued 
 therein a whole night (Luke vi. 12) ;t and in another 
 of them, St. Paul taught the people of Philippi (Acts, 
 xvi. 13, 16)."f The Dean further remarks, that " in 
 synagogues the prayers were offered up in public 
 
 * This quotation is from a note in the Annotated Bible of 
 1774. 
 
 f So, the Dean says, the original is to be understood. See 
 his notes (p. 462) on these two passages. 
 
236 MORAL EQUITY OF THE IOhap. III. 
 
 forms, in common for the whole congregation ; but in 
 the proseuchge they prayed, as in the Temple, every 
 one apart for himself; and so our Saviour prayed in 
 the proseucha which he went into." (p. 463.) 
 
 When these proseuchae had their origin, can only 
 be conjectured. Certain it is that there is no trace of 
 them so early as in the time of David, so that neither 
 synagogues nor proseuchse can avail the Sabbatarians 
 in their attempt to render it credible that in the time 
 of Moses the Israelites assembled on the Sabbath-day 
 for the purpose of prayer. 
 
 Of the other texts, which have been supposed to 
 prove the early origin of the practice of observing the 
 Sabbath by public worship, the next in esteem is the 
 28d verse in the 4th chapter of the 2d book of Kings, 
 wherein the husband of a Shunammite woman asks 
 her: "Wherefore wilt thou go to him (EHsha) to- 
 day ? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath." What- 
 ever inference may be drawn from this text, it can be 
 little to the purpose of the present discussion, since it 
 relates to the times of Elisha, b.c. 895, that is to say, 
 more than one hundred years after the death of 
 David, and more than five hundred years after that 
 of Moses. The inference which is attempted to be 
 drawn from the text is, that devout persons were 
 accustomed to assemble themselves to Elisha on the 
 Sabbath day to hear the word of God. Granting this 
 were so, it would prove no national custom of syna- 
 gogue worship, or anything resembling it. The 
 devout who lived near the abode of a man of God, 
 used to resort to him on the Sabbath days, and this 
 
Sec. ^] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 237 
 
 they did, it is probable from the narratives contained 
 in the chapter before us, for the purpose of consultino- 
 him on their own affairs, as well as of receiving: 
 from him religious instruction. To this purport are 
 the following remarks by Morer in his Dialogues on 
 the Lord's day : the new moons and Sabbaths were 
 " the ordinary days, saith Junius,* to consult God 
 and hear his word. For in the kingdom of Israel, 
 where religion was much corrupted, the more pious 
 sort of people ran hither and thither to advise with 
 the prophets, and no sooner heard they of such a 
 person as Elisha was (Lyra,t in loco) but by flocks 
 they immediately resorted to him, especially on days 
 consecrated to religion ; but we are now speaking 
 (continues Morer) of the ordinary ministry, and the 
 ordinary places of divine and public worship, as were 
 the synagogues afterwards ; and I conceive the passage 
 about the Shunammite no proof of that point, and yet 
 the whole Scripture before the captivity affords no 
 better."! 
 
 * Junius (Francis) was a Professor of Divinity at Leyden. 
 He was born in 1.545, and died in 1602. He wrote commen- 
 taries on the Scriptures, and publislied, jointly with Tremellius, 
 a Latin version of the Bible. — Watldns''s Bioyrapluj. 
 
 f Lyra (Nicolas de), a Franciscan of the fourteenth century, 
 was born of Jewish parents at Lyre, in Normandy. On embracing 
 Christianity, he became an eminent teacher at Paris. He wrote 
 commentaries on the Bible, which were printed at Piome in five 
 volumes folio, and at Antwerp in six volumes. He died in 
 IMQ.—Watkins. 
 
 \ The title of Morer's work is, " Kv^tccxyi tifAs^x. A discourse 
 in six dialogues on the name, notice, and observation of the 
 
238 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 The remaining text adduced to prove the early 
 origin of synagogues, is Acts, xv. 21, wliere it is said 
 that " Moses of old time hath in every city them that 
 preach him being read in the synagogues every Sab- 
 bath-day," This very indefinite phrase *' of old 
 time," \k yiviuv k^yjxicov, may very possibly refer to a 
 period not more remote than that of the establish- 
 ment of synagogues on the return from the Babylonish 
 captivity. This event had occurred nearly six hun- 
 dred years before the Apostle James spoke the words 
 recorded in the text,* a space of time amply sufficient 
 to satisfy, in this instance, the sense of the phrase in 
 question,! more especially as Scripture history affords 
 no evidence of Moses having been read in every city 
 
 Lord's day." " By Thomas Mover, Rector of tlie united 
 parishes of St. Ann and Agnes, 1701." The author advocates 
 a very religious observance of the Sunday, hut is, nevertheless, 
 decidedly of opinion that " the first-day Sabbath " is not a divine 
 institution. His book is dedicated to the then Bishop of London 
 (Dr. Cromptou). 
 
 * The return from the Captivity . . B.C. 536 
 
 Date of Acts, XV. 21 .... a.d. 52 
 
 588 
 f Bishop White, in his " Treatise of the Sabbath-day," p. 
 147, has noticed an instance in the same chapter (Acts, xv. 7), 
 in which the word u^x>^iuv is used in reference to an event of 
 comparatively very recent occurrence. It is true, the substantive 
 there is vs^i^m, and not yinZv. Nevertheless, this instance of its 
 use sufficiently show^s how vague and variable is the meaning to 
 be attached to it. Morer, in his Dialogues on the Lord's day, 
 remarks, that " though St. James speaks of ancient times, yet it 
 must be understood only of some considerable time, some time 
 before, very short of antiquity." 
 
Sec. v.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 239 
 
 at any time previous to the captivity. Whatever 
 evidence is to be found touching upon this point 
 leads us to a conclusion the very reverse. We have 
 a striking instance of this in the mission before men- 
 tioned of priests and Levites by Jehoshaphat (b.c. 
 912), to teach "throughout all the cities of Judah," 
 and taking with them, for that purpose, " the book of 
 the law of the Lord."* 
 
 The general opinion respecting the introduction 
 of synagogues among the Jewish people thus appear- 
 ing to be unshaken by ^he objections which Sabba- 
 tarian research has raised up against it, there cannot 
 remain any reasonable doubt upon the fact, that no 
 date can justly be assigned to their introduction 
 earlier than that of the return from the captivity. 
 Consequently the forms of synagogue worship have 
 no bearing whatever upon the question what were 
 those requisites, which constituted in the time and 
 within the knowledge of Moses a due compliance with 
 the decalogue command to keep holy the Sabbath day. 
 Nor can the question be in any way affected by the 
 circumstance that new forms of pubhc worship were 
 introduced by David, who, after he had become settled 
 in his kingdom, added music and psalmody to the 
 sacrificial worship of the Tabernacle. The hymns 
 of praise and thanksgiving, which were composed by 
 himself and others, and which were sung accompanied 
 with music by his well-trained choir of singers and 
 musicians, gave to the worship of the Tabernacle in 
 
 "-•= See nitte, p. •2-2{K 
 
240 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 his time, and the hke performance in the reign of his 
 successor gave to the worship of the Temple a devo- 
 tional and spiritual character, which was wanting to 
 the celebration of religious rites by the Jewish people 
 before the reign of David. Nor can it well be 
 questioned but that on the Sabbath days, more than 
 any others, this soul-stirring adoration of Jehovah the 
 God of Israel would attract the devout Israelite to the 
 Tabernacle and the Temple in the reigns of David 
 and his son Solomon, who kept up, at least for a 
 time, the band of choristers which his father had left 
 to him. The obvious answer to any Sabbatarian 
 argument founded upon these facts would be, that it 
 matters not to the present discussion what additions 
 were made to the duties of the Sabbath-day after the 
 death of Moses, unless they had the sanction of a 
 divine command, and no such command can be 
 shown for the innovations introduced by the Royal 
 Psalmist, 
 
 How long these innovations remained a part of 
 the Temple service is, I presume, not exactly known ; 
 but it would seem that they had been discontinued 
 long before the Christian era, — certain it is that the 
 only religious rite then appertaining to the Temple 
 service was, as it before had been, that of sacrifice. The 
 Temple, it is true, was resorted to by the devout as a 
 house of prayer ; for it had been such ever since the 
 time of Solomon, who, when he built the first Temple, 
 entreated of the Lord to hearken to all prayers that 
 should be made in it : " Hearken thou to the suppli- 
 cation of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when 
 
SEC v.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 241 
 
 tliey shall pray toward this place," (the Bible margin 
 has " in this place"), 1 Kings, viii. 30. And in Isaiah 
 we read (Ivi. 7) : " Even them will I bring to my 
 holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of 
 prayer." But prayer never at any time made a part 
 of the public service of the Temple ; every one prayed 
 there apart for Mmselff' and this is consonant with 
 what w^e read in the parable of the Pharisee and the 
 Publican (Luke, xviii. 10), and also with passages in 
 the Acts, where mention is made of the house of 
 prayer. Prayer was wont to be offered there chiefly 
 during the performance of the sacrifice : " The morn- 
 ing and evening sacrifice," says Dean Prideaux, " being 
 the solemnest time of prayer among the Jews, and 
 the Temple the solemnest place for it." (Vol. iii. 104, 
 in a note.) Prayer, however, was still, even at that 
 late period of Jewish history, a voluntary act, it never 
 having been enjoined as a duty under the Mosaic 
 dispensation. 
 
 Thus, in whatever light the subject may be 
 viewed, we are amply justified in concluding that 
 since neither holy meditation, nor Scripture reading, 
 nor prayer, nor even attendance upon sacrifice, was 
 essential to the observance of the Sabbath enjoined by 
 the Fourth Commandment, the Sabbath-day was kept 
 holy during the lifetime of Moses, and therefore in 
 all after times, simply by abstaining on that day from 
 all manner of work.f 
 
 Driven from all its positions, the ingenious theory 
 
 * See ante, p. 230. 
 
 f See Note C. at the end of the chapter, 
 
 R 
 
242 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 called the Moral Equiti/ of the Fourth Commandment 
 now disappears from the field of controversy, and 
 with this theory vanishes also its inferential tenet, that 
 it is our bounden duty to appropriate a seventh por- 
 tion of our time — one day in every seven — to the 
 service of God. This duty, it has been demonstrated, 
 was not imposed upon those on whom the Command- 
 ment itself was obligatory ; how then can it be pos- 
 sible, on any sound principle of reasoning, to maintain 
 that by an inferential construction of the Command- 
 ment this duty is imposed on those upon whom the 
 Commandment itself is not obhgatory ? That it is not 
 obligatory upon Christians the advocates of the moral- 
 equity theory admit, hy the terms of their projjosition ; 
 nor will they deny that their argument in support of 
 the theory is based upon the assumption that the 
 Commandment imposed upon those on whom it 
 actually was obligatory the duty of devoting the 
 Sabbath-day, in some form or other, to purposes 
 of religion ; but the Commandment did not impose 
 that duty, and where there is no substance there can 
 be no shadow. 
 
 I here conclude my remarks on the Sabbaths of 
 the Old Testament, having, as I believe, established, 
 in the course of those remarks, the three following 
 propositions : — 
 
 1. That a command to observe a Sabbath was 
 not given to mankind at the Creation ; 
 
 2. That the Fourth Commandment of the Deca- 
 logue is not binding upon Christians ; 
 
Sec. v.] fourth COMMANDMENT. 243 
 
 3. That there is not any moral equity arising out 
 of that Commandment, which, although the command 
 itself is not binding upon Christians, obliges them, 
 nevertheless, to devote one day in seven, or some 
 other portion of their time, being one-seventh at the 
 least, to the services of religion. 
 
 And, as I had already proved in the former 
 volume of this work that there is not any warrant to 
 be found in the Christian Scriptures for the religious 
 observance of the first day of the week, with us called 
 Sunday, or the Lord's day, I now ask the reflecting 
 and impartial reader, what is the tenet of a divinely 
 INSTITUTED Christian Sabbath ? whether its Sabbath- 
 day be observed as a strict Sabbath, or merely as a 
 stated day of assembling for public worship and 
 religious instruction, — what is it, after all, but 
 
 A FALLACY! 
 
244 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 NOTES 
 
 To the preceding Chapter. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 REFERRED TO IN P. 164. 
 
 The " Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large " 
 is the work to which (see p. 255 of the first volume 
 of " The Sabbath") Mr. Gurney intended to refer, 
 when attempting, in his " Brief Remarks," to prove 
 that the first day of the week was called the Lord's 
 Day in the time of Pliny. Mr. Gurney, no doubt, 
 believed the work to be a genuine production of 
 Bishop Andrewes, as I also considered it to be when 
 commenting upon his argument. But having since 
 procured a copy of a reprint of the " Pattern of 
 Catechistical Doctrine," published in 1846 (men- 
 tioned in a note to p. 255 of " The Sabbath,") I see 
 it is doubtful if the work, having for its title the 
 " Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at large" be 
 really from the pen of Bishop Andrewes. Whether it 
 be so or not is immaterial to the argument I have 
 employed in refutation of Mr. Gurney's attempted 
 proof, since my remarks are equally applicable in 
 either case. As, however, I am now quoting from 
 this last-mentioned work a passage concerning the 
 moral ecpiity of the Fourth Commandment, the 
 
Note A.] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 245 
 
 reader may, perhaps, be desirous of forming liis own 
 opinion whether it be rightly attribnted to the Bishop 
 or not. Certain it is tiiat the work lately reprinted 
 resembles it in nothing bnt the subject, and in part 
 the title ; and it is no less certain that the reprinted 
 work is by Bishop Andrewes. Of this the extra- 
 ordinary talent displayed in it is of itself strong 
 evidence ; but the editor of the reprint has placed the 
 fact beyond all doubt, for he says that an edition of 
 the original work appeared in 1630, and another in 
 1G41; and it is from this latter edition that the 
 reprint is taken. He remarks, that " it was probably 
 Bishop Andrewes' Manual of College Lectures ;'* and 
 as to the work entitled the " Pattern of Catechistical 
 Doctrine at larr/e" he says, '^ A folio volume which 
 appeared in 1642, calling itself 'The Moral Law Ex- 
 pounded,' seems to be nothing more than notes taken 
 down by his (Bishop Andrewes') pupils from his lec- 
 tures orally delivered, and another work wdiich ap- 
 peared in 1650, called ' The Pattern of Catechistical 
 Doctrine at lar^e,' is simply the work on the Moral 
 Law put into shape." " It is done (he adds) by 
 very competent hands, but being less than even the 
 former was the production of Andrewes himself, it 
 would by no means be admitted into an edition of his 
 works." 
 
 Let us now see what the editor of the " Pattern 
 at large'' had to urge in defence of its genuineness. 
 He states, in a preface, that it " was composed in the 
 Bishop's younger years, when he was Fellow of 
 Pembroke Hall, in Cambridge, anno 1585," and was 
 
246 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 " his lectures, or college exercises, which were heard 
 with the public applause of the whole University." 
 Further on the editor says : " Considering that there 
 is already a rude and imperfect draught, or rather 
 some broken notes, of these his lectures, which had 
 passed through divers hands, already crept forth in 
 print, to the great wrong both of the living and the 
 dead, and that the same is about to be reprinted, 
 it was therefore thought necessary, in vindication of 
 the author, and to disabuse the reader, to publish this 
 copy." — "That the world, therefore, may not be 
 longer abused by a shadow obtruded for the sub- 
 stance, here is presented the author s own copy, re- 
 vised and compared with divers other manuscripts, 
 which, though it were not perfected by himself, nor 
 intended for public use, yet being the only copy he 
 had, as is acknowledged under his hand in the begin- 
 ning of the book, and containing many marginal notes 
 and alterations throughout the whole, made by himself, 
 in his latter years, as it seems, it may well be thought 
 to contain the mind and sense of the author more 
 fully than any of those copies in other hands." 
 
 The reader will now be enabled to exercise his 
 own judgment on the question. To me it seems, that 
 besides the Manual recently reprinted, the Bishop 
 actually did leave a manuscript treatise on the Ten 
 Commandments, which, with some alterations and 
 improvements made by himself, contained, as nearly 
 as he could recollect, the lectures themselves as orally 
 delivered by him, and that the work published in 
 1650, under the title of " The Pattern of Catechistical 
 
noteb.] pourth commandment. 247 
 
 Doctrine at large^' is a faithful transcript of that 
 treatise, with the exception of some passages inserted 
 by the editor, which he has distinguished by a parti- 
 cular mark. My quotation from it, relating to the 
 moral equity of the Fourth Commandment, is not 
 marked as one of the additions made by the Editor. 
 
 Note B. 
 
 REFERRED TO IN P, 231. 
 
 There is a passage in Isaiah which some Sabba- 
 tarian writers quote with much confidence, as proving, 
 that to the due observance of the Sabbath mere absti- 
 nence from work was insufficient, and that the leisure 
 of the Sabbath day was ordained to be devoted to the 
 services of God. The following is the passage : — " If 
 thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing 
 thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath 
 a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, and shalt 
 honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding 
 thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words, 
 then shalt thou deliglit thyself in the Lord, and I will 
 cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, 
 and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father ; 
 for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." (Isaiah, 
 Iviii. 13, 14.) 
 
 It is obvious that Isaiah is not here adverting to a 
 Sabbath enjoined at the creation. He is addressing 
 himself to Jews, and it is of their Sabbath, the Sab- 
 bath of the Fourth Commandment, that he is speak- 
 
248 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 ing ; consequently, that class of Sabbatarians who 
 admit that the Fourth Commandment is not binding 
 upon Christians have no concern with the passage 
 here quoted ; they, it is quite clear, can make no use 
 of it. And as to that class who contend that the 
 Commandment is binding upon Christians, they have 
 first to prove it to be so, which, for the reasons I have 
 stated in a preceding chapter, I believe to be beyond 
 their power. With these preliminary remarks, I pro- 
 ceed to discuss the question raised upon the text in 
 Isaiah. 
 
 It is thus interpreted and commented upon by 
 Prebendary Lowth : — " If thou abstain from following 
 thy own Avays and pleasure on the Sabbath, which is 
 dedicated to My service. It appears from hence, that 
 the precept of keeping the Sabbath day holy did not 
 enjoin merely a bodily rest, but implied also setting 
 the day apart to the services of religion. (See Jere- 
 miah, xvii. 21, &c.)" * 
 
 The reader will have remarked that the Preben- 
 dary has introduced into his interpretation of the text 
 " idMcU is dedicated to My service^' — words which 
 are not to be found in the text itself, but which are 
 of such significance as in effect to dispose of the 
 whole question at issue. Por if the text had thus 
 explicitly declared that the Sabbath day was dedicated 
 
 * Prebendaiy Lowth was the author of a Commentary on 
 the prophetical books of the Old Testament, and other theologi- 
 cal works. The Prebendary was the father of Bishop Lowth 
 {Waik\n&& Biography). His interpretation of, and comments 
 upon, the text in Isaiah, I quote from the notes in D'Oyly and 
 Mant's edition of the Bible. 
 
Note B] FOURTH COMMANDMENT. 249 
 
 to the service of God, that is, as the Prebendaiy after- 
 wards explains the phrase, set apart to the services of 
 religion, the inference would follow, of course, that 
 according to Isaiah, the precept in the Decalogue did 
 not enjoin merely a bodily rest ; as, however, Isaiah 
 has not asserted that the Sabbath was so dedicated, 
 the inference which the Prebendary has drawn from his 
 own assertion that it Avas, falls to the ground, exhibit- 
 ing in its fall a notable specimen of the disingenuous 
 way in which learned divines are prone to deal with 
 Scripture itself Avhen it fails to support their precon- 
 ceived opinions. But let us assume, for the sake of 
 argument, that the passage in Isaiah implies, though 
 it does not expressly declare, that the Sabbath w^as 
 dedicated to the service of God ; then, what Isaiah 
 says is either an explanation of the original command 
 in the Decalogue, or it is the promulgation of a new 
 command, superadding a new duty to that of doing 
 no work on the Sabbath day. That Isaiah intended 
 an explanation only is evidently the opinion of Pre- 
 bendary Lowth ; for, he says, hence (that is, seeing 
 what may be inferred from Isaiah) it appears that the 
 precept of keeping holy the Sabbath-day implies setting 
 the day apart to the services of religion. Now, if the 
 Sabbath command in the Decalogue implies, it in 
 fact enjoins, this duty, and the Sabbath day could 
 never have been properly observed without the per- 
 formance of it ; but the performance of any such duty 
 by the people in the time of Moses was, for reasons 
 which I have already given, and which will be here 
 briefly recapitulated, absolutely impossible. 
 
250 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [ChaiM 
 
 The religious services to which the modern ex- 
 pounders of Isaiah would persuade us he alludes, as 
 essential to the observance of the Sabbath-day, are : 
 I . Individual prayer ; and for this there is no precept 
 in the law of Moses. 2. Assembling for public 
 prayer ; and for this there was no provision made in 
 his time, and, consequently, the people had not the 
 opportunity of complying with such a duty, nor had 
 they even in the time of Isaiah, for synagogues had 
 not then come into use. 3. Scripture reading ; and 
 for this the Israelite people were incompetent, if in 
 the wilderness there was any Scripture to read. And 
 lastly, holy meditation on the wonderful works and 
 the infinite goodness of God, of which sublime exercise 
 of the mental faculties on the Sabbath day it would 
 be folly to imagine that the Israelites, just escaped 
 from their long slavery in Egypt, afforded an example. 
 
 If, then, Isaiah intended an explanation of the 
 Fourth Commandment, when, as is assumed, he 
 declared that religious services formed part of its duty, 
 he would, in his interpretation of it, be at variance 
 with Moses, who not only never enjoined, but never 
 alludes to, any religious services as peculiar to the 
 Sabbath, save those of offering a double sacrifice and 
 changing the shew-bread on the Sabbath day, — services 
 which the priests alone could perform. 
 
 But the supposition that Isaiah, who spoke by the 
 mouth of the Lord,* should differ from Moses in the 
 interpretation of a command which the Lord himself 
 
 * " For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." (v. 14.) 
 
noteb.] fourth commandment. 251 
 
 gave into the hands of Moses, would be too repugnant 
 to rational belief to be entertained by any one, and 
 we may therefore pass on to the consideration of the 
 alternative hypothesis, that the passage in Isaiah was 
 a new and supplementary Sabbath command to the 
 Jewish people, delivered to them eight hundred years* 
 after the original command was proclaimed to the 
 Israelites from Mount Sinai. If, however, a new 
 command had been intended, we may venture to 
 believe it would have assumed the form of a com- 
 mand, yet in what Isaiah has said there is not a single 
 mandatory word. The passage is nothing more than 
 a promise, that if the Sabbath shall be observed in the 
 manner which is there obscurely shadowed forth, the 
 prosperity of the Jewish nation shall be the reward. t 
 Moreover, it is not to be believed that a Divine com- 
 mand, if its intention had been to change essentially 
 the mode of observing the Mosaic Sabbath, should 
 have been communicated in terms so vague, that no 
 certain meaning can be found for them, yet of such 
 a nature is the supposed command. The passage in 
 Isaiah may, and probably does, allude to circum- 
 stances, which, being known to the prophet's contem- 
 poraries, rendered his admonition intelligible to them ; 
 
 * The date assigned by our Bible to the time when Isaiah 
 wrote his 58th chapter, is about d.c. 698. 
 
 f " I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the 
 earth" is the phrase used, a phrase which is borrowed from 
 Deuteronomy, xxxii. 13. Dr. Wells (in D'Oyly and Mant's 
 notes) gives the following interpretation of it: — "Ride on the 
 high places of the earth, or, of the land ; that is, conquer, and in a 
 triumphant manner possess, Canaan, full of lofty and fruitful hills." 
 
253 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. III. 
 
 but ignorant as we are of tliose circumstances, not 
 even our most learned divines, nor even the Jews 
 themselves, at this time, can have any just pretensions 
 to be positive in their interpretation of it. They can 
 do no more than conjecture its meaning; and mere 
 conjecture can never be accepted as a sufficient war- 
 rant for the belief, that the Sabbath of the Decalogue 
 was, after a lapse of eight centuries, new modelled by 
 a Divine command. 
 
 I have hitherto objected generally to the con- 
 jectural interpretations, which Sabbatarians give to 
 the passage in Isaiah. I now proceed to remark 
 upon one of them in particular, one in which they 
 are demonstrably in error. The expressions " doing 
 thy pleasure," and " finding thine own pleasure," * 
 they construe as meaning, that on the Sabbath-day 
 the people were to refrain from indulging themselves 
 in any pleasurable recreations, and were, on the 
 contrary, to regard that holy day as one of austere 
 solemnity, and yet " call it a delight." This inter- 
 pretation makes Isaiah deny or object to the true 
 character of the Jewish Sabbaths, which from the 
 time of Moses to that of Christ were always considered 
 to be days of festivity, and as such, observed and 
 enjoyed. 
 
 In the dissertation on Septenary Institutions, 
 
 * " Doing til]) pleasure,'" here signifies, doing as thou pleasest 
 — doing thine own will {facere voluntatem tuani, Vulgate.) The 
 other phrase, "finding thine own ideasure" (invenitur voluntas 
 tua, Vulgate), seems to be the same remark expressed in an- 
 otiier form. 
 
notkb.i fourth commandment. 253 
 
 published in the Westminster Revien% for October, 
 1850, there are amongst other valuable remarks on 
 the festive character of the Jewish Sabbaths the 
 following : " The Jewish lawgiver was not an ascetic, 
 nor was asceticism the character generally of ancient 
 worship. Moses instituted numerous festivals, but 
 not a single/r/^/f. Fasts were all of rabbinical origin. 
 In common with the Eastern nations, the Jews ob- 
 served a mourning festival at the autumnal equinox, 
 which with them was held on the tenth day of the 
 seventh month. This day was to be a Sabbath on 
 which they were ' to afflict' their souls, and offer 
 sacrifices of atonement — the only instance of the 
 word Sabbath being connected with sorrow, and it 
 was to be a tenth, not a sevetith day that was to be so 
 observed." p. 182. ' 
 
 That in the time of Nehemiah (b.c. 445) the 
 Sabbath was observed as a day of feasting and re- 
 joicing, there appears satisfactory evidence in the 
 8th chapter of his book, where it is related that Ezra, 
 assisted by others, read the book of the law to the 
 people (v. 1-8), and that when the first day's reading 
 was finished, " Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha (the 
 governor), and Ezra, the priest, the scribe, and the 
 Levites that taught the people, said unto all the 
 people : This day is holy unto the Lord your God ; 
 mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when 
 they heard the words of the law. Then he said unto 
 them, Go your way, eat the fat and drink the sweet, 
 and send portions unto them for whom nothing is 
 prepared, for this day is holy unto our Lord." (v. 9, 10.) 
 
254 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap. ill. 
 
 It may be objected, that although this was a holy day, 
 it possibly was not a Sabbath day ; but in regard to 
 holy days, we are to recollect that in " the feasts of the 
 Lord " enumerated in the 23d chapter of Leviticus, 
 and of which the Sabbath is one, no distinction is 
 made between the holiness of the Sabbath day and 
 that of the holy days in the other feasts, except that 
 on the feast of the Sabbath the abstinence from work, 
 was to be from all manner of work, whilst on the 
 holy days of the other feasts it was, with one excep- 
 tion, to be partial only.* Moreover, the chapter in 
 Nehemiah goes on to relate that a feast of Tabernacles 
 was then held, and adds, " There was very great glad- 
 ness ; also, day by day from the first day unto the 
 last day, he (Ezra probably) read in the book of the 
 law of God. And they kept the feast seven days." 
 (v. 17, 18.) One of those days must therefore have 
 been a Sabbath day. 
 
 That in the time of Christ the Jewish Sabbath con- 
 tinued to be of a festive description, is clear from the 
 narrative contained in the 14th chapter of St. Luke's 
 gospeL The Pharisees at the time of Christ's minis- 
 try were, as is well known, most watchfully rigorous 
 in exacting a strict observance of the Sabbath, but 
 they confined their accusations of Sabbath-breaking 
 to the single offence of doing work on the Sabbath 
 day. From this chapter of Luke we learn, that far 
 from denying the festive and social character of that 
 holy day, they gave great entertainments upon it, 
 
 •-;= See ante, p. 185, in note. 
 
noteb.] fourth commandment. 255 
 
 and that to one of these Christ himself was bidden 
 (ver. 12), and that he was present at it, thereby- 
 giving the sanction of "the Lord of tlie Sabbath" to 
 the custom of thus festively observing the Sabbath 
 day. (Luke, xiv. 1, 7, 12, 15.) 
 
 I have now to notice the reference which Preben- 
 dary Lowth has given to the 17 th chapter of Jeremiah, 
 ver. 21, &c. ; a reference which surprised me much, 
 as I was prepared to adduce that same chapter, — nay, 
 that very portion of it (ver. 21, &c.), to which he 
 specially refers, my purpose being to place it in con- 
 trast with the passage quoted from Isaiah. But 
 although I intend to show how decidedly they differ 
 in essentials, I have first to observe, and the more 
 readily as it well accords with i;iy purpose, that on 
 one point there is a striking similarity between them. 
 The admonitions of both prophets are given in the form 
 of a promise, that if the people of Judah * will keep 
 the Sabbath in the way that is stated in those admo- 
 nitions, their national prosperity shall be the reward. 
 The difference between them hes in their mode of 
 expressing the conditions on which the promise was 
 to be fulfilled. The language used by Isaiah is so 
 vague, that whether intelligible or not to those to 
 whom it was addressed, it can now be only guessed 
 at ; whilst that of Jeremiah must have been perfectly 
 clear to his contemporaries, and is equally so to us at a 
 distance from his time of more than two thousand years. 
 
 * Isaiah, as well as Jeremiah, addresses his admonitions to 
 the people of Judah and Jerusalem. — See Isaiah, i. 1. 
 
256 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Chap, ill. 
 
 The passage in Jeremiah is as follows : " Thus 
 saith the Lord, Take heed to yourselves and bear no 
 burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the 
 gates of Jerusalem. Neither carry forth a burden out 
 of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any 
 work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day as I commanded 
 your fathers. But they obeyed not, neither inclined 
 their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might 
 not hear, nor receive instruction. And it shall come 
 to pass, if ye diligently hearken unto me, saith the 
 Lord, to bring in no burden through the gates of this 
 city on the Sabbath day, but hallow the Sabbath day 
 to do no work therein, then shall there enter into the 
 gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the 
 throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, 
 they and their princes, the men of Judah, and the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem ; and this city shall remain 
 for ever." (Jerem. xvii. 21-25.) 
 
 Why this passage in Jeremiah should be cited in 
 aid of the usual gloss upon that of Isaiah, passes my 
 comprehension. To me it appears the very reverse of 
 favourable to that object. However, as I am not 
 aware of its being referred to in any Sabbatarian 
 treatise, I shall deal with it merely as a piece of 
 evidence which I myself bring forward to show, that 
 a great prophet, ivlio wrote long after the time of 
 Isaiah,"^' had no idea of any duty being requisite to 
 the strict and complete observance of the Sabbath 
 beyond that of doing no work therein. This is so 
 
 * The Quailo Bible date assigned to the passage m Isaiah 
 is, "about B.C. 698," and to that in Jeremiah, " about b.c. 601." 
 
^'oteb. fourth commandment. 257 
 
 evident as to render it almost superfluous to })oint 
 to the particidar words wliicli convey liis meaning. 
 I may, however, remark, that after specifying instances 
 wherein the Jews of his time directly violated the 
 Sabbath command, Jeremiah says, in the name of the 
 Lord, " Neither do ye any w^ork, hut Jialloio ye the 
 Sabbath day" (ver. 22), and again he says (ver. 24), 
 
 "if ye hallow the Sabbath day to do no work 
 
 therein." These are phrases which obviously imply, 
 that to do no work on that day was to hallow the 
 day, and sufficed to hallow it. That those to whom 
 Jeremiah addressed his admonitions would look upon 
 these phrases as equivalent to an express declaration, 
 that if they did no work on the Sabbath they would 
 thereby fulfil the Commandment, seems beyond all 
 reasonable doubt. Certain it is that Jeremiah makes 
 no condition whatever for obtaining the promised 
 reward besides that of doing no work on the Sabbath 
 day. He, therefore, could not have interpreted the 
 passage in Isaiah to mean that religious rites and holy 
 meditation on the Sabbath day were essential and 
 requisite to its due observance ; and assuredly Jere- 
 miah in expounding a text in Isaiah must be acknow- 
 ledged to be a safer guide than any, even the most 
 subtle and learned, of Sabbatarian commentators. 
 
 The extravagant inferences drawn by some Sab- 
 batarian writers from the text in question, and the 
 dogmatical confidence with which they insist that 
 their inferences from Isaiah's inexplicable exhortation 
 to Jews ought to be accepted as a rule of conduct for 
 Christians, appeared to me to demand that ample 
 
 s 
 
258 MORAL EQUITY OF THE [Cuav. III. 
 
 discussion of the subject which it has here received. 
 In confirmation of this remark, and as an appropriate 
 conclusion of the present note, I subjoin an extract 
 from an ultra-Sabbatical work, which is probably but 
 little known in this country, premising that the 
 passages here given in italics are not so given in the 
 original. The waiter. Dr. Stone, an American divine, 
 when expatiating upon the numerous negative duties 
 indispensably requisite, in his opinion, to the proper 
 mode of sanctifying the Sunday Sabbath, informs his 
 dear reader, that " in the next place, therefore, the 
 proper sanctification of the Sabbath requires us to 
 abstain from vain and worldly conversation. T/iis is 
 w/iaf Isaiah means when he speaks of hallowing the 
 Sabbath by not speaking our own words, — words to 
 which our own wicked hearts and worldly interests 
 would prompt us." — " To this breach of the Sab- 
 bath, even sober-minded persons are often carelessly 
 led by the slight associations which exist between 
 some subjects partly serious and others merely moral, 
 and again between those and others purely vain and 
 worldly. But if the sober-minded are thus drawn 
 into a violation of the Sabbath, into what extremes of 
 abuse will not the giddy and thoughtless naturally 
 rush ! Beware then, dear reader, when you begin on 
 the Sabbath to talk about the sermon or the preacher, 
 the deaths or the accidents of the week, — beware lest 
 you slide from the preacher ayid his subject into mere 
 idle criticism upon style, manner, and attitude, and 
 from these into either praises or invectives, either 
 flattery or calumny, heaped not only on the object 
 
-^'"■ri^f-.l FOURTH COMMANDMKNT. 259 
 
 witli wliich you began, hut also on a hundred others 
 whicli liave been brought into j^our minds. Beware, 
 lest when you begin with deaths and accidents you 
 pass, in an unguarded moment, (!) into the news of 
 the day, and from this again into your ordinary 
 pleasures and business, into schemes for amusement 
 and into calculations of gain, into debate upon politics 
 and into discourse about stocks." * 
 
 Such are the "awful extremes of abuse" into 
 which Dr. Stone foresees the giddy and thoughtless 
 will naturally rush on a Sunday, if they disregard 
 the (now unintelligible) admonition of Isaiah to the 
 Jews of his time, — not to speak their own words on a 
 Saturday. 
 
 Note C. 
 
 KF.FKRRED TO IN V. 241. 
 
 That the only requisite for the due and full observ- 
 ance of the Fourth Commandment was the negative 
 duty of not doing any work on the Sabbath day is a 
 Scripture truth, I convinced myself by the arguments 
 which I have submitted to the consideration of the 
 reader in tlie preceding chapter. Nevertheless, I 
 was under some apprehension that in this opinion 
 I might stand alone, and if so, I could not but feel 
 
 * " Lectures on the Institution of the Sabbath," by the Rev. 
 John S. Stone, D.D. Published at New York in 1844. P. 110. 
 
2G0 MORAL EQUITY, ETC. IChav. Ill 
 
 it to be in the highest degree probable there must 
 be some latent fallacy in my arguments, which I 
 was unable to detect. Great, therefore, was my 
 satisfaction when I afterwards found from a passage 
 in Dr. Jennings's " Jewish Antiquities," that so 
 eminent a biblical critic as Le Clerc had held the 
 opinion in question. The third duty of the Sabbath, 
 says Dr. Jennings, is to sanctify it. " It is inquii-ed 
 what this means ? Some would have it to import no 
 more than abstaining from work and laboui*. Le 
 Clerc contends for this opinion, and alleges, in support 
 of it, the following passage of Jeremiah : ' Neither 
 carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sab- 
 bath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the 
 Sabbath day, as I commanded yoiu^ fathers. (Jere- 
 miah, xvii. 22.)' Doing no work on the Sabbath, and 
 hallowing or sanctifying it, are plainly used as expres- 
 sions of the same import."* 
 
 * " Jewish Antiq." ii. 158. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 In the narrative given in Exodus concerning the fall 
 of manna and the institution of the Sabbath in the 
 wilderness, it is related, that after the manna had 
 fallen six days successively, Moses said to the people 
 on the seventh day : " To-day is a Sabbath unto the 
 Lord ; to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six 
 days ye shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which 
 is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it 
 came to pass, that there went out some of the people 
 on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 
 And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to 
 keep my commandments mid my laws?'' Exod. xvi. 
 25-28. 
 
 This question is usually considered to imply, that 
 the people w4io went out to gather manna on the 
 seventh day were guilty of violating the Sabbath, 
 when in fact they did not violate it. The offence of 
 which they were really guilty was that of intending to 
 violate it, if there had been manna in the field ; but as 
 they found none, they were saved from actually com- 
 mitting the crime of Sabbath-breaking. What, tlicrc- 
 fore, are we to understand by the (picstion, " Mow 
 
262 APPENDIX. 
 
 long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my 
 laws?" Moses forewarned the people on the seventh 
 day that there would on that day be no manna in the 
 field, but he did not forbid them from going out to 
 see if there were any, so that in this respect there was 
 no refusal to keep a commandment. What, then, were 
 the commandments and the laws which for a long 
 while the people of Israel had been refusing to keep ? 
 I apprehend this to be an inquiry to which no certain 
 or probable answer can be given. 
 
 When I was writing the foregoing Chapter on the 
 Creation Sabbath, and had under my consideration 
 the narrative contained in the 16th chapter of Exodus, 
 it occurred to me as not unlikely that careless readers 
 might conclude the question, " How long refuse ye to 
 keep my commandments and ray laws ? " referred to a 
 Sabbath which had existence previous to the Mosaic 
 Sabbath, namely, the Sabbath alleged to have been 
 instituted at the creation. I therefore drew up some 
 remarks to show that the question could not properly 
 be so interpreted ; but, subsequently doubting if there 
 was any sufficient occasion for making use of them, 
 I endeavoured in consequence to ascertain whether 
 any Sabbatarian writer had so interpreted the question. 
 I could not find that Mr. Gurney, in his " Brief Re- 
 marks," or Mr. Holden in his " Christian Sabbath," 
 had taken any notice of the passage in Exodus ; and 
 on looking to D'Oyly and Mant's edition of the Bible, 
 it appeared that they had no note whatever upon it, 
 which renders it probable that no importance has been 
 attached to it in reference to the present subject by 
 
APPENDIX. 203 
 
 any of the theological writers whom they are accus- 
 tomed to quote in their notes. The only author 
 whom I could then discover to have referred to it as 
 aflPording some ground for a Sabbatarian interpreta- 
 tion was Mr. Hughes, who, in his reply to the " HorEE 
 Sabbaticse" (p. 19), says, "The words also of God 
 himself addressed to Moses, Hoio long refuse ye to 
 keep my commandments mid my laws ? seem to repre- 
 sent those who went out to gather manna on the 
 seventh day as transgressors in some measure of a 
 known ordinance." 
 
 This seeming inference being all that the usual 
 candour and accuracy of Mr. Hughes permitted him 
 to offer by way of argument on this question, and he 
 being the only author, who, so far as I could ascertain, 
 had attempted to raise an argument upon it, I laid 
 aside my remarks on the subject and dismissed it 
 from my thoughts. But I have recently met with a 
 tract on the Sabbath, published in 1854, in which 
 the writer, though not directly contending that the 
 passage in Exodus alludes to a pre-existent Sabbath, 
 speaks of it in a manner which is very likely to dis- 
 pose his readers to come to that conclusion. The 
 tract is entitled, " The anti- Sabbatarian Defenceless, 
 or, the Sabbath established upon the Ruins of the 
 Objections of its Enemies ;" and the author, the Rev. 
 J. G. Stewart of Glasgow, first quoting the passage, 
 says (p. 28), " What laws, what commandments, we 
 ask? Apparently up to this point there were no 
 laws ; and the opponents of the Sabbath would have 
 us to understand there was no Sabbath. Yet tlie 
 
264 APPENDIX. 
 
 violation of the Sabbath is the law iiiiniediately 
 referred to. It, however, as far as we see, was only 
 violated once. Yet the appeal is as if they had been 
 often guilty of disobedience to this and the other 
 commands of God, How long? — hoAv long refuse 
 ye to keep my commandments and my laws ? is the 
 affecting appeal." 
 
 It is here admitted by the writer himself that 
 apparently there were no laws in existence at the time 
 when the Israelites were reproached for refusing to 
 keep God's commandments and his laws ; but the 
 evident tendency of his argument is to inculcate a 
 belief that there was already a Sabbath law in exist- 
 ence when Moses was commanded to institute the 
 wilderness Sabbath. I have, therefore, on recon- 
 sideration of the subject, decided on bringing forward 
 the remarks which I had formerly made upon it and 
 laid aside, and shall accordingly proceed to show, that 
 whatever might be the commandments and laws alluded 
 to, as those which the Israelites had refused to keep, 
 a command for the observance of the Sabbath could 
 not have been one of them. 
 
 During their bondage in Egypt, the Israelites had 
 no opportunity 'of refusing to keep it, for they were 
 compelled to work on every day (see afite, in note, 
 p. 122) ; nor can it be doubted that instead of refusing, 
 most gladly would they have availed themselves of 
 the permission, had it been granted to them, to rest on 
 every seventh day from the hard toil imposed upon 
 them by their task-masters on the six intermediate 
 days. But certainly there afterwards came a brief 
 
APPENDIX. 265 
 
 period, when, had they been so inclined, they could 
 have refused to keep a Sabbath, namely, the time 
 that intervened between the passage of the Red Sea 
 and the fall of manna in the wilderness, a space of 
 more than three weeks. During this period it was on 
 three, and perhaps four occasions in their power to 
 refuse to observe a Sabbath, had any divine command 
 to observe a Sabbath then been known ; but that they 
 did not refuse to observe any one of the three or 
 four Sabbath days can admit of no rational doubt, 
 because it is utterly incredible that in such case Moses, 
 who records their distrust in God, when they were 
 pursued and nearly overtaken by the Egyptians 
 (Exod. xiv. 10, 11), their murmurings at the w^aters 
 of Marali (Exod, xv. 23, 24), and their renowned mur- 
 muring on their entering the wilderness of Sin (Exod. 
 xvi. 1-3), would not have recorded also the still more 
 heinous offence, had it really been committed, of 
 refusing to keep the Sabbath of the Lord their God, 
 when it had become in their power to keep it, and 
 when Moses, as we must assume, proposed to them to 
 keep it. Indeed, whether in their join^neyings from 
 the Red Sea to the t\ilderness of Sin they observed, 
 or refused to observe, the Sabbath days which then 
 occurred, it is very improbable that Moses should not 
 have noticed either the observance or the refusal, if 
 there then existed any Sabbath ordinance to observe. 
 Thus abundantly clear is it, that whatever might be 
 the commandments and laws, which the passage in 
 Exodus implies the Israelites had long refused to keep. 
 
266 APPENDIX. 
 
 a command or law for the observance of a Sabbath is 
 not there alkided to as one of them. 
 
 I cannot, however, resolve upon parting company 
 as yet with Mr. Stewart's tract, for I hope to afford 
 considerable gratification to the reader by the further 
 notice that I am about to take of it. Its title, as before 
 mentioned, is " The anti-Sabbatarian Defenceless ; or, 
 the Sabbath established upon the Ruins of the Objec- 
 tions of its Enemies." This great feat, we are to 
 believe, is finally accomplished in a duodecimo of 157 
 pages, of which only 112 are devoted to the subject pro- 
 pounded in its title, the rest being exclusively employed 
 in developing the author's views of the proper mode of 
 observing the Sunday-Sabbath. I have said the feat 
 oi finally accomplishing the object proposed, because 
 the author in his preface asserts that his Sabbatarian 
 predecessors had already been victorious in the con- 
 test. These are his words : " In this little volume, 
 the arguments of the enemies of the Sabbath are not 
 so nmch sought to be destroyed, as their destruction 
 to be completed. What the generous victor did not, 
 seemingly, deem it necessary further to exact in the 
 shape of reprisals, the author has been cruel enough 
 to seek to perpetrate. He has sought to take every 
 inch of ground from beneath the feet of his opponents." 
 In other words, the Rev. J. G. Stewart, finding the 
 enemy already vanquished, traverses the battle-tield, 
 musket in hand, and perceiving that some of them, 
 though lying prostrate and liors de combat, had symp- 
 toms of life remaining, determines that not one of 
 
APPENDIX. 207 
 
 them shall rise " to fight again another day," and 
 bayonets them a la Riisse accordingly. 
 
 In forming his opinions of the duties, positive 
 and negative, which he considers indispensable to the 
 proper observance of his Sunday-Sabbath, Mr. Stewart 
 seems to have studied as his text-book Dr. Stone's 
 " Lectures on the Institution of the Sabbath," of 
 which some mention has been already made. (See 
 ante, p. 258.) The disciple surpasses his master in 
 fecundity of invention, and his views of Sunday-Sab- 
 bath dutiu'S might be pronounced the ne plus ultra of 
 Sabbatarianism, but that there is no ne plus ultra to 
 Sabbatarian fancies. 
 
 Of the positive duties which he represents to be 
 requisite to salvation, I will merely say that they are 
 so numerous and so onerous, that to a certainty the 
 generality of his readers will be neither argued nor 
 frightened into the observance of them. They are, 
 in fact, impracticable by the masses of the community, 
 and it can be only a few zealots of highly enthusiastic 
 temperament, who will be found capable of carrying 
 out to its full extent his rigorous system of Sunday- 
 Sabbath observance, — a system, moreover, inconsistent 
 with itself, since it converts the day of rest into one 
 of wearisome and almost unremitting exertion, bodily 
 and mental. 
 
 I must, however, give the reader a specimen or 
 two of Mr, Stewart's notions in regard to the nega- 
 tive duties of a properly observed Sunday-Sabbath. 
 After quoting from Isaiah (chap. Iviii.) the passage 
 beginning, " If thou turn away thy foot from the 
 
268 APPENDIX. 
 
 Sabbath," he says (p. 141), " Everything therefore 
 that partakes of the nature of mere recreation or 
 amusement, thus stands expressly condemned at the 
 bar of God's holy word ; and this whether it be in 
 the shape of pleasure-parties, giving entertainments, 
 making calls, or in whatever other form is the case. 
 In that w^ord we are in effect told, and that by God 
 himself, that we may violate that holy day (the Sab- 
 bath-day) as well in the recreation walk, or ride, or in 
 the friendly letter written or read, as in engagements 
 of business." In page 142, he adds, " But having 
 said thus much in general condemnation of recreations 
 and amusements, there is one against which we would 
 now be permitted to lift our solemn protest, and this 
 especially as it is one wiiich we fear is too much over- 
 looked by all. It is the practice so alarmingly pre- 
 valent about all large towns of young men and young- 
 women meeting and walking together either in the 
 w\ay of idle gossip or of courtship upon that day 
 which God has declared holy, and which he has so 
 solenmly set apart for his own service. O, we would 
 ask, can such expect the blessing of God to follow 
 this conduct? or can they expect that step, which of 
 all others here below, perhaps, is to them the most 
 momentous, to be a happy one, when taken in con- 
 nexion with such circumstances ? Alas ! how seldom, 
 it is to be feared, that step taken in open defiance of 
 God's authority, and in violation of his holy day, is 
 found ultimately to be a happy one." ! ! ! 
 
INDEX TO NAMES. 
 
 Andrewes, Bishop, 163, 165, 244 
 Anonymous, — 
 
 A Vindication of Protestant 
 
 Principles by Phileleutherus 
 
 Anglicanus, 62 
 
 On Septenary Institutions : — 
 An Article from the West- 
 minster Review for October, 
 1850, 101, 166, 169, 253 
 Forty Days in the Desert in 
 the Track of the Israelites, 
 by the Author of "Walks 
 about Jerusalem," 201 
 History of the Hebrew Monar- 
 chy from the Administration 
 of Samu( 1 to the Uabylonish 
 Captivity, 222 
 
 Athanasius, 60 
 
 Aristobulus, 109 
 
 Augustine, 61, 187 
 
 Barnabas, 131 
 Bauer, Professor, 156 
 
 Beveridge, Bishop, 109 
 Bible,— 
 
 D'Oyly and Mant's edition, 
 3, 54, 58, 122, 152, 158, 
 160, 196,199,202,213,235, 
 251, 262 
 
 Annotated edition, " by several 
 eminent Divines," published 
 in 1774, by Moore and Co., 
 Printers, London, 54, 96, 
 99, 228 
 
 Coverdale's version, 192 
 
 Matthews's, 192 
 
 Rogers's, 192 
 
 Tyndale's, 192 
 Blunt, J. J., 95 
 
 j Callimachus, 109 
 Calmet, 199 
 Cicero, 195 
 
 Clarke, Dr. Adam, 199 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, 106, 107, 
 
 108, 109 
 Romanus, 60 
 
270 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Damascemis, 141 
 De la Rue, 30 
 
 Eusebius, 109, 138 
 
 Faber, 109 
 
 Jeiiiiings, Dr., 9, 75, 82, 93, 100, 
 101, 103, 104,109,114, 117, 
 122, 186,190, 195,216,218, 
 231, 260 
 
 Jerome, 25, 140, 187, 190 
 
 Joseplius, 206 
 
 Junius, Professor, 237 
 
 Justin Martyr, 59, 131, 133 
 
 Gataker, 93 
 
 Geddes, Dr., 54, 70, 83, 86, 150, 
 
 186, 190, 192, 193, 206, Kennicott, 82, 83, 84, 85 
 
 207 
 Gray, Rev. Dr., 128, 155, 160 
 Grotius, 109, 152 
 Gurnoy, Jos. John, 27, 28, 42, 
 
 64, 69, 92, 95, 98, 100, 104, 
 
 112, 125, 151, 244, 262 
 
 Hales, Dr., 109 
 
 Hesiod, 103 
 
 Hetzel, or Hezel, 192 
 
 Heylyn, 73 
 
 Higgins, Godfrey, 5, 71, 83 
 
 Hody, Dr., 187 
 
 Holden, Rev. George, 36, 60, 61, 
 
 126, 143, 144, 166, 262 
 Homer, 103 
 
 Hook, Rev. Dr., 171, 172 
 Hughes, Rev. T. S., 71, 80, 100, 
 
 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 
 
 263 
 
 Irenosus, 136, 143 
 Jarchi, 70 
 
 Le Clerc, 70, 260 
 
 Linus, 109 
 
 Lowth, Prebendary, 248, 249, 255 
 
 Lyra, 237 
 
 Mann, Bishop, 3 
 
 Mede, Joseph, 126, 158, 159, 160, 
 
 166 
 Michaelis, 190, 191 
 Morer, Rev. Thomas, 237, 238 
 
 Origen, 30 
 
 Palcy, Archdeacon, 13, 20, 21, 63, 
 
 67, 69, 72 
 Parkhurst, 48, 49, 50, 1 78 
 Patrick, Bishop, 54, 199, 202, 
 
 203 
 Plato, 106 
 
 Potter, Archbishop, 105 
 Prideaux, Dean, 232, 235, 241 
 
 Roes, Dr. (Cyclopfedia), 69, 187 
 Rivetus, 109 
 
INDF.X. 
 
 271 
 
 Kobinsoii, Dr. (of America), 200 
 Rosenmiillt'r, 190, 191 
 Ruinart, 190 
 
 vSelden, 70 
 
 Sharp, Archbishop, 71 
 
 Solon, 109 
 
 Stackhouse, 58, 199 
 
 Stewart, Rev. J. G., 263, 266, 
 
 267 
 Stone, Rev. Dr. (of America), j Wilson, Bishop, 122 
 
 258, 267 
 
 Tertullian, 136 
 Theophilus, of Antioch, 107 
 Tillotson, Archbishop, 181 
 
 Voltaire, 162 
 
 Wake, Archbishop, 158, 166, 
 Wells, Dr., 235, 251 
 White, Bishop, 20, 164, 169, 238 
 Wilson, Rev. T., 4 
 
Bij the same Author, 
 
 THE SABBATH ; or, an Examination of the Six 
 Texts commonly adduced from the New Testament in 
 proof of a Christian Sabbath, by a Layman, price 9s., 
 including a Supplement and Index. Chapman and Hall. 
 
 ^^ The Supplement and Index are published separately, 
 price 6d. 
 
 ^° The chapter in the present volume entitled, " The 
 Mosaic Sabbath" {shoioing the Fourth Commandment to be 
 not obligatory on Christians), is published separately as a 
 pamphlet, entitled, " The Mosaic Sabbath," price 6c?. Chapman 
 and Hall. 
 
 The following is an extract from a review of this pamphlet 
 by " The Leader" of Sept. 4, 1850 :— 
 
 " The question then arises, Is the Decalogue rendered obligatory upon 
 other nations (than the Jews) by any passages of the New Testament ? The 
 answer is a conclusive negative." — " The way in which this argument is pur- 
 sued by the author is a fine example of masterly deduction, and the success is 
 triumphant." 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 m 2? 
 
 'm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Demco, Inc. 38-293 
 

 1 1012 01003 2284 
 
 ?5l^ 
 
 m ^ ' ■'■ "''iiiSifli^^S