f 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 '% 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia. Pa. 
 
 BV 110 .S86 1837 
 Stopford, Edward, 1772-1850 
 The Scripture account of th 
 Sabbath 
 
THE SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT 
 
 S A B B A T H 
 
 COMPAKED WITH 
 
 HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN'S 
 
 THOUGHTS ON THE SABBATH." 
 
 IN WHICH 
 
 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE SABBATH IS MAINTAINED ; 
 
 ITS PERMANENT OBLIGATION PROVED ; ITS MEANING EXPLAINED ; 
 
 ITS IDENTITY WITH THE LORD's-DAY ESTABLISHED ; 
 
 THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN AND OF SEVERAL OTHER 
 
 AUTHORS a:*SWERED ; — AND VARIOUS TOPICS, CONNECTED WITH 
 
 THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECT, OCCASIONALLY INTRODUCED AND EXAMINED, 
 
 WHICH, IT IS HOPED, MAY PROVE INTERESTING TO ALL 
 
 CLASSES OF CHRISTIANS. 
 
 " Call the sabbath a delight, holy of the Lord, and honourable— tbeii 
 shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord." 
 
 Isaiah Iviii. 13, 14. 
 
 BY EDWARD STOPFORD, LL.D. 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF AR.MAUH, AND VICAR-GENERAL OF RAPHOE. 
 
 LONDON : • 
 J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY. 
 
 1837. 
 
LONDON : 
 
 PBINTEP HV IBOTSON AND I'AI.MER, 
 
 SAVOY STRKBT. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 1. Preface _ _ _ _ _ l 
 
 2. The Archbishop of Dublin - > _ 4 
 
 3. The Question Proposed - - _ 8 
 
 4. Divisions of Time, and Festivals of the Israelites - 11 
 
 5. Feast of the Passover - - - - 13 
 
 6. Feast of Pentecost - - _ _ 14 
 
 7. Feast of Tabernacles and Atonement - - 17 
 
 8. Early modes of Communication between God and Man 19 
 
 9. Whether the Sabbath w^ere known before the time of 
 
 Moses - - - - _ 31 
 
 10. Wilderness of Sin - _ - - 55 
 
 11. The Day of Departure out of Egypt - _ _ 67 
 
 12. The Sabbath, a Sign, &c. _ _ _ 76 
 
 13. The Covenant - - - - - 80 
 
 14. Connexion of the Commandments with the Original 
 
 and Everlasting Covenant - - - 91 
 
 15. A Revelation, Laws, and Commandments before Moses 100 
 
 16. Distinction necessary to be observed between different 
 
 Classes of the Laws of the Israelites - - 102 
 
 17. The Israelites and Jews the Depositories of Revelation 
 
 for the purpose of communicating it to the other 
 
 nations of the world - _ _ 107 
 
 18. The Fourth Commandment, the Sabbath - - 115 
 
 19. The Sabbath in the New Testament - - 130 
 
 20. Objections answered, 
 
 (a) Miscellaneous Objections - - - 147 
 
 21. (/>) Objection, John ix. - - - - 151 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION PAOK 
 
 22. (c) Objection, Mark ii. 23, Disciples plucking ears ol' 
 
 corn _____ 152 
 
 23. (</) Objection, Primary and secondary Objects of the 
 
 Sabbath - - - _ _ 156 
 
 24. (e) Objection, Fourth Commandment ; "Remember" - 157 
 
 25. (/) Objection, Col. ii. 16 - - . leo 
 
 26. (g) Objection, Gal. iv. 9, 10. Rom. xiv. - - 168 
 
 27. Baxter's Objections, first, (/<) John i. 17 - - 172 
 
 28. Baxter's Objections, (/) John yii. 19, 23. Acts xv. 5 - 174' 
 
 29. Baxter's Objections, (fr) 2 Cor. iii. Heb. vii. Eph. ii. - 178 
 
 30. Laws of Nature. Moral Laws - - - 185 
 
 31. VVhether the Fourth Commandment be a Moral or 
 
 Positive Precept _ _ _ - 195 
 
 32. Change of the Sabbath ... 204 
 3.3. Paley and Jeremy Taylor .. - _ 235 
 
 34. AVarburton — Divine Legation of Moses - . 237 
 
 35. V. S. Additions . .. . _ 249 
 
 36. Conclusion _ - _ - - 257 
 
THE SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SABBATH, 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 It is now about four yetivs since his Grace the Archbishop 
 of Dubhn pubUshed his " Thoughts on the Sabbath." 
 A person, proposing to answer that pubhcation, after such 
 a lapse of time, may expect to be asked, why he did not 
 answer it before — and why he answers it now ? 
 
 From the first time I read that pamphlet, I have felt 
 convinced that his Grace's view of the question was alto- 
 gether erroneous. I have always considered the observance 
 of the institution of a Sabbath as resting on divine autho- 
 rity, and of permanent obligation, — as a fundamental article 
 of the Christian, as well as of the Mosaical and patriarchal 
 dispensations. But in proportion as my opinion of the 
 great importance of the subject was high, I was unwilling 
 to lower it by a feeble advocacy : — in proportion to my 
 estimate of its value, were my hopes and expectations, that 
 the eminent theologians of our church, the professors of 
 divinity and of sacred literature and languages in our uni- 
 versities, would have stood torlh to defend this citadel of 
 
2 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 our faith, in which the weapons of our Christian warfare 
 are kept l)right and fit for use, — in which the sacred shields 
 are hung up, — on which the ensign of Him we serve is dis- 
 played, and in which the holy fire is kept burning:— and 
 great was my disappointment on finding, that to the public 
 at least, it appeared to have been surrendered as untenable. 
 I considered myself incompetent to the task, and shrank 
 from the undertaking, until a principle of duty silenced 
 every objection. 
 
 A lady of great respectability, as eminent for character 
 as for rank, resident within my benefice, sent me his Grace's 
 pamphlet, along with extracts from other authors on the 
 same side of the question, and requested my opinion. 
 That was a call which I was bound to answer to the best 
 of my abilit}-, and for that call I am grateful, — and in obe- 
 dience to it I laid his Grace's opinions to the square and 
 plummet of scripture : I weighed his arguments in the 
 balance of divine truth ; and I found his opinions and argu- 
 ments utterly irreconcileable with scripture and truth : and 
 having found enough to convince myself, I felt it my duty 
 to lay the grounds of my conviction before the public. 
 
 Untrained in controversy, I have endeavoured to assume 
 and feel the character of a sober and diligent inquirer after 
 truth. I have laboured to divest my mind of every preju- 
 dice or favourite prepossession, and to approach the subject 
 as new, and impartially to sift the arguments on both sides 
 of the question proposed. I have used all diligence in 
 making myself acquainted with the subject. Like many 
 controversial writers, I have read only the authors on one 
 side; but, unlike most, I have read only those who are op- 
 posed to the opinion which I espouse, and at the other side 
 I have read one only book ; — but that book, the Bible. I 
 have carefully considered his Grace"'s arguments; I have 
 studiously examined all the authors he has quoted, as well 
 
THE SABBATH. J 
 
 as all others which I could procure, who had written on 
 the same side of the question : but I set out with a deter- 
 mination to try those arguments by scripture alone, and to 
 eschew all human authority. I have also determined not 
 to slur over, or pass by, or conceal, a single argument which 
 I have met with on the other side, but fairly and candidly 
 to lay them all before my readers. 
 
 I have found, — and the discovery confirmed me in my 
 resolution to prosecute the inquiry, — that the question is to 
 be decided by an accurate, close, and minute examination 
 of scripture; and that human learning is no farther con- 
 cerned, than so far as it may be useful to elucidate the 
 true meaning of divine revelation, and to interpret difficult 
 passages of scripture, the obscurity of which sometimes 
 arises fi-om imperfect translation. In general, therefore, 
 my proofs shall be such as every diligent reader of the 
 Bible, who endeavours to read under the influence of that 
 Holy Spirit who has promised to lead him into all truth, 
 can understand. And therefore I earnestly intreat all those 
 who may have the patience to read these pages, to have the 
 sacred book of revelation open before them, and diligently 
 to examine those passages of scripture which I shall quote. 
 My quotations must necessarily be large, for they are the 
 evidences on whose testimony the question is to be decided : 
 but to the lover of divine wisdom, which is of more value 
 than fine gold, and sweeter also than honey and the honey- 
 comb, I need make no apology for the largeness of my 
 quotations, or the minuteness of my disquisitions upon 
 them. There is the same difference between the word of 
 inspiration and human learning, as is observable between 
 the works of nature and those of art. When lately present 
 at an exhibition of the wonderfully magnifying powers of 
 the gas microscope, I was forcibly struck with an observa- 
 tion to this effect, made by the exhibitor, on the different 
 
 B 2 
 
scriptuhe account of 
 
 appearance of the works of nature and of art when ])ower- 
 fully magnified. The microscope magnified some miUions 
 of times. He showed the point of the wing of a butterfly, 
 and the tongue of a horsefly, magnified to dimensions twelve 
 feet long, still perfect in workmanship, exquisite in sym- 
 metry, and beautiful in finish ; while the finest cambric ap- 
 peared as a rude and rustic reticulation of reeds. In like 
 manner, no human composition can bear a very close exa- 
 mination ; but divine revelation, the more closely examined 
 the more excellent it appears : all is order, and beauty, and 
 harmony, and proportion, and symmetrj', and perfection. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 JflK AllCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. 
 
 Finding myself thus unavoidably engaged in controversy 
 with an elder of our church, a master of our Israel, I wish 
 to j)ay all due respect to his rank, his talents, his amiable 
 qualities, and his kind disposition. And I trust that his 
 candid mind and good sense will distinguish between the 
 respect which I wish to pay to his person and office, and 
 the freedom with which I shall treat his opinions and argu- 
 ments. They also shall be treated according to their own 
 merits and rank, and not according to those of their 
 author. 
 
 I heartily sympathise with his Grace's feelings and ex- 
 pressions of condemn.ation of the unworthy methods which 
 have been resorted to in opposing his pamphlet by abuse 
 instead of argument. The following are his Grace's words : 
 (Page 24 :) — ' Such being at least my own persuasion, and 
 the (hity of observing the Lord's-day being admitted, while 
 
THE SABBATH. 3 
 
 the only question is as to the grounds of the observance, it 
 might have been expected that this question might have 
 been discussed without acrimonious violence; especially 
 when it is considered how little (if any) censure was in- 
 curred by Dr. Paley, who decidedly denies the obligation 
 of the fourth commandment, in a work which is used as a 
 text-book in one of our universities. But some cause or 
 other, which did not operate in his case, has, in the present, 
 excited in several writers such a violence of opposition, as 
 has led them even to misrepresent my views. I regret this, 
 for the credit of the christian name ; though it is so far satis- 
 factory, as affording a presumption, that what I really have 
 maintained, is not open, even in the judgment of adver- 
 saries, to any valid objection."* 
 
 We have seen the evil of this ' acrimonious violence,"' and 
 ' violence of opposition,' when unaccompanied by argument. 
 It injures the cause in which it is used; it is an indication 
 of weakness, and gives his Grace plausible grounds for con- 
 verting it into a confession of his adversaries, that his opi- 
 nions are not open to any valid objection : — " The wrath 
 of man worketh not the righteousness of God." But while 
 I join his Grace in condemning such an empty, noisy, and 
 offensive mode of controversy, I must dissent from hi& con- 
 sidering ' the question as to the grounds of the observance,' 
 as a secondary consideration. The primary, and indeed 
 the entire, question rests upon the grounds, viz., whether 
 those grounds be divine or human authority. His Grace 
 places the observance on the authority of the church ; I 
 hope to place it upon divine authority. 
 
 With as little justice has his Grace been accused of 
 broaching new doctrines, and publishing novel opinions : 
 with the exception of one or two trifling arguments, there 
 is nothing new in his little book : the same oj/mions and 
 arguments ha\e been adopted and used, 1 lament to say it, 
 
SCRlPrUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 by eminent and learned divines. But because I thus de- 
 fend his Grace from the charge of novelty, do I mean to 
 represent him as faultless? By no means. His pamj)hlet 
 is calculated to do much mischief, and has already done 
 mischief. I regret that a publication on so momentous a 
 subject has been put forth with so little consideration. 
 He has given a meagre sketch of the arguments of others : 
 he has taken the question up hastily, and treated it super- 
 ficially. I say kastili/, — for he does not appear to have 
 carefully tried it by the standard of scripture ; during his 
 rapid review he does not seem to have opened the sacred 
 volume : he quotes erroneously, from defective memory : 
 he has not consulted the English Bible to determine the 
 Mords, or the Hebrew or Greek to ascertain the meaning. 
 
 I say also that he has treated it superficially. He has 
 not made the most of the question ; he has dressed up a 
 slender figure, with which it is difficult to grapple ; he has 
 not clothed it with the nervous muscles and sinews of 
 Heylyn and Bramhall. The strong arguments which he 
 has omitted I must borrow from his able allies, and lend to 
 his Grace, to give the subject sufficient bulk to aim at, and 
 sufficient strength to wrestle with. 
 
 I grieve to say, that his Grace's opinion has been sup- 
 ported by eminent men, whose names are inscribed upon 
 the polished pillars of our church, — Heylyn, Barrow, Tay- 
 lor, Bramhall, Baxter, Mede, giants in learning, who could 
 singly, and with ease, lift from the press the massy pon- 
 derous folio, which two hundred of our modern degenerate 
 j)ani})hloteer3 could not compile with their united exertions. 
 But those great geniuses were fond of great paradoxes. 
 ITiose giants were too much raised above the objects level 
 with common eyes. They could not look at any subject 
 without ])utting on their powerfully magnifying glasses, 
 which often gave them a false view of what our Creator 
 
THE SABBATH. 7 
 
 intended and enabled us all to see clearly with our naked 
 eyes. The weighty folio, however, counteracts its own evil ; 
 it slumbers on the retired shelves of the library ; like the 
 lion in his den in the distant forest, his roar is not heard in 
 the busy haunts of men ; but the buz of the light-winged 
 pamphlet is heard everywhere : it stings the labourer in the 
 field, and the mechanic at his bench. The poison which 
 lay innocuous in the laboratory of the philosopher, his Grace 
 has spread in the stalls and on the tables of the fairs and 
 markets. 
 
 His Grace is convinced of the soundness of his opinion, 
 but convinced — from want of sufficient examination — by 
 human authority more than divine revelation ; but still so 
 perfectly satisfied of the soundness of his conclusion, that 
 he rather doubts the sincerity of those who differ. He 
 hints, in the opening of his pamphlet, ' that some persons, 
 who do not really believe the Mosaic law relative to the 
 sabbath to be binding on Christians, yet think it right to 
 encourage, or tacitly connive at, that belief, from views of 
 expediency, for fear of unsettling the minds of the common 
 people.' He says he knows, as a fact, respecting several 
 persons, ' what is probably the case with many others^ that 
 they fully coincide with his views on the present question, 
 though they judge it not advisable, at present at least, to 
 come forward and avow their opinion.' 
 
 I trust that his Grace is mistaken as to the number of 
 such persons. And as to those who really do hold such 
 opinions, if they have not some secret misgiving as to the 
 soundness of their conclusion, they are guilty of a pious 
 fraud, such as they would condemn in the priests of another 
 persuasion. They should not do evil in the vain hope 
 that good may come. To such persons I submit the just 
 remark of Mede, to which I heartily subscribe : — ' I cannot 
 conceive that truth can be prejudiced by the discovery of 
 
y SCUIPl'URE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 truth ; but I fear that the maintenance thereof by fallacy 
 or falsehood, may not end with a blessing.' But as such 
 persons are not only open to, but anxious for, conviction 
 on the side of the question which I advocate, I beg to 
 dedicate to their attentive consideration my humble exer- 
 tions in the cause with which their better feelings sym- 
 pathize, but to which their warped judgment cannot as yet 
 assent. The Archbishop adds, ' But there are many, no 
 doubt, who maintain the same tenet from sincere conviction.' 
 I have no doubt that there are many such ; and, I will add, 
 many such, whose conviction is not the effect of prejudice, 
 but the result of a sober investigation of divine truth. But 
 why have not such persons boldly come forward to avow 
 and maintain their opinions, and to prove the truth of the 
 hope that is in them ? 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 THE QUESTION PROPOSED. 
 
 'I'hk question we are about to consider is, whether the law 
 of tlie sabbath established by divine authority be abrogated, 
 or still binding on Christians ; — whether the Lord's-day be a 
 new festival, resting solely upon the authority of the church, 
 without any reference to a sabbath, or ^\ hether the resur- 
 rection of the Lord, who made the sabbath, and who thus 
 consummated our salvation, be not superadded as a new 
 reason for confirming and enforcing that observance. 
 
 His (irace's motives, however mistaken, are good. His 
 object is to promote the religious observance of the Lord's- 
 day ; and he is ' convinced that the most effectual, as well 
 
THE SABBATH. 9 
 
 as the only justifiable, means for accomplishing tliis object, 
 will be found in the placing of this duty on its true founda- 
 tion.' In this conviction I most heartily concur, because I 
 am firmly persuaded that the true foundation will prove 
 to be A ROCK, and not the shifting bed of sand upon which 
 his Grace endeavours to place it. 
 
 The following is the foundation, on which he proposes to 
 place it. Page 7, he states, as one of his two considera- 
 tions, either of which would alone be sufficient to show that 
 the apprehensions of those who fear that, on his principles, 
 the Lord's-day would be left without support, are ground- 
 less ; that ' the power of the church, bestowed by Christ 
 himself, would alone (even independent of apostolic ex- 
 ample and ancient usage) be amply sufficient to sanction 
 and enforce the observance.' 
 
 And does his Grace, indeed, know so little of human 
 nature, as to suppose that the authority of the church is 
 equally binding on the conscience of man with the divine 
 authority and command ? I beg of his Grace to submit 
 this question to the test of his own experience. Let him 
 look out amongst his religious friends for some strictly 
 pious and conscientious observers of the sabbath on the 
 score of obedience to the divine command. Let him ask 
 them, without giving time for inquiry, what are the days of 
 fasting and abstinence ordered by the church ? The chance 
 is, that they do not know them. Let him farther examine 
 them, whether before they fix a day for a feast they consult 
 the Calendar, lest, unwittingly, they might happen upon a 
 day of fasting and abstinence. Let him ask the religious 
 ladies of his acquaintance, who pay a demi-religious de- 
 ference to Saturday evening, for fear of encroaching upon 
 Sunday, whether, previous to issuing invitations for an even- 
 ing party, — a ball or assembly, a scene of festive merri- 
 ment, — they consult the Calendar, lest haply they might 
 
10 SCRIll'URE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 pitch upon the vigil of a saint, which is a fast and to 
 he solemnly ohserved ? I trust, for the present, to the 
 result of his Grace's experiments in these particulars, for 
 showing the different kinds of obedience which conscien- 
 tious persons pay to what they conceive to be a divine 
 command, and what they consider to rest upon the authority 
 of the church. 
 
 Short as is his Grace's pamphlet, the arguments cursorily 
 alluded to, and the assertions hastily made, involve ques- 
 tions of great magnitude and importance. And the argu- 
 ments used by the able divines who support the same 
 opinions, take in a wide range of scriptural references. 
 And, as I proceed, I find the question of the sabbath so 
 intimately connected and interwoven with several other 
 most important particulars of our holy faith, that they can- 
 not be separated from them, or considered independent of 
 them ; but several of these are of so interesting a character, 
 that they cannot be investigated without profit. On all 
 these accounts, I shall be obliged to pursue the discussion 
 to a greater length than I at first intended. 
 
 Previous to entering upon the subject, I wish, for the 
 sake of obviating inconvenient interruptions, to give a 
 separate consideration to some topics, the understanding of 
 which may be necessary in some parts of the discussion. 
 
 In the first place, we must understand the Jewish divi- 
 sions of time, and their several feasts or festivals, so far as 
 they may be connected with the question of the sabbath. 
 And, in the second place, it will be useful to consider the 
 modes of communication between God and man in the 
 early ages of the world, and the probability, thence arising, 
 of a continued revelation, and of the existence of laws be- 
 fore the time of Moses. 
 
THE SABBATH. 11 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 DIVISIONS OF TIME, AND FESTIVALS OF THE ISRAELITES- 
 
 Moses, in his history of the earlier ages, before his own 
 time, uses the Egyptian or solar year of twelve months of 
 thirty days. Subsequently to his time, when we have ac- 
 counts of their form of year from other sources, the Egyp- 
 tians intercalated five days at the end of the last or twelfth 
 month, making it thirty-five days ; and, to make up for the 
 additional six hours over and above the three hundred and 
 sixty-five days, which they supposed to elapse in the actual 
 year between the precise points of the equinoxes, they 
 added an additional month every hundred and twenty years. 
 But, at the time of Moses, they seem not to have made 
 their intercalation by five days at the end of each year, but 
 to have waited until the sixth year, when the excess came 
 to a whole month. This appears from the account given 
 by Moses of the year at the time of the deluge, which 
 is the only year of which we have a particular account 
 throughout, and the only year of which we require to 
 know the length. That year appears not to have had any 
 intercalation, but to have consisted of twelve months of 
 thirty days, or three hundred and sixty days. Moses, in 
 his history, uses months of thirty days, as appears clearly, 
 from his account of the flood, particularly from Gen. vii. 1 1, 
 viii. 4, compared with vii. 24, and viii. 3, in which five 
 months and a hundred and fifty days are stated as the same 
 period of time, which gives thirty days to each month. 
 
 In a subsequent period, the Jews adopted lunar months ; 
 and, as the revolution of tlie moon is about twenty-nine days 
 
12 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 and twelve hours, they had months alternately of twenty-nine 
 and thirty days, and every third year intercalated a thir- 
 teenth month, to keep the vernal equinox, and, conse- 
 quently, the Passover, nearly at the same time of the year. 
 They began their month, not on the actual day of the con- 
 junction of the sun and moon, but on the day of the appear- 
 ance of the new moon, when was the feast of the new moon 
 and proclamation made by the blowing of a trumpet : 
 " Blow up the trumpet in the new moon." (Ps. Ixxxi. J3.) 
 
 The civil year of the Jews began in autumn at the month 
 Tisri, generally answering to our September. But their sacred 
 year, by which their festivals, assemblies, and other religious 
 acts were regulated, began in spring, at the month Nisan, 
 or our March, sometimes including a part of April, accord- 
 ing to the course of the year. The beginning of the year 
 was changed for religious purposes: (Exod. xii. 2:) " This 
 month shall be unto you the beginning of months ; it shall 
 be the first month of the year to you." In the follow- 
 ing argument we shall only have to deal with the months in 
 Moses' time of thirty days. 
 
 The Israelites reckoned by weeks, as a memorial of the 
 creation of the world, and had also weeks of seven years 
 each, the last of which was the sabbatical year, or year of 
 rest to the ground. They had also weeks of seven times 
 seven years, terminated by the year of Jubilee. 
 
 ITie Hebrews began their day in the evening from sun- 
 set, or six o'clock, there not being much inequality in the 
 length of days and nights in that latitude. " From even 
 unto even shall ye celebrate your sabbath." (Lev. xxiii. 32.) 
 They had no word to express the whole twenty-four hours 
 (like the nuchthemeron of the Greeks.) The word " day" 
 with them, as with us, was ambiguous. To ex])ress the 
 whole twenty-four hours, they used the words " evening 
 and morning," as in (jien. i,, mentioning the evening first. 
 
THE SABBATH. 13 
 
 The Babylonians reckoned their days from sun-rising; 
 Europeans from midnight; astronomers from noon. 
 
 The sacred writers of the New Testament generally 
 divide the day and night into twelve unequal hours. The 
 sixth hour is always noon throughout the year ; the twelfth 
 hour is the last hour of the day ; and in summer the hours 
 of the day were longer than those at night, or the hours of 
 the day in winter, as is obvious. See Matt. xx. 1, .3, 5, 6, 8, 
 12 ; John xi. 9. 
 
 After the Jews were in subjection to the Greeks, and 
 subsequently to the Romans, they were obliged to conform 
 to the customs of their masters to maintain order, by be- 
 ginning their days at midnight, or in the morning, and by 
 distributing the day and night (when unequal) into twelve 
 unequal hours. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 FEAST OF THE PASSOVER. 
 
 The Jewish feasts began at evening. Thus, at the institu- 
 tion of the Passover, (Exod. xii. 6,) it is said, " Ye shall keep 
 it [the lamb] up imtil the fourteenth day of the same month, 
 and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall 
 kill it in the evening." The literal meaning of the Hebrew 
 expression is inter duas vesperas, between the two even- 
 ings ; that is, between the declining and setting of the sun. 
 The passover was to be killed in this space of time between 
 the declining of the sun on the fourteenth, and its setting, 
 which was the commencement of the fifteenth. And it was 
 to be eaten on the fifteenth ; as it was in Egypt, where it 
 
14 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 was eaten at midnight previous to their going out of Egypt. 
 And it was on the fifteenth they came out of Egypt. 
 (Numb, xxxiii. 3.) " And they departed from llameses in the 
 first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month, on the 
 morrow after the passover, the children of Israel went out," 
 &c. On the fourteenth, also, they were to put away leaven 
 out of their houses, and to eat unleavened bread in the 
 evening; that is, on the commencement of the fifteenth. 
 Therefore the day of the Passover was the same day with 
 the first day of unleavened bread. The feast of unleavened 
 bread lasted seven days ; the first was a holy convocation, 
 and the seventh was a holy convocation : no manner of 
 work was to be done in them. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 FEAST OF PENTECOST. 
 
 The feast of Pentecost was celebrated on the fiftieth day 
 after the Passover, in memory of the law given to Moses 
 on Mount Sinai fifty days after the departure out of Egypt. 
 They reckoned seven weeks from the Passover to Pen- 
 tecost, beginning at the day after the Passover. The He- 
 brews called it the Feast of Weeks ; the Christians call it 
 " Pentecost," from a Greek word, which signifies " the 
 
 fiftieth day," TreyrrfKoairrt]. 
 
 The scriptures do not anywhere inform us that this feast 
 was kept in remembrance of the giving out of the law. It 
 was, however, generally admitted, and all the commentators 
 take it for granted. J Jut 1 do not wish to found lui argu- 
 ment upon anything that is not proved. VVc are, therefore, 
 
THE SABBATH. 15 
 
 to prove that the giving out of the law vv^as on the fiftieth 
 day from the first passover, or departure out of Egypt. 
 They departed on the fifteenth day of the first month. 
 Reckoning from the sixteenth to the end of the second 
 month, were forty-five days ; and on the first day of the 
 third month, (Exod. xix. 1,) that is, on the forty-sixth day, 
 they came to the wilderness of Sinai. On the next day, 
 the forty-seventh, occurred the transactions recorded Exod. 
 xix. 3 — 9; and on the forty-eighth, ver. 10, 11. "The 
 Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify 
 them to-day, (forty-eighth,) and to-morrow, (forty-ninth,) and 
 let them wash their clothes, and he ready against the third 
 day, (the fiftieth,) for the third day the Lord will come 
 down in the sight of all the people on Mount Sinai." This 
 brings the giving out of the law to the fiftieth day fi'om the 
 departure out of Egypt. 
 
 That the day of Pentecost agrees exactly with this, ap- 
 pears fi'om its institution: (Lev. xxiii. 15:) "Ye shall 
 count unto you fi-om the morrow after the sabbath, from 
 the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering ; 
 seven sabbaths [weeks] shall be complete : even unto the 
 morrow after the seventh sabbath [week] shall ye number 
 fifty days : and ye shall offer a new meat-offering unto the 
 Lord." The sabbath here mentioned is not the weekly 
 sabbath, but the day of the Passover, or first day of un- 
 leavened bread, which was always a sabbath. (Exod. xii. 16.) 
 This was the 15th day of the month, and the morrow from 
 whence they were to commence reckoning was the 16th, 
 and the seven weeks made forty-nine days, and the day 
 after the seventh week was the fiftieth, or the day of Pen- 
 tecost. 
 
 In verse 15, "seven sabbaths" ought to be translated 
 " seven weeks." (Waterland.) The word is " sabbata," 
 
16 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 which signifies both rreeks and sabbaths: (Pole:) and in 
 Deut. xvi. 9, in our translation, it is " seven weeks ;" and 
 in Numb, xxviii. 26, speaking of the same feast, the ex- 
 pression is, " after your weeks be out." This is manifest ; 
 for the passover, or first day of unleavened bread, might be 
 on any day of the week, and it would have been impossible 
 to reckon fifty days from that day to the morrow after the 
 seventh sabbath. 
 
 On the morrow after this sabbath, or passover, or first 
 day of unleavened bread, the first fruits were to be waved : 
 (See Lev. xxiii. 11, 12:) and along with the first fruits 
 " an he lamb without blemish, of the first year, for a 
 burnt-offering unto the Lord."" 'Diese first fruits were 
 barley, which was ripe at the Passover, for (Exod. 
 ix. 31 ) at the Passover, in Egypt, " the barley was in the 
 ear." (32) " But the wheat and the rye were not smitten, 
 for they were not grown up," or as the words may be better 
 translated, " they were not yet eared." ( Bochart.) Barley, 
 in Egypt, was cut early in April, wheat in May, — more ex- 
 actly to the same time in every year, than in our variable 
 climate. 
 
 On the morrow after the seventh week, the fiftieth day, 
 or day of Pentecost, they offered the first fruits of the 
 wheat harvest, — two wave loaves oi fine flour, baken with 
 leaven. And seven lambs, without blemish, of the first 
 year; and one young bullock and two rams; and on the 
 same day one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two 
 lambs of the first year for a peace offering. (Lev. xxiii. 
 17 — 19.) It is remarkable that the first fruits of barley 
 offered at the ])assover were in the sheaf, imperfect ; the 
 first fruits of wheat, at Pentecost, in loaves, of the finest 
 fiour, baken ivith leaven, in their most perfect form : these 
 particulars had their meaning. 
 
THE SABBATH. 17 
 
 The day of Pentecost was to be "a holy convocation, 
 and no servile work was to be done therein;" — that is, it 
 was to be a sabbath, (ver. 21.) * 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 FEAST OF TABERNACLES AND ATONEMENT. 
 
 On the first day of the seventh month was " the Memo- 
 rial of blowing of trumpets." It was to be a sabbath, and 
 
 • The following remark not being immediately connected with 
 the above, I add it in a note. The Jews reckoned their weekly 
 sabbaths from the Passover to Pentecost^ from the sabbath of the 
 Passover, or of unleavened bread, which they called the first. Thus 
 they said, " the second after the first," " the third after the first," 
 and so on until Pentecost. This explains that difficult passage in 
 St. Luke vi. i. " the second sabbath after the first :" ^^vTepoirpunov, the 
 proper name of that sabbath. But why was the Evangelist so par- 
 ticular in marking the precise sabbath on which this occurrence 
 took place, which he has not done in any similar case ? Because 
 it was so near the Passover; and by Lev. xxiii. 14, they were for- 
 bidden to eat either bread, or parched corn, or green ears, until the 
 first fruits hatl been presented, which was on the morrow after the 
 first sabbath, and, consequently, before this second sabbath. They 
 were allowed to pluck and eat the ears of corn as they passed 
 through their neighbour's field, by Deut. xxiii. 25. And the Evan- 
 gelist shows, that the only time when it would have been unlawful, 
 was past. And therefore, that the ojj/t/ ground of tJie Jews accusing 
 them of acting unlawfully, was because they had done what would 
 have been perfectly lawful on any other day, on the sabbath. Siu;h 
 minute proprieties and harmonious coincidences between sacred 
 writers, at such an interval of time, and not discovered, perhaps, 
 until long after, are brilliant proofs of the sterling truth of scrip- 
 ture, dictated to such a variety of writers by the same Spirit of 
 Wisdom, with whom a thousand years are as one day, and who 
 is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 
 
 C 
 
18 SCllIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 a holy convocation, and no work to be done. (Lev. xxiii. 
 24 & 25.) On the tenth day of the same month was the " day 
 of atonement," which also was a sabbath of the same kind, 
 (ver. 27 & 28.) And on the fifteenth day of the same seventh 
 month was the feast of tabernacles, (ver. 34.) On the 
 first day, and on the eighth day, was to be a sabbath, and a 
 holy convocation, and no servile work to be done. This 
 eighth day is called (John vii. .37) the last or great day 
 of the feast. 
 
 The feast of tabernacles was instituted in memory of 
 the Israelites dwelling in tabernacles, or booths, in the wil- 
 derness, (ver. 40.) " And ye shall take you on the first 
 day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and 
 the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook. And 
 ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days." 
 And (ver. 42) " Ye shall dwell in booths seven days ; all 
 that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths." 
 
 They remained a whole year in the wilderness of Sinai, 
 until the passover of the second year, — and afterwards, 
 until the twentieth day of the second month. Therefore 
 they were thirteen months in the wilderness from the time 
 they passed the Red Sea, All that time they dwelt in 
 booths, and the feast of tabernacles, kept in remembrance 
 of that period, was kept exactly in the middle of it, viz. on 
 the fifteenth day of the seventh month to the twenty-third 
 day. 
 
 There were seven sabbaths attending these feasts ; two 
 at the Passover, one at Pentecost, one on the blowing 
 of trumpets, one on the day of atonement, and two at the 
 feast of tabernacles. 
 
IHK SABIJATII, 19 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 ON THE EARLY MODES OF COMMITNICATION BETWEEN GOD 
 AND MAN. 
 
 " In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with 
 God, and the Word was God. All things were made by 
 him, and without him was not anything made that was 
 made.* In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 
 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that 
 Cometh Into the world. He was in the world, and the 
 world was made by him, and the v/orld knew him not." 
 
 It appears from th« above passage, that our adorable 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was not only the Maker of 
 the world and of man, but also the organ of communication 
 with him from the very beginning. It is with reference 
 to us, and to his being the organ of communication with us, 
 that he is emphatically called " The Word ;" and that name 
 was given to him from the beginning, and before he was 
 made flesh. " His life was the light :" it was he that first 
 said, " Let there be light." He is also " the light of men." 
 He it is, who " lighteth every man that cometh into the 
 world." How emphatically is it expressed, not only that 
 " all things were made by him," but also that " without 
 him was not anything made that was made !" Who can 
 doubt, that it was the same divine person, who made the 
 world, who also held with man the first communication of 
 which we read ? See the close connexion of the two sub- 
 
 * Creation is also attributed to him. 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Eph. iii. 9 ; 
 Col. i. 16, 17 ; Hcb. i. 2; Rev. iv. 11. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 SCniPTURF. ACCOUNT OF 
 
 jects in Gen. i. 20, 27 : — " And 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, ^c. So 
 God created man in his own image, in the image of God 
 created he him ; male and female created he thorn." 
 
 28. " And God blessed them, and God said unto them, 
 Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and 
 subdue it : and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and 
 over the fowl of the air, and over eveiy living thing that 
 moveth upon the earth. 
 
 29, 30. " And God said. Behold, I have given you every 
 herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, 
 and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding 
 seed, to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of 
 the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything 
 that creepeth upon the earth, I have given every green herb 
 for meat : and it was so." 
 
 Who can doubt that it was the same divine Person who, 
 in verses 26 and 27, created man, and passed the decree for 
 giving him the dominion over the earth, and who, in the 
 28th verse, did actually, and personally, and verbally give 
 it, and who, in the 29th and OOth verses, did declare to 
 them that it was He who had given it ? 
 
 In the same manner, in Gen. ii. 2, 3, can it be doubted 
 that it was the same Person who " rested on the seventh 
 day from all his work which he had made" and who 
 " blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in 
 it He had rested from all his work, which God had created 
 and made ?" And how could he have blessed the seventh 
 day and sanctified it, w ithout making a communication to 
 man to that effect, and issuing his commands that he and 
 his posterity should on that account keep it holy ? 
 
 In like manner, verses 8, 9 : — " And the Lord God j)lanted 
 
THE SABBATH. 21 
 
 a garden eastward in Eden : and there he put the man 
 whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the 
 Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight 
 and good tor food ; and the tree of life also in the midst 
 of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." 
 Who did all this but He, without whom " was not anything 
 made that was made ?" And must it not have been the 
 same person who, in verse 15, " took the man, and put him 
 into the Garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it ?" and 
 who, in the 16th and J 7th, " commanded the man, saying, 
 Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat ; but of 
 the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not 
 eat of it ; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt 
 surely die." And in verse 19, it is clear that the same 
 Person who made the beasts and the fowls, also brought 
 them to Adam, and desired him to give names to them ; 
 and for this purpose taught him the use of language, and 
 the knowledge of their natures, for every name Adam gave 
 contained the essence and definition of their natures. 
 
 It also follows that, as the same Person, who made man, 
 placed him in the garden, and gave him the command not 
 to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so likewise 
 the same Person, who gave that command, held the long 
 communication with him after the fall, in which he said, 
 " Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof / commanded thee 
 that thou shouldest not eat ?" 
 
 From the above, it a})pears that until the fall, and imme- 
 diately after the fall, communications with man were held 
 directly face to face by the Divine Word. How long man 
 continued in a state of innocence v/e know not ; the account 
 of those transactions is very brief, and gives only what it 
 concerns us to know. It might have been a long time, and 
 during that time it is probable that the same communica- 
 tions, of whicli the above are a specimen, were constantly 
 
22 SCRn»TUl{K ACCOUNT OF 
 
 carried on, and that from thence man derived all his know- 
 ledge of every kind, but particularly his knowledge of, and 
 duty to, his Creator. After the fall, the -s-isible personal 
 presence of God was withdrawn; but he still communicated 
 with man, and the mode of communication was established, 
 and carried on by the same Divine W ord, which I now 
 proceed to show; and beg to direct my reader's attention 
 to the three last verses of the third chapter of Genesis, 
 spoken by the same Divine Word. These verses were un- 
 fortunately misunderstood by our translators, and the true 
 sense and meaning greatly obscured. The translation of 
 our Bible, considering the time at which it was made, is a 
 noble monument of the learning of the reformers of the 
 Church of England. But during the dark ages of Popery, 
 the Bible had been a sealed book, and had not been 
 subjected to the same general, constant, and searching 
 investigation, as it has been since the Reformation. Hence 
 gome inaccuracies and mistakes were nnavoidable. And the 
 passage now before us is one of those which require review 
 and correction. And I earnestly request our Hebrew pro- 
 fessors and scholars to direct their attention to it, and 
 endeavour fully to elucidate it. The interpretation which 
 I am about to give, is collected from different connnen- 
 tators. 
 
 Our translation represents a guard being placed to the 
 east of the Garden of Eden, as if to keep man from the tree 
 of life ; which appears to me to be directly oj)posite to the 
 true meaning. Pole shows that the word translated " And 
 now," (verse 2'J,) is never used in Hebrew, unless in cases 
 where repentance is proposed, as in Deut. x. 12 : — " And 
 now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, 
 but to fear the Lord thy (iod, to walk in all his ways, and 
 to love him, and to serve the Lord tby (iod with all thy 
 lieart, and all thy boul," ivc. 
 
THE SABBATH, 23 
 
 If this be the true meaning of the word translated " and 
 now," we may conclude that the remainder of these verses 
 is intended to be answerable to the beginning, and to point 
 out the way of man's repentance and conversion. It is said 
 by some commentators, that the word translated " lest," 
 and for which the Septuagint gives /^>j7rorc, has the same 
 meaning which that Greek word also has, answering to the 
 Latin word " fortasse," and signifying a likelihood or proba- 
 bility of an event happening. So that the meaning of the 
 sentence would be this : — " Although man is thus fallen by 
 eating of the forbidden tree, yet it may, and most* likely 
 will come to pass, that he will hereafter stretch forth his 
 hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for 
 ever." And I think we shall find that the action recorded 
 in the last verse is calculated to carry into practice the 
 benign intentions thus expressed. 
 
 Let us now consider what he placed at the east of the 
 Garden of Eden, and for what purpose. " He placed che- 
 rubim." Now I request the reader here to peruse carefully 
 the first and tenth chapters of Ezekiel, and he will find that 
 there was a close affinity between the divine presence and 
 the glory of the Lord, and the cherubim. This appears 
 also from other parts of scripture. On this account, che- 
 rubim were placed at each end of the mercy-seat, over the 
 ark of the covenant, upon which the symbol of the divine 
 presence descended. Hence Jehovah was called " the 
 Lord of Hosts, who dwelletk hettreen the cheridnms," as in 
 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 2 Kings xix. 15 ; I Chron. xiii. 
 6; Ps. Ixxx. 1 ; Ps. xcix. L And in Ps. xviii. 10, 11, the 
 word " cherub" is actually put to represent " the cloud his 
 chariot.*" The angels are frequently called the chariots of 
 
 * The English language does not supply words capable of ex- 
 pressing such a kind of contingency as is compatible with the fore- 
 knowledge of the Deity, 
 
24 SCIUITUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Jehovah, and so also are the clouds ; and in Ezekiel the 
 cherubim are represented with wheels for this very reason. 
 The Arabians used to call a ship of burden " cherub." And 
 among the four animals in Ezek. i. 10 & 14, the ox alone is 
 said to have the face of a cherub, because he alone was a beast 
 of burden. Ezek. iii. 12, 13; "Then the Spirit took me up, 
 and I heard behind me a voice of a great rushing,* saying, 
 Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place. I heard 
 also the noise of the wings of the living creatures, that touched 
 one another, and the noise of the wheels over against them, 
 and a noise of a great rushing." Hence we may fairly con- 
 clude, that by the cherubims mentioned in the passages under 
 our consideration, was meant the cloudy symbol of the divine 
 presence; which, as I shall show below, usually, if not al- 
 ways, assumed the appearance of fire when communications 
 were given from it. 
 
 The word translated " a flaming sword," literally signifies 
 " a sword of flame," af lambent coruscation of flame or fire, 
 and is exactly similar to ^Xoyt irvpoc, (Acts vii. 30,) the 
 flame of fire in the bush, which Moses saw, and which was 
 the symbol of the divine presence. Therefore we may con- 
 clude that it was the symbol of the divine presence which 
 was placed at the east of the Garden of Eden. And for 
 what purpose was it placed there ? Our translation says, 
 " To keep the way of the tree of hfe." " To keep," here, 
 does not so much mean ' to guard,' as to ' direct to.' And 
 
 • Compare this with the account in Acts ii. '2, of the descent of 
 the Spirit on the day of Pentecost—" A sound from heaven, as of a 
 rushing mighty wind." 
 
 f The word rendered " turned every way," was calculated to re- 
 present the lambent motion of fire ; and the Hebrew word " isheken," 
 which signifies " placed," in this passage, is the very word from 
 which the " skekinuh," or divine glory, or symbol of the divine pre- 
 sence, is derived. 
 
THE SABBATH. 25 
 
 SO the purpose of the divine presence was gradually to 
 guide men to the tree of life. 
 
 That such a divine presence was there placed, as a constant 
 mode of communication with man, and there continued, 
 appears from several passages. Cain and Abel were not 
 born until after their expulsion from Paradise ; and it is 
 probable that they were near a hundred years old, when 
 Cain murdered Abel, for Adam was a hundred years old 
 when Seth was born ; and Seth, as his name imports, was 
 given in place of Abel. (Gen. iv. 25.) 
 
 It is evident that there was a particular place where the 
 Lord was supposed to be ; for Cain and Abel both brought 
 offerings to the Lord. Cain, a self-righteous offering ; 
 Abel, a sin-offering. That this place was the shekinah or 
 divine glory, appears from Abefs offering being " accepted." 
 How was it accepted ? The word which signifies " had re- 
 spect" unto his offering, signifies also " turned to ashes," 
 and is the same word used in Judges vi. 21, when the angel 
 of the Lord touched the sacrifice of Gideon, and fire rose 
 out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unlea- 
 vened cakes. See also Lev. ix. 24. " And there came a 
 fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the 
 altar the burnt-offering and the fat, which, when all the 
 people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces." Also 
 1 Chron. xxi. 26, and 2 Chron. vii. I. It appears, there- 
 fore, that at the time of the transaction here recorded, the 
 cloud assumed the appearance of fire, and Abel's offering 
 was accepted by fire coming out from the presence of the 
 Lord, and consuming it. 
 
 " And the Lord said unto Cain." Here is further proof 
 of the communication. "^Iliat they knew where the Lord 
 was, and constantly conversed with him, appears also from 
 the words of Cain, verse 14 : " From thy face shall I be 
 
26 
 
 SCIlll'TUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 hid :" because he was to ])e banished from that place. And 
 Cain's lamentation shows that the divine appearance was 
 not a matter of rare occurrence, but a constant and abiding 
 source of instruction and comfort, the removal from whence 
 was a cause of bitter grief even to the guilty, blood-stained 
 Cain. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord : 
 the very words by which the symbol of the divine presence 
 was afterwards expressed in many passages. 
 
 It is probable that this mode of communication lasted 
 through many ages, and was the mode of communicating 
 God's will to man, and the source of revelation from which 
 flowed the laws and commandments, which the patriarchs 
 undoubtedly had before the time of Moses, — the source of 
 the knowledge imparted in the early ages to mankind, and 
 carried with them in their dispersion, — never entirely ob- 
 scured, — which we erroneously call the law and the light of 
 nature. This glory illumined the ark and gave light and 
 consolation during the dismal night of the flood ; and this, 
 perhaps, it was, which appeared to Jacob, with the angels 
 of God ascending and descending on it, and the Lord 
 standing above it. 
 
 The Lord communicated, also, in other ways with Abra- 
 ham and his descendants in the form of angels and men. 
 And where no particular mode is mentioned, it is probable 
 that the comnmnication was from the pillar of a cloud and 
 of fire. This also appeared to Moses, (Exod. iii. 2,) 
 when he kept the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, at Horeb. 
 And it seems that he was ac(j[uainted with it ; for the only 
 symptom of surprise he shows is, that the bush (the 
 emblem of Israel at that time) was not burnt. The same 
 divine glory led the Israelites out of Egypt, and through 
 the wilderness, and appeared with sui)cr-enunout splendour 
 and mat'uiticcnce on .Sinai. This tilled X\\v talx'iuacle. 
 
THE SABBATH. 27 
 
 and afterwards the temple of Solomon, and dwelt upon the 
 mercy-seat.* This glory or divine presence was withdrawn 
 as a punishment, (1 Sam. iv. 21,) as Cain for a like reason 
 was banished from it. This showed the inferiority of the 
 second temple. It appeared again under the New Testa- 
 ment. It appeared to the shepherds, (Luke ii. 9,) accom- 
 panied by a multitude of the heavenly host. It appeared 
 also at the transfiguration, and once more enveloped in light 
 him who dwelt in it at the east of Eden, and in the wilder- 
 ness. To this appearance St. Peter alludes, (2 Pet. i. 17,) 
 " when there came such a voice to him from the excellent 
 glory, — when we were with him in the mount." This was 
 the cloud which received our Lord in his ascent to heaven. 
 This also appeared to St. Paul at his conversion ; and from 
 thence the Lord spoke to him. We shall have occasion to 
 observe, as we go on, that these communications and these 
 appearances, often took place on the sabbath, so far as we 
 have any means of discriminating the precise day. 
 
 Having proved above, that before the fall of man, and at 
 that time, as well as immediately after, the Divine Word 
 was the medium of communication with man, we might 
 conclude, a fortiori, that he continued the same gracious 
 office after the fall, when he had undertaken man's redemp- 
 tion and the government of his mediatorial kingdom. How- 
 ever valid and legitimate such conclusion migiit be, we are 
 not left to depend on it, but have more particular proof. 
 Therefore, in the few remaining pages, which I shall dedi- 
 cate to this topic of the early mode of communication 
 
 * See also Exod. xxiv. 16, 17 ; xxxiii. li, [5 ; xl. 34. Lev. ix. 6. 
 Num. xiv. 10,21; xvi. 19, 1-2. 1 Kings viii. 11. 2 Chroii. v. 1 1. ; 
 vii. 1, 2, 3. Isa. vi. 1, &c ; xxxv. 2 ; xl. 5; Iviii. 8; Ix. 1. 
 Ezek. i. 28; iii. 23 ; xi. 23 ; xl. IS ; xliii. 15; xliv. l. I's. civ, 31. 
 Rom. ix. t. 
 
28 SCRIl'TUUF, ACCOUNT Or 
 
 between God and man, I shall notice such proofs, as show 
 tiiat the person mentioned is the eternal Son of God. 
 
 My readers will please to recollect, that in the Old Tes- 
 tament, whenever the word Lord is in our translation 
 printed in capital letters, the word in the original is " Jeho- 
 vah." And as the word Lord has many, and, of course, 
 ambiguous meanings, it is to be wished that our translators 
 had, for the sake of distinction, used this proper name of 
 God ; as I shall do in the remainder of this topic in any 
 quotations I shall have to make. 
 
 In what mode communications were made to Noah, we 
 are not informed ; and therefore it is probable that the 
 symbol of the divine presence continued to be used. But as 
 to the divine Person who communicated with him, and through 
 him, for a hundred years to the corrupt antediluvian gene- 
 ration, we can have no doubt, as we are expressly informed 
 by St Peter,* (1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, 20,) that it was Christ. 
 
 With Abraham, there were different modes of communi- 
 cation, sometimes in visions, sometimes by angels, either in 
 angelic or inhuman form. But it appears that in many, if not 
 in all the cases, our blessed Saviour was the person who 
 communicated with him. For he himself says, that " Abra- 
 ham saw his day, and was glad." In Gen. xv. 1, " After 
 these things, the Word of Jehovah came unto Abram in 
 a vision, saying. Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, and 
 thy exceeding gi-eat reward." And again, (verse 4,) " The 
 
 * As that text of St. Peter is often niisuiulcrstood by common 
 readers, I give the following as its true sense and meaning, by 
 merely varying the position of the words, which in our translation 
 adhere too closely to the order in the Greek. " Christ piit to death 
 in the flesh, but (luickened in tlie spirit, in which, in the days ol' 
 Noah, he went and preached, wliilc tlic ark was a preparing, to 
 those, who were at that time disobedient, and who now are among 
 the spirits in prison." 
 
THE SABBATH. 29 
 
 Word of Jehovah came unto him ;" and, (in verse 7,) " said 
 unto him, I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the 
 Chaldees, and gave thee this land to inherit it." Therefore 
 it was the Word of Jehovah that led him out of Chaldea, 
 and gave him the land of Canaan. And in Gen. xvi. 7, 
 when Hagar fled fi-om Sarah, " The angel of Jehovah found 
 her in the wilderness. And the angel of Jehovah said unto 
 her, / will multiply thy seed. And she called the name of 
 Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou God seest me." This 
 person, then, was the angel of Jehovah, and Jehovah him- 
 self. 
 
 And in Gen. xviii. 1, " Jehovah appeared unto him in 
 the plains of Mamre : and lo ! three men stood beside him." 
 One of those three was Jehovah in human form ; for, (verse 
 22,) " the men turned their faces from thence, and went 
 toward Sodom ;" {two only, as appears, xix. 1 ;) " but Abra- 
 ham stood yet before Jehovah." And the two who went to 
 Sodom, say, (xix. 13,) " Jehovah has sent us to destroy it." 
 And when Abraham (Gen. xxii. 2) was about to offer up 
 his son, " the angel of Jehovah," preventing him, said, " I 
 know that thou fearest God^ seeing thou hast not withheld 
 thy son, thine only son, from me" And the angel of Jeho- 
 vah called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 
 and" said, " By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah." But 
 the angel of Jehovah, and Jehovah himself, were one and the 
 same, as appears from xxiv. 7 : " Jehovah the God of 
 heaven, which took me fi*om my father's house, and from 
 the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that 
 sware unto me," &c. 
 
 AndatSinai, (Exod.xxiii.20,&c.) the Lords says, " Behold 
 I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to 
 bring thee into the place whicb I have prepared. Beware 
 of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not, for he will not 
 pardon your traji-yressmis, for my name is in him : 
 
30 scRiprrRE account of 
 
 for mine angel shall t^o before you and / will out them off. 
 And ye shall serve Jehovah your God, and he shall bless 
 thy bread and thy water, and / will take sickness away from 
 the midst of thee." This angel, therefore, having the power 
 of pardoning sin, and the divine name being in him, must 
 be Jehovah, as appears also from the constant interchange 
 of person so remarkable in the above quotations. And in 
 the remainder of this chapter, the first person is used, 
 and God applies to himself what he had before applied to 
 the angel. And in Exod. xxxiii. 14, he says, "J/y presence 
 shall go with thee ;" that is, the cloud and the glory. And 
 Isaiah (Ixiii. 9) says, " In all their affliction he was afflicted, 
 and the angel of his presence saved them : in his love and in 
 his pity he redeemed them : and he bare them, and carried 
 them all the days of old." 
 
 From the above passages it appears that the word of 
 Jehovah and the angel of Jehovah are the same with Jeho- 
 vah himself. And it appears from other passages of scrip- 
 ture, that the person here spoken of, who was to lead them 
 to the promised land, was Christ. St. Paul, speaking of 
 the Israelites in the wilderness, ( 1 Cor. x. 4, ) says, " For 
 they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and 
 that Rock was Christ;" and, (verse 9,) "Neither let us 
 tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were 
 destroyed of serpents." In Hebrews, (xi. 24, 26,) also, it is 
 said, that Moses, by faith, " refused to be called the son of 
 Pharaoh's daughter, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater 
 riches than the treasures of Egypt."" And Stephen, (Acts 
 vii. 88,) speaking of Moses, says, " This is he that was in 
 the church in the wilderness with the migel which spake to 
 him in the Mount Sinai." What is here said of the angel, in 
 Exodus is said of God. It appears also from many other 
 passages of Scripture, tliat the angel of Jehovah is Jehovah 
 himself. Compare Numbers xxii. 8;j, with '38; Judges ii. 
 
THE SABBATH. 31 
 
 1 ; also vi. verses 11, 20, 21, 22, compared with 14, 16, 28; 
 also xiii. 21 first verses, compared with the 22nd and 
 23rd. 
 
 It is time now at length to come to the question. But 
 many of my readers will not object, previous to entering 
 into the strife of controversy, however necessary, to have 
 had their minds calmed by divine contemplations, cal- 
 culated to show forth the glory of the Saviour, so clearly 
 manifested in the above passages of Scripture. 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 WHETHER THE SABBATH WERE KNOWN BEFORE THE TIME 
 OF MOSES. 
 
 The first of the arguments, used to show that the sabbath 
 was not a general commandment given to all mankind, of 
 which I shall take notice, is, that the sabbath is never men- 
 tioned in the patriarchal ages ; from whence a conclusion is 
 drawn that the sabbath was then unknown. This is as- 
 serted by Heylyn, Bramhall, and Barrow, but not directly 
 by the Archbishop. On the contrary, his Grace affects to 
 think it probable that they had some sabbatical observance ; 
 but, in effect, he supports the same conclusion, by endea- 
 vouring, in unison with those others, to undermine the 
 strongest proof of such observance ; and in this case acts 
 like a man, who might say that it was probable I had a right 
 to a certain property, while at the same time he should en- 
 deavour to destroy the title deeds, by which I held it. 
 The great proof of its observance from the earliest times 
 
•32 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 is to be found in Gen. ii. S. " And God blessed the seventh 
 day, and sanctified it, because that in it he rested from all 
 his work which God created and made." This text is 
 a great stumbling-block in the way of their opinion, and 
 therefore they endeavour to explain it away. Tt is true 
 they are obliged to pervert grammar, set common sense at 
 defiance, and warp and twist the obvious meaning of lan- 
 guage. 
 
 I begin with his Grace's remarks on this text, (page 12.) 
 ' It is not said in Genesis, that the Lord hallowed the 
 seventh day at that time, but for that reason ;* and, as 
 Moses was writing for the Israelites, who were charged to 
 keep the sabbath, it was natural that when recording the 
 creation in six days, he should advert to the day which they 
 observed in commemoration of it : this, I say, he would 
 naturally have done, even had there never been any such 
 observance, till the delivery of the law from Sinai : just as any 
 writer now, who should notice in a summary of gospel his- 
 tory the annunciation to the Virgin Mary, would remark 
 that this is the event which Christians annually celebrate 
 under the title of our Lady's day, without at all meaning 
 to imply that the festival was instituted at this or that period.' 
 Now this argument, at the utmost, would estal)lish a 
 mere possibility of the correctness of his interpretation, but 
 give no proof whatever of it, although he very illogically 
 concludes as certain, what he has scarcely proved to be 
 possible. 
 
 I acknowledge that when Moses wrote, both the creation 
 of the world and the delivery of the commandments on Sinai 
 were })ast events, although about two thousand six hundred 
 years separate ; the former having happened at that distant 
 period, and the latter only a few years before, — forty at 
 most. And yet the creation of the world, anil the blessing 
 * These words are copied from Paley. 
 
THE SABBATH. 33 
 
 and sanctification of the sabbath, are all mentioned together 
 in the very same tense,* without a particle of circumstance 
 to lead us even to suspect that they did not take place at 
 the same time. But we can afford to leave him in undis- 
 turbed possession of this argument, such as it is, for the 
 present. But what wdll he and they do with the expression 
 in the fourth commandment itself? They will not find 
 this so pliable : it will not yield to be twisted into such 
 a shape as may fit their foregone conclusions. The Arch- 
 bishop and the other authors maintain that the words in 
 Gen. ii. 3, " God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," 
 refer to the giving out of the commandment on Sinai. But 
 in the commandment itself, we have the very words that 
 were spoken on that occasion. « God spake all these 
 WORDS, saying." Exod. xx. 1. Now in the commandment, in 
 the very words spoken at the very time these authors say 
 that the sabbath was for the first time blessed and sancti- 
 fied, we find the following : " For in six days the Lord made 
 
 • I have, in the progress of my inquiry, found it absolutely 
 necessary, for a complete and clear elucidation of the question of 
 the sabbath, to determine the precise meaning of some pas- 
 sages and words of the Old Testament in the original language. 
 And, as my own knowledge of Hebrew is very slight, I have pro- 
 posed queries to a Hebrew scholar, and will give the information 
 afforded by his answers, so far as necessary, in notes marked 
 with the initials H. S., omitting the Hebrew words and character, 
 which, to those who do iiot understand them, would be useless ; and 
 to those who do, superfluous ; and the very appearance of which 
 might frighten away those for whom these remarks are chiefly 
 intended. In these notes, my readers will have the decision of a 
 competent person, writing without bias, and unwarped by a leaning 
 to a favourite opinion. I will, however, take the liberty of accom- 
 modating the form of his remarks to suit the .several branches of 
 my subject, and of slightly altering the phraseology to make it 
 intelligible to the English reader. 
 
 D 
 
34 SCRIP! TRE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and 
 rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the 
 seventh day, and hnllnwed it." Here, then, at the precise 
 moment of time to which our authors refer, all the verbs — 
 " made,'' " rested" " blessed" and " hallowed" are in the 
 same tense, and all in the 'past tense, and must refer to some 
 past time previous to that; and to what time or to what 
 antecedent event can this passage possibly refer, except to 
 the time and event of the creation ?* I think it impossible 
 for his Grace to explain away this proof. 
 
 * This seems a proper place for introducing a note from H. S., on 
 a peculiarity of the Hebrew language in its mode of managing its 
 verbs. 
 
 ' The nature and construction of the Plebrevv language is arhorous, 
 or partakes of the nature of a tree. Thus all parts of a verb 
 spring from one particular part, (the third person singular of the 
 preterite of Kal,) which is called its root. And thus, also, in a 
 sentence, all the verbs draw their meaning and time from the first 
 or principal one, and grow out of it, assuming from the leading 
 verb their absolute or positive time, each of them bearing in itself a 
 different time or tense relative to the leader. 
 
 ' There is no regular present tense in the formation of tbe Hebrew 
 verb : it is supplied by the participle and the verb " to he," ex- 
 pressed or understood as in English, " / am loving," is equivalent 
 to " / love." The present, also, is sometimes expressed by the 
 prater, and sometimes by the future, which assume the present 
 signification from the context. Thus, if a present precedes or 
 leads, (and tlie j)articiples are always present,) the verb or verbs 
 following, if connected by the letter van, (as will be more particji- 
 huly explained below,) is or are present also, although in them- 
 selves, without reference to the governing or leading verb, they are 
 preter or future. But a leading preterite, or a leading future, in all 
 cases, retains its proper sense, as will appear more plainly from 
 what follows on the raw conversive. 
 
 * Vau conversive converts preters into futures, and futures into 
 preters ; as, " I will raise up (future) a propiu-t, and will put 
 (preter) my words," &c. This is the rule. " When two or more 
 
THE SAHBATH. 35 
 
 Will he descend to the special pleading of saying, " Oh ! 
 I made a mistake. Some authors say, that the sabbath was 
 
 verbs are connected in Hebrew, the governing or leading verb ex- 
 presses the absolute and general time to be understood throughout 
 the series ; and the subordinate verbs are in this respect elliptical ; 
 that is, have the temporal intense) power of the verb by ideal com- 
 munication implied in them ; but relative time, or some other addi- 
 tional meaniigjis gnenerally expressed by their own proper intrinsic 
 power. And sometimes the modal or personal power of a governing 
 ' verb is understood in them." 
 
 ' According to this rule, when the governing or leading verb in a 
 series is preterite, the subordinate is generally future : future as 
 expressing what is subsequent to that expressed by the governing verb ; 
 but preter,?;i sense, as carrying on the time of the leading verb. And 
 conversely, when the leading verb is future, the subordinate may be 
 preter, as expressing what is to precede the leading verb; but 
 future in sense, as carrying on the time of the leader. So that the 
 governing verb is simple, — its own proper time and the absolute 
 time being the same : and the subordinate is complex, as implying 
 the time of the governing verb, and expressing relative time by its 
 own proper power. Thus, in Gen. i. 1, " created" is preter, and 
 accordingly extends its time through the whole series of verbs con- 
 nected with it in the chapter, — and this even though an incidental 
 sentence, not so connected, may intervene ; as, " Let there be 
 light :" for the connexion of time is resumed after such incidental 
 sentences: — "And God said," future (as subsequent in act, to 
 " created") converted into preter in sense, the time being derived 
 from " created," by the connecting link of vau conversive. And so 
 on with, " And God divided," " And God called the light" &c. But 
 it must be remembered, that it is not the vau which converts, but 
 the governing verb, which transmits its power down through tlie 
 vau, or any other conjunction. The very meaning of van expresses 
 connexion, as it signifies a " hook," or " link"' — H. S. 
 
 ' In Gen.ii.3, ''he sanctified" and " he blessed," are future in tense, 
 and preterit! sense, being connected with the leading verb, which is 
 preter. And in Exod. xx. 11, " he blessed" is the leading verb, and 
 preter, both in tense and in sense ; and " he hallowed" is future in 
 tense, and preter in sense, being connected with a leading pre- 
 ter.'— H. S. 
 
 D 2 
 
QG SCRIPTimE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 instituted a fortnight before, at the wilderness of Sin ; that 
 must have been the past time, when it was blessed and hal- 
 lowed." But even this miserable plea I cannot leave them. 
 When I come to consider that transaction, I hope to prove 
 that the sabbath was not instituted then. For our present 
 purpose, it is sufficient to say, that during the whole course 
 of that transaction, not one word is said about blesdyig or 
 sanctifying the sabbath. 
 
 But some one may say, (I don't think his Grace would,) 
 that Moses has not given the words of the commandments 
 precisely as they were spoken. But the testimony of 
 Moses himself is decidedly against him. I have before 
 alluded to the words prefixed to the commandments in 
 Exod. XX. " God spake these words." And in Deut. v. 22, 
 he asserts that the words which he had given in the com- 
 mandments in the preceding verses, were the w^ords actually 
 spoken. " These words the Lord spake unto all your 
 assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of 
 the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice : and 
 he added no more. And he wrote them in tw^o tables of 
 stone, and delivered them unto me." 
 
 Hence it appears that the words which Mosos gives, both 
 in Exodus and in Deuteronomy, are the very words which 
 were delivered, and the very words which were written on 
 the two tables of stone. It is quite immaterial whether 
 Mosos, in the above cpiotation, means the first tables or the 
 second t<ables ; for the second tables were an exact copy of 
 the first. Exod. xxxiv. 1. " I will write upon these tables 
 the words that were in the first tables, wliich thou brakcst." 
 And in Dout. ix. 10, in speaking of the first tables, he says, 
 "|And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone, written 
 with the finger of God ; and on them was written according 
 to all the words, which the Lord spake with you out of the 
 midst of the fire in llie mount in the day of the assembly." 
 
THE SABBATH. 37 
 
 And iiiDeut. x.2: — "And I will write on the tables the words 
 that ivere in the Jirst tables, which thou brakest ; and thou 
 shalt put them in the ark :" (verse 4 :) " and he wrote on the 
 tables according to the Jirst writing, the ten command- 
 ments which the Lord spake unto you in the mount, out of 
 the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly : and the 
 Lord gave them unto me. And I turned myself, and came 
 down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark, which 
 I had made ; and there they he, as the Lord commanded 
 me." 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the words which Moses had 
 written in the commandments, both in Exodus and in 
 Deuteronomy, were the exact words which were spoken ; 
 and that the very same words were written, both on the 
 first and second tables of stone ; both upon those which he 
 broke, and on those which he put into the ark. And for the 
 accuracy of those words, he appeals to the very tables them- 
 selves which were then lying in the ark before them. Can 
 evidence be stronger to prove that the words which we now 
 have, are the precise words spoken on Sinai? 
 
 The summing up of the whole is, that the words in 
 Gen. ii. 3, were actually spoken at the time of the creation, 
 and that God did actually, on the seventh day after the 
 creation, bless and sanctify that day. His Grace, in page 
 12, says, that " even granting the expression of the Lord's 
 sanctifying the sabbath were to be referred to the time 
 of the creation, yet the command to Adam is only supposed, 
 for none is recorded." This expression surprises me. 
 
 But how did he bless and sanctify it ? He did not bless 
 and sanctify it by conferring upon it any natural supe- 
 riority or pre-eminence. As to its appearance, it was not 
 distinguishable from other days. There was only one 
 [)0ssible way, which we can conceive, by which he blessed 
 and hallowed it, and that was by a command to man, and 
 
38 SCRIPl^URE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 through him to his posterity, to keep it holy, as a day blessed 
 by the Creator. I have proved that it was really blessed 
 and sanctified at the time of the creation. And until his 
 Grace can show any other possible way in which it could 
 have been done, we must conclude that a commandment to 
 that effect was immediately issued to man after his cre- 
 ation. 
 
 The mode of getting rid of that embarrassing sentence 
 of Gen. ii. 3, used in his Grace's pamphlet, is copied from 
 Heylyn, and was invented by Tostatus ; and has been called 
 a prolepsis, or anticipation, by which a fact is said to 
 have taken place at one time which really took place at 
 another. 
 
 His Grace must know that the best mode of expounding 
 scripture, is by making one part an interpreter of another. 
 A passage or a word in one part, where it is doubtful 
 or obscure, may be explained by the same or a similar one 
 elsewhere, where it is clear and certain. And doubtless so 
 able an expounder of scripture as his Grace would have 
 given us an example of such a prolepsis from scripture, if 
 he could have found one within the whole compass of the 
 Bible, and he would thus have avoided the hard neces- 
 sity of being driven to invent the fanciful example he has 
 given us about the Annunciation. Such an example, how- 
 ever, he must have found in Heylyn, from whom ho bor- 
 rowed his argument. But perhaps he felt the gi-ound to be 
 untenable, as he neglected to take possession of it. But 
 having been used by so gi-eat a man, to whose authority his 
 Grace most particularly directs his readers, we cannot leave 
 it standing. 
 
 The following is the cxamj)le (juoted by Heylyn to prove 
 such a prolepsis or anticipation. Gen. i. 27. " So God 
 created man in his own image, in the image of God 
 created he him; male and female created he them." 
 
THE SABBATH. 
 
 And yet he asserts that the woman was not created then, 
 nor until after the work of creation was finished : indeed, 
 he drives his argument so far, as to say that she was 
 created on the seventh day, and, therefore, that God did not 
 rest ! 
 
 The word used for " man" in the account of the creation, 
 has the same meaning as " homo''' in Latin, and signifies 
 both male and female. It is true, that the particular man- 
 ner of woman's creation is not mentioned until after the 
 mention of the rest of the seventh day ; and from hence 
 Heylyn supposes that she was not made until then. But 
 this mode of expression is usual in the Bible, and in all 
 authors. A simple fact is stated briefly, not to interrupt 
 the narrative, and then the author returns to it, to give the 
 particulars ;* and this is the way in which any reader of 
 ordinary capacity would have understood the above passage, 
 compared with that which gives a particular account of the 
 formation of woman, Gen. ii. verses 21, &c. We have 
 suflicient proof that woman was not formed after the con- 
 clusion of the creation; for it is said, (Gen. ii. 2,) " And 
 on the seventh day God ended f his work which he had made, 
 and he rested on the seventh day from all his work 
 which he had made." Therefore nothing was made after 
 the sixth day. 
 
 But let us follow Heylyn's argument out, and see to 
 what conclusions it would leaii. On his principle, I am 
 justifiable in founding the following argument. ' The par- 
 
 * See a similar instance in Gen. vii. 13, where the entrance of 
 Noali and his family into the ark, and also of beasts and cattle, and 
 creeping things, fowl and birds, is mentioned after the flood had 
 been forty days on the earth. According to Heylyn's mode of ar- 
 gument, this would have been the real time of their (entrance ; and 
 the preceding mention, in verso 7, and seq., only a prolepsis- 
 
 + Or had ended. There is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. 
 
40 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 ticular account of the formation of woman is not given 
 until after the conclusion of the creation, and after the rest, 
 and therefore she was not made until after. In like man- 
 ner, the particular account of the making of man is not 
 given until afterwards. Gen. ii. 7 : " And the Lord God 
 formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his 
 nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." 
 Therefore man was not formed until after the seventh day. 
 And in like manner, Gen.ii.5, — "And every plant of the field 
 before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before 
 it grew." Therefore trees, herbs, and plants, wore not 
 made until after the seventh day. And again. Gen. ii. 19, 
 " And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast 
 of the field, and every fowl of the air." Therefore beasts 
 and birds were not made until after the seventh day. And 
 so nothing living was formed within the six days, but cree}>- 
 ing things and fishes. Man and woman, and beasts and 
 birds, and plants and herbs, were all prolepsis, and antici- 
 pation !' The absurdity of these conclusions shows the 
 absurdity of his argument and instance. His Grace acted 
 wisely in not borrowing Heylyn's example along with his 
 argument. Much better to make one. 
 
 The first chapter of Genesis merely states the outline 
 of the facts of creation — gives a catalogue of the things 
 created, and the order of time of their formation. Particu- 
 lars, and mode, and manner, are reserved for subsequent 
 detail. The mode of formation of human creatures — of 
 man and woman — most particularly concerned those for 
 whom tlie account was written ; and therefore is most 
 circumstantially related. The male is informed that his 
 body was made of the dust of the ground, of the vilest 
 material, to keep him luimble. He is told that his soul 
 was formed by the breathing into him the breath of the 
 sj)irit of the Almighty, that he siiould remember the high 
 
THE SABBATH. 41 
 
 and pure origin of his spiritual nature. He is informed 
 that woman was not formed immediately from the dust, but 
 from the body of man, — of purified, rectified, and refined 
 dust, — of the finest clay, — of the body of man, of the part 
 nearest his heart, that he might admire the delicacy and 
 refinement of her nature, and love her, even as his own 
 flesh. 
 
 Heylyn, to whom his Grace particularly refers as au- 
 thority, as well as Bramhall and Barrow, deny that there 
 was any sabbath known in patriarchal times ; and, as proof, 
 they afiirm, that no notice is taken in the Mosaic history 
 of any such observance. But it seems to me that they very 
 much mistake the nature of biblical history, if history it 
 may be called. Scripture is a revelation of God's will, and 
 of God's laws, of motives to obedience, and of dissuasives 
 from sin. Its purposes are to be " profitable for doctrine, 
 for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 
 Its object is, " to make us wise unto salvation through faith 
 which is in Christ Jesus." It is not a continued history of 
 facts, and a repository of manners and customs : these are 
 occasionally mentioned, and we have detached portions of 
 history, so far as they may conduce to the grand objects in 
 view. It is true that his will is sometimes revealed by his 
 expressed approbation and disapprobation of human ac- 
 tions ; but where a positive command is solemnly and au- 
 thoritatively given, the fainter modes of communicating his 
 will are not exhibited. Moses wrote shortly after the 
 giving out of the law. It was unnecessary while theii 
 imagination and remembrance yet glowed with the splen- 
 dour and effulgence of Sinai, the trumpet waxing louder 
 and louder, the thunder shaking the wilderness, the de- 
 vouring fire burning on the mountain, and the voice of God 
 commanding the observance of the sabbath ; it was unneces- 
 sary to point to the glow-worm motive of patriarchal prac- 
 tice. 
 
4'2 SCIUPTUllE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 But what kind of history have we of the world before tlie 
 time of the giving of the law on Sinai ? What history have 
 we in the period from Cain and Abel to the birth of Shem, 
 Ham, and Japheth, a period of nearly two thousand five 
 hundred years ? Nothing but the connecting links or joints 
 of a genealogy, — the petrified vertebra? of the back-bone of 
 the skeleton of history. Is it here we are to look for man- 
 ners and customs ? What should we think of a history from 
 the origin of the republics of Greece down through Rome 
 to the present time, consisting of the names of a single line 
 of descent ? Should we expect there to find the manners 
 of Greece and Rome and Europe ? 
 
 Then again, from the flood to the call of Abram, (with 
 the exception of the short- notice of the confusion of lan- 
 guages,) what history have we for these fourteen hundred 
 years ? Nothing but another genealogy. In fact, until the 
 call of Abraham, we have nothing like continuous history : 
 there were only four hundred and thirty years from that time 
 to the giving out of the law, and for the last hundred years 
 from the death of Joseph to the last days in Egypt, we have 
 no history. And because the sabbath is not mentioned in 
 that short period, thus reduced to three hundred and thirty 
 years, our authors draw the proof of the conclusion of its 
 non-existence. This is one of the proofs upon which they 
 most rely ; but if I do not give most undeniable and con- 
 vincing proof to the contrary from the nature of scripture 
 history, I consent to give up the argument altogether. 
 
 The omission of mention of an observance for three hun- 
 dred and thirty or four hundred and thirty years is no proof 
 of its non-existence. 
 
 I can produce an instance of an observance, which we 
 know to have been continually ])ractised, which is not once 
 mentioned in the history from the death of Moses and en- 
 trance into Canaan, Numb, xxviii. 10, to the time of 
 
THE SABBATH. 43 
 
 Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 23, a period extending from the year 
 1 452 before Christ to the year 895, comprising five hundred 
 and fifty-seven years, — a much longer period of history 
 than we have of the patriarchal age ; — and then only slightly 
 and incidentally alluded to. And what is that observance? 
 It is the Sabbath ! 
 
 I can also produce another observance, which is not once 
 mentioned from 1491 to 588, a period of nine hundred and 
 three years. And what is that observance ? No less than 
 the continued standing miracle of the sabbatical year ; al- 
 though we know that it existed for upwards of four hun- 
 dred years of that time. And more strange still, it never 
 was once mentioned by Jeremiah when he predicted the 
 captivity of seventy years; although that number, as we 
 learn from 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21, was determined on fi*om the 
 number of sabbatical years, which had been omitted, viz. 
 seventy, or for a period of four hundred and seventy years ; 
 and if it had not been for that short notice in Chronicles we 
 should not have known that it ever had been omitted, or 
 when it had first been omitted — but by reckoning back, we 
 find that it was first omitted by Saul. 
 
 I can still mention another observance which is not men- 
 tioned from Deut. xvi. 2, &c. 1451 years before Christ, until 
 the time of Isaiah, 623 years before Christ, a period of 
 eight hundred and twenty-eight years. And what was that 
 observance ? The Passover. 
 
 Now these instances are much stronger than the omission 
 of the sabbath in patriarchal times; because all these ob- 
 servances in these latter periods were attended by miracles. 
 For the sabbatical year, a double provision was produced 
 in the preceding or sixth year ; and on the sabbath, and 
 on their attendance on the passover, their enemies were 
 miraculously withheld from attacking them. 
 
 Rut mcthhiks I hear our opponents, when compelled 
 
44 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 to give up this argument, endeavouring to break their fall, 
 and come as gently as they can to the ground, and arguing 
 thus : " It is true, that in the history of those times there 
 is no mention of the sabbath; because during this period 
 there were written devotional and religious books. Look 
 there, and you will find it ; these are the Psalms of David, 
 the Proverbs, and the Ecclesiastes of Solomon." 
 
 Well, come ; here are the Psalms, the great devotional 
 book of the Israelites, written by David, the inspired king, 
 the sweet singer of Israel, in which frequent mention is 
 made of public worship, of the tabernacle, of the sanctuary, 
 of the solemn assemblies. Here, if anywhere, we may ex- 
 pect to find it mentioned, frequently mentioned. Well, how 
 often does it occur in the Psalms ? Not once. 
 
 Well, here are the Proverbs, the wise sayings of the 
 wisest of men, on the all-important subject of religion. 
 How often does it occur ? Not once. Well, but there is 
 the book of Ecclesiastes, the book of the Preacher, there 
 surely you will find it. How often does it occur ? Not 
 once. And yet we know that it was observed all that 
 time. 
 
 Let us, then, hear no more of the argument of the omis- 
 sion of its mention in the liistory of Moses of patriarchal 
 times, as a proof of its non-existence. 
 
 1 have now shown that we had no reason to expect to 
 hear of the sabbath in patriarchal history. I have also 
 proved that its not having been mentioned is no proof that 
 it did not exist. During this argument I conceded that the 
 preceding history exhibited no proofs of its existence ; and 
 I did so that I might argue with the objectors on their own 
 grounds. 1 have shown, that even supposing their premises 
 true and their facts correct, their conclusion would not fol- 
 low. I now proceed to show that their premises are false, 
 (I use logical language,) and their facts erroneous. 
 
THE SABBATH. 45 
 
 From what I have already said, it appears that we have 
 no reason to expect direct mention of the sabbath in the 
 book of Genesis, after the command so distinctly given 
 at the creation. The utmost that we may reasonably 
 expect to find, is traces of, and allusions to it. Such traces 
 we shall find not only there, but even in heathen na- 
 tions, who would have been averse from borrowing from the 
 Jews, and who must have carried the principle and prac- 
 tice with them at the time of the confusion of languages 
 and the consequent dispersion. If the observance itself be 
 not found in heathen nations, yet we find its outlines and 
 framework, outliving every other command, outliving all 
 other revelation, outliving even the knowledge of the true 
 God. The division of time into weeks of seven days was 
 very ancient and very universal. Several authors have 
 given long enumerations of countries, where the division 
 subsisted. Homer and Hesiod, the most ancient of Greek 
 writers, mention weeks of seven days. Among all nations 
 of the earth the number seven has maintained a pre-emi- 
 nence above all other numbers. Could this have been from 
 any intrinsic excellence or convenience in itself? I have 
 the valuable testimony of the learned Heylyn to the con- 
 trary, although intended to answer a very different purpose 
 from that for which / use it. He endeavours at great length 
 to show " the number seven has no excellence or preference 
 in nature beyond any other number. On the contrary, 
 arithmeticians condemn it as the most barren of all num- 
 bers." If then there be nothing intrinsic to recommend it, 
 but, on the contrary, everything to condemn it, there must 
 have been some very powerful ewtrinsic circumstances to 
 have given it the paramount pre-eminence above all num- 
 bers. An even number would have been a much more 
 convenient division, the number ten would perhaps have 
 been most convenient of all; and accordingly, when the 
 
46 SCIMPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 French revolutionists abjured revelation, and endeavoured 
 to accommodate their institutions to reason, they rejected 
 the hebdomadal division, and established decades. They 
 considered this an important and necessary step towards 
 the overthrow of revelation and the estabhshment of the 
 age and reign of reason. 
 
 In all nations, whether pagan or worshippers of the true 
 God, even before the time of Moses, the number seve7i has 
 had a sacred character. A volume of quotations could be 
 made to prove this. The division was incorporated into 
 the Roman law, and the names of the days called after the 
 heathen deities and the sun. The same names were trans- 
 ferred from thence into the civil law which grew out of it, 
 and spread over all continental Europe ; and from thence 
 those names found their way with the Norman code and 
 language into our judicial and legislative proceedings. 
 
 In the Bible, from the most ancient times, the number 
 seven seems to have been held in peculiar favour both by 
 God and man. The Lord says that vengeance shall be taken 
 sevenfold on any one that slew Cain. Lamech says, that if 
 Cain be avenged sevenfold, Lamech shall be avenged se- 
 venty- and-sevenfold. Noah was ordered by God to take of 
 clean beasts by sevens — seven males and seven females. 
 Jacob bowed himself to Esau seven times, a kind of reve- 
 rence, I should suppose, borrowed from religious worship. 
 In Pharaoh's dreams, sent by God himself, there came up 
 seven fat kine, and then seven lean kine. In the second 
 dream came up seven ears of corn full and good, and seven 
 blasted ears ; and Joseph tells Pharaoh that " God had 
 showed him what he was about to do." These two dreams 
 represented seven plentiful years and seven years of famine. 
 And perhaps it is not refining too much to say, that the 
 number of the years of plenty and of famine, as well as of 
 the ch-eams, were chosen to show to Pharaoh that they pro- 
 
THE SABBATH. 47 
 
 cecded from the God of the Israelites, the Creator of the 
 world, of whom the Egyptians must have heard from the 
 Israelites, and Pharaoh from Joseph, then in high favour ; 
 and who could not have been mentioned as the Creator of 
 the world, without the surprising detail that He had created 
 it in six days and rested on the seventh. Joseph mourned 
 for his father seven days, or a week, (sabbat ;) and when 
 the latter Pharaoh was plagued, he was allowed after the 
 first plague a respite of seven days. Balaam, who was not 
 an Israelite, prepared seven altars, and sacrificed seven 
 bullocks and seven rams, showing that the number seven 
 was usual in the religious worship of those times. 
 
 The division of time into weeks was known in the coun- 
 try from whence Abraham came out. They could not have 
 learned it from him, for he never returned, and our oppo- 
 nents deny that he ever knew it. Laban, in Charran, says 
 to Jacob, " fulfil her week," (sabbat ;) that is, the week of 
 rejoicings usual at a wedding. Here then a week made 
 the principal feature in an old custom ; and we know that 
 customs, more particularly in the East, require a number 
 of years to establish them. The knowledge of the true God 
 was still known in that country, although mixed with super- 
 stition ; and as weeks were also known, we may conclude 
 that the sabbath, which made the week, was also pre- 
 served. 
 
 The same custom of having a week's rejoicings on a 
 marriage was observed among the Philistines, who were 
 heathens, in the time of Samson. Judges xiv. 12 : " The 
 seven days of the feast." Tlie same word in Hebrew sig- 
 nifies seven days and a week. 
 
 There are also evident traces of the sabbath at the time 
 of the flood. " Gen. vii. 4 : " The Lord said unto Noah, 
 Come thou and all thy house into the ark for yet seven 
 days, (a week, sabbat,) and I will cause it to rain u])on 
 
48 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 the earth forty days and forty nights." * The same 
 word is used as in all cases in which a week is intended ; 
 therefore the command was given on the sabbath preceding 
 the week or seven days mentioned, and most probably 
 given fi'om the divine presence, t and the week follows 
 
 * From the account in the text it might seem as if the flood last- 
 ed only forty days and forty nights ; but these days are mentioned 
 as the particular period at the end of which two events happened : 
 first, ver. 4, the waters at that time had risen so high as to destroy 
 all living creatures; and, 2ndly, ver. 17, they had risen high 
 enough to float the ark. It was thirty cubits high ; we may there- 
 fore suppose it to have drawn one half, or fifteen cubits. This ap- 
 pears also from ver. 20; for the waters prevailed fifteen cubits above 
 the mountains, and immediately on the cessation of the flood, be- 
 fore the waters could have fallen, the ark touched the top of 
 Ararat. We learn from ver. 24, that the " waters prevailed 
 upon the earth an hundred and fifty days ;" and from chap. viii. 3, 
 that " at the end of the one hundred and fifty days the waters were 
 abated ;" and ver. 4, that the ark rested at the end of five months. 
 
 + I am strongly led to believe that the glory and the divine pre- 
 sence, which I think never had been withdrawn since it was placed 
 at the east of Eden, moved, just before the flood, into the ark, as 
 it moved into Solomon's temple ; otherwise we should expect that 
 the commands of God should have come from heaven, or at least 
 from without; but on the contrary, they came from within the ark. 
 Thus, before Noah entered, chap. vii. 1, the command is, 
 " Come thou, and all thy house, into the ark." And in chap. viii. 
 16, when they were in the ark, the command is, " Go forth of the 
 ark, thou and thy wife," &c. 
 
 We know from 1 Pet.iii. 18— 20,that Christ preached to the wicked 
 antediluvians for one hundred and twenty years before the flood. 
 How could he have preached to such rebellious and carnal persons, 
 as to leave them without a shadow of excuse, except accompanied 
 by some divine and visible symbol of his presence, which they could 
 not mistake .'' but we do not read anywhere in scripture of any such 
 symbol but one. When the Israelites were murmuring and diso- 
 bedient, and a communication wasaboiit to be given in consequence 
 of their disobedience, the cloud always a.ssumed the appearance of 
 fire. 
 
THE SABBATH. 49 
 
 during that week they went into the ark. After the seven 
 days the flood began — on the first day of the following 
 week, on the seventeenth day of the second month. The 
 waters prevailed one hundred and fifty days, or five months, 
 and the ark rested on Ararat on the seventeenth day of 
 the seventh month, the one hundred and fifty-first day. 
 The one hundred and fifty days contained twenty-one 
 weeks and three days, and therefore the last of the one 
 hundred and fifty days was on the third day of the 
 M^eek, and the seventeenth of the seventh month was the 
 fourth day; and from thence to the first day of the tenth 
 month, when the mountains appeared, we have seventy- 
 three days exclusive ; — so that the last of these seventy-three 
 days, or the last of the ninth month, must have been the 
 sabbath. We then have a period of forty days beginning 
 with the first day of the week, and on the fortieth day, 
 or fifth day of the week, he sent forth the raven, expect- 
 ing it to return on the sixth, so that he might inquire of 
 the Lord on the seventh, or sabbath. Instead of sending 
 forth the dove immediately, he waited for seven days, (for 
 it is said, on the second occasion of sending her out, that 
 he waited yet other seven days : therefore he must have 
 waited seven days before he first sent her out,) he sends 
 her forth at intervals of seven days from the day he sent 
 forth the raven ; and therefore always on the fifth day of the 
 week, expecting her back on the sixth, or to have it decided 
 on the sixth, that she would not return, that he might in- 
 quire of the Lord on the seventh, the usual day of holding 
 communications with him. By this reckoning, the dove 
 was sent out the third time on the first day of the twelfth 
 month, and the fifth day of the week. 
 
 Let us now consider the day on which God actually did 
 speak unto Noah. It was on the twenty-seventh day of the 
 second month. The year of the flood consisted of three 
 
50 SCKIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 hundred and sixty days. I have shown above that the day 
 of the commencement of the flood, the seventeenth of the 
 second month, was the first day of the week ; from that day 
 to the twenty-seventh of the second month of the second 
 year, inchuUng both, is three hundred and seventy-one 
 days, or exactly fifty-three weeks ; and, as the first day of that 
 period was the first day of the week, so must the last or 
 twenty-seventh be the last or seventh day of the week or 
 sabbath ; and on this day God made his communication to 
 Noah, and desired him to go out of the ark. And as they 
 took six days going in, we may conclude that they took six 
 days going out And on the day after he builded an altar, 
 and offered sacrifices, and had communications with the 
 Deity. And this day it appears was the sabbath also ; and 
 of this we have further proof, — for, in verse 21, it is said, 
 " The Lord smelled a sweet savour." Now, the literal 
 meaning of those words is, " a savour of rest," — not, it is 
 true, sahbat, but another word frequently used for the rest 
 of the sabbath. Thus the sabbath shines even through the 
 dark and tempestuous year of the flood from the beginning 
 to the end. And our calculation carried on from the sab- 
 bath, the day of the divine communication, seven days 
 before the flood, and the sabbath immediately preceding 
 the flood, to the last day in the ark, also a sabbath, and a 
 day of divine communication, to the day after the work of 
 debarkation, marked with a strong appearance of a sabbath, 
 a day of public worship, a savour of rest. 
 
 I have one more argument to prove the antiquity of the 
 sabbath, even so tar back as the creation : and this I find 
 in the Hebrew language itself. Every person is ready to 
 grant that the Hebrew is the most ancient language of the 
 world. I hope to prove that it has continued from the 
 time of the creation, and that it was not confounded at 
 Babel. 
 
THE SABBATH. 51 
 
 It is generally allowed that the earlier numbers, the digits 
 preceding " ten" are amongst the very first primary words of 
 any language. Therefore the number " seven" in Hebrew 
 must have been coeval with the origin of the language. 
 Now it is very remarkable, that the words in Hebrew, 
 which signify seven, rest, iveek, and sabbath, are all the 
 same, with a very slight variation ; and this connexion 
 must have been as old as the language, from the very origin 
 of which, the connexion between rest and the number seven 
 must have existed. And this we cannot account for in any 
 other way than by the Mosaic narrative of the creation, 
 the rest on the seventh day, and the command to keep 
 it holy. 
 
 I have now to prove the chief step in the above ar- 
 gument, viz. that the Hebrew language had not been con- 
 founded, but had existed from the creation. From the 
 creation to the confusion and dispersion at Babel, there 
 had been only one language. Gen. xi. 1. Therefore, if 
 we prove that Hebrew was the language spoken before the 
 Babel transaction, we need not go higher. 
 
 Abraham and his descendants were called Hebrews, from 
 Eber, or Heber, great-grand-son of Shem. Some persons, 
 anxious to make new discoveries, and preferring a novel 
 bad reason to an established good one, have endeavoured 
 to derive the name from "eter," which signifies beyond, 
 because Abraham came from beyond the Euphrates. This 
 derivation is fanciful ; but the arguments for the former 
 seem to me to be insuperable. 
 
 In the very short history after the flood, consisting almost 
 entirely of genealogies, we find proof that Eber was a dis- 
 tinguished character. Although so much had previously 
 been said of Shem, and it had even been prophesied that 
 God should dwell in the tents of Shem, yet, in Gen. x. 21, 
 Shem is distinguished as being *•' the father of all the chil- 
 
 E 2 
 
r.? 
 
 SCRIFIURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 drcii of Ebcr." This is a strong testimony to the dis- 
 tinguished character of Eber, as well as a proof that all his 
 descendants were to be called after him. The reason of 
 mentioning this in the history, is to show that from Shem 
 were to be descended those who, on that account, were to 
 be called " Hebretvs" — that is, Abraham and his family, 
 and the Israelites. This is decisive proof that Abraham 
 and his family were called Hebrews, from Eber, or Heber, 
 and that the Hebrew language was the language of the 
 patriarchal family. 
 
 The confusion and dispersion happened in the days of 
 Peleg ; " for in his days the earth was divided." Gen. x. 25. 
 The meaning of the name was " division'' or " dispersion."* 
 And " the earth was divided," means the dispersion conse- 
 quent on the confusion of languages. He was the son of 
 Eber, who had two sons, Peleg and Joktan. On account 
 of Peleg alone being mentioned, it is supposed, with great 
 appearance of probability, that the confusion happened be- 
 tween the births of Peleg and Joktan. We may, at least, be 
 certain that it happened before the birth of lieu, Peleg's 
 son ; after which Peleg would not have been mentioned. 
 Reu was born when Peleg was thirty years of age, and the 
 event must have happened within those thirty years. But 
 taking the utmost possible range, it must have happened in 
 Peleg's lifetime; and Peleg died before Noah, Shem, and 
 Eber. For my present argument, it does not signify at 
 what time of his life it happened ; and therefore, for the sake 
 of precision and calculation, let us fix upon the twentieth 
 
 • ' Peleg, ill Hebrew, signifies a diviiion, a portion, and also (as 
 in Jol) XX. 17) a stream, by which water is distributed: hence the 
 Greek word ire\ayos, and the Latin pvlagrts. It occurs in Judges v. 
 1.5, Ifi ; 2Chron. xxxv. 5, 13; and in Chaklee, Dan. ii. 11 ; vii.25. 
 Ezra, VI. IH.' -H. 8. 
 
THE SABBATH. 
 
 53 
 
 year* of Peleg, as the year of confusion. That would have 
 heen a hundred and twenty-one years after the flood. Now, 
 Noah hved three hundred and fifty-eight years after the flood, 
 Shem five hundred and two years, and Eber five hundred 
 and thirty-one years. Therefore Noah outUved the confu- 
 sion and dispersion upwards of two hundred years ; Shem 
 three hundred and eighty ; and Eber more than four hun- 
 dred years. Noah Uved fifty-eight years after Abraham 
 was born. Shem and Eber both hved many years after 
 Abraham's departure from Haran, (or Charran,) to come to 
 Canaan. Shem outhved Abraham thirty-five years ; and 
 Eber outhved Abraham sixty-four years. When Eber died, 
 Jacob was seventy-nine years of age. Well, therefore, 
 might Abraham and his descendants be called the children 
 of Eber. 
 
 It is quite clear, then, that the confusion and dispersion 
 must have taken place many years before the death of 
 
 * The following- table of Chronology after the flood will show 
 .the dates of the births and deaths of the patriarchs necessary to be 
 known for the understanding of the above argument. 
 
 Years between each. 
 
 Birth — Year after the 
 flood. 
 
 Death- 
 after tbe 
 
 -Year 
 flood. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Noah 
 
 . 350 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shem 
 
 - 502 
 
 Between the flood and Ar- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jthaxad, son of" Shem - 
 
 2 
 
 Arphaxad - - 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 Arphaxad to SaLih - - 
 
 35 
 
 Salah 
 
 37- 
 
 
 
 Salah to Eber 
 
 oO 
 
 Eber - - - 
 
 67 
 
 Eber 
 
 - 531 
 
 Eber to Peleg 
 
 34 
 
 Pelfg 
 
 101 
 
 Peleg 
 
 - 340 
 
 Peleg to Reu 
 
 30 
 
 lieu - - - 
 
 131 
 
 
 
 lieu to Serug 
 
 32 
 
 Serug . - - 
 
 163 
 
 
 
 Serug to Nabor 
 
 30 
 
 Nabor - - - 
 
 193 
 
 
 
 jN'ahor to Teiah 
 
 2'.) 
 
 'I'erah - - - 
 
 222 
 
 Terah 
 
 - 127 
 
 1 erali to Abrani 
 
 70 
 
 A brum - - - 
 
 Ditto, departure 
 
 from Cbanan 
 
 292 
 367 
 
 Abrahan 
 
 467 
 
 Abrnliain to Isaac 
 
 100 
 
 Isaac 
 
 392 
 
 
 
 Isaac to Esau and Jacob - 
 
 60 
 
 Esau and Jacob 
 
 •152 
 
 
 
54 SCRIITURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Noah, Shem, and Eber. And from the favourable mention 
 made of these three patriarchs, it is most improbable that 
 they, and particularly Noah and Shem, who had witnessed 
 the wonders and vengeance of the flood, should have lapsed 
 from the worship of the true God, more especially as we 
 find that worship to have been maintained in that same 
 country for many years after. And as to Noah, we are 
 absolutely certain that he persevered in his devoted obedi- 
 ence to the end of his life, because he is mentioned as the 
 head of the faithful, by the Almighty himself, long after his 
 death. Ezek. xiv. 14. " Though Noah, Job, and Daniel 
 were in it," &c. And in Heb. xi. 7, we have a strong 
 commendation of his faith. Whence it is certain that he 
 continued faithful unto his death, which happened two cen- 
 turies after the dispersion. We know also, fr'om many 
 other passages of scripture, that the knowledge and worship 
 of the true God were preserved in that country for many 
 years after the transactions of Babel. See Gen. xxiv. 31 — 50 ; 
 xxix. 32, 33, 35 ; xxx. 6, '27 ; xxxi. 29, 49, 50, 53. 
 
 There is one strong argument remaining to prove, 
 that the Hebrew language, — the language of Heber and 
 his descendants, and of the patriarchs, and of the inha- 
 bitants of Chaldea — was not confounded or changed. It 
 appears that all the rebellious, all who builded the tower, 
 had their language confounded, and were scattered and 
 dispersed from that country. It follows, therefore, that 
 those who were not scattered, had not their language con- 
 founded ; but Eber and his descendants still remained set- 
 tled in the same country, were not scattered, and therefore 
 their language — the Hebrew language — was not confounded 
 or altered, but remained the same as it did before the 
 attempt to build the tower of Babel ; and consequently the 
 same as it had been from the creation. And in that lan- 
 guage, — taught by Ciod himself to man at the creation, — the 
 
THE SABBATH. 
 
 number seven, or seventh, is indissolubly connected with 
 rest, and with tlie sabbath. 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 WILDERNESS OF SIN. 
 
 We come now to a most interesting and important stage of 
 our journey through this hivestigation, as it was to the 
 Israelites in their passage through the wilderness. In the 
 transactions in the Wilderness of Sin, the able authors who 
 are opposed to us think that they find irrefragable prootl, 
 that the sabbath was not known to, or practised by, the 
 Israelites before that time ; and yet in those very transac- 
 tions I think I can discover sufficient evidence not only to 
 refute their arguments, but to establish a directly opposite 
 conclusion. Great and eminent men are against me, — 
 Heylyn, Bramhall, Mede, &c. But here, again, the great 
 genius of these men has led them into error. These lofty 
 travellers, mounted on their stately dromedaries, in passing 
 the desart, have surveyed with eagle-eye the vast expanse ; 
 but they have been too highly raised to see the light prints 
 of angels' footsteps, which have shown to me, who travelled 
 on foot and close to the ground, the path which has led me 
 to the truth, and saved me from error. And that my readers 
 may arrive at the same conclusion, I must request their 
 diligent perusal of the sacred narrative of the transaction. 
 A minute investigation of this passage of scripture is 
 calculated to clear up many difficulties in our subject, 
 and will amply reward the diligent inquirer after truth, 
 and the admVicrs of holy writ; which, the more closely 
 
56 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 it is examined, the more consistency and harmony it 
 unfolds. 
 
 It appears from Exod. xvi. 1, that the Israelites came to 
 the Wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth day of the second 
 month after their departure out of Egypt. So far we are 
 all agreed ; but here our agreement ends. 
 
 Heylyn says, that this day was the ' sevennight' of the 
 sabbath kept after the six days of manna- This 1 deny. 
 He says also, that on that very night of their arrival, 
 the quails were sent, and on the next morning the manna. 
 This I will show to be impossible. Hence he argues that 
 this ought to have been the sabbath, if a sabbath had been 
 previously kept, and yet they travelled on it. But I 
 hope to show that not that day, but the next, the six- 
 teenth, not only ought to have been, but actually was, the 
 sabbath. 
 
 With reference to the same transaction, Mede says, 
 ' Certain I am that the Jews kept not that sabbath till the 
 raining of manna; for that, which should have been their 
 sabbath the week before, had they then kept the day, which 
 afterwards they kept, was the fifteenth day of the second 
 month, on which day we read, in the sixteenth of Exodus, 
 that they marched a wearisome march, and came at night 
 into the Wilderness of Sin, where they murmured for their 
 poor entertainment, and wished they had died in Egy]it. 
 That night the Lord sent them quails, and the next morn- 
 ing it rained manna, which was the sixteenth day, and so six 
 days together : the seventh, which was the twenty-second, 
 it rained none ; and that day they were commanded to keep 
 their sahbnth. Now, if the twenty-second day of the month 
 was the sabbath, the fifteenth should have been, if that day 
 had been kept before ; but the text tells us expressly that 
 they marched that day, and, which is strange, the day of 
 the month is never named, unless it be once : otherwise it 
 
THE SABBATH. 57 
 
 could not have been known that that day was ordained for 
 a day of holy rest, which before was none.' 
 
 Bramhall also says, ' The first sabbath that we find in 
 holy scripture to have been ever observed by the Israelites, 
 was in the wilderness, upon the seventh day after the first 
 falling of manna, which was the two-and-twentieth day of 
 the second month ; but it is evident that the fifteenth day 
 of the same month, which ought to have been their sabbath 
 or day of rest, if they had constantly observed any sabbath, 
 or weekly day of rest, before that time, was not observed as 
 a sabbath or day of rest at all, but spent in journeying and 
 in murmuring. Exod. xvi. 1. From whence one of two 
 things must necessarily follow ; either that the Israelites 
 in the wilderness (when they were at their own disposition) 
 did observe no weekly sabbath before that time ; or that 
 they observed it not upon the same day of the week that 
 they did afterwards. Whethersoever of these they admit, 
 either the one or the other, their pretended necessity of 
 the universal observation of the seventh day from the first 
 creation by virtue of a positive law of God, given to all 
 mankind, doth falljlat to the ground.' 
 
 It may seem hopeless to struggle, when laid ' flat on the 
 ground' under the horns of such a dilemma ; but I trust to 
 the * truth to set me free,"' and enable me to cut off 
 both those horns assuming so irresistible a front, or, 
 in plain EngUsh, to show that they are both altogether 
 erroneous. 
 
 We are all agreed that the Israelites came to the Wilder- 
 ness of Sin on the fifteenth day of the second month, 
 exactly a month after their departure from Egypt ; but we 
 agree no farther. The common error of these three great 
 men is the supposition, that quails were sent that evening 
 of the fifteenth, and the manna next morning, and so on for 
 six days, and that the sabbath was on the twenty-second. 
 
58 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 All this I expect to show to be erroneous by incontro- 
 vertible proof. And by the same kind of proof, I expect to 
 establish the following to have been the real particulars and 
 circumstances of the transaction. " I speak as unto wise 
 men : judge ye what I say." They came to the Wilderness 
 of Sin late in the evening of the fifteenth, the day of their 
 journey from Elim. They continued murmuring a great 
 part of the night, in the course of which the quails and 
 manna were promised through Moses, and at the same time 
 he announced that the glory of the Lord, the symbol of the 
 divine presence, should appear next morning, that is, on 
 the sixteenth, at which time it did appear, and then they 
 were told by God himself that the quails should come in 
 the following evening, and manna the next morning; that 
 is, on the evening and morning of the seventeenth. That 
 day on which these promises were given from the divine 
 presence, was the sixteenth, and the seventh before the 
 manna sabbath (if I may so call it). And on that day 
 they did vent, because it was the sabbath ; a divine com- 
 munication was gi'anted, because it was the sabbath, and the 
 granting of the quails and manna was suspended until the 
 day was over, (notwithstanding their urgent necessity,) 
 because it was the sabbath. So soon as that day was over, 
 viz. at even, at six o'clock, which with them was the com- 
 mencement of the next or first day of the week, or seven- 
 teenth of the month, the quails came ; and in the following 
 morning of the same day, the manna was sent : and so on 
 for six days, and the seventh was the manna sabbath, which 
 was the twenty-third day of the month, and not the twenty- 
 second, as our authors suppose. If 1 establisii those points, 
 all their arguments fall flat to the ground, and the proof will 
 be all in our favour. And 1 expect, moreover, to find in 
 this chapter, on close inspection, several intimations and 
 proofs, that the sabbath was not then instituted fur the first 
 
THE SABBATH. 59 
 
 lime, but previously known, — the institution known and 
 remembered, but the precise day, perhaps, forgotten during 
 their captivity. 
 
 It is agreed on all hands that their journey on the fifteenth 
 was very long. Shaw travelled the same road from Elim. 
 It took his company nine hours from Elim on camels 
 to come to and cross the desert of Sin. The Israelites, 
 however, did not go quite across it, — they stopped in it ; 
 but their company consisted of a mixed multitude of men, 
 women, and children, all on foot. Therefore, at soonest, 
 they could not have arrived before evening, or six o'clock. 
 Now, let us suppose ourselves present, and watching the time 
 which the various transactions required. Six hundred thou- 
 sand men, and a proportional number of women and children, 
 arrive at evening. They first pitch their camp ; they then 
 examine their stores of provisions ; they find them deficient. 
 Then must there have been the working up of a conspiracy, 
 and a communication to and fro among that vast multitude ; 
 then the communication from the assembled body to Moses, 
 and from Moses to God ; from God to Moses, and from 
 Moses and Aaron to tlie people. Now, what time did all 
 this process require ? Most certainly not less than twelve 
 hours. In truth, it must have lasted all night It was then 
 the full of the moon, and any one residing in Ireland knows 
 how favourable moonlight is for works of rebellion. But 
 what time, think you, gentle reader, do Heylyn and Bram- 
 hall allow for these transactions ? Why truly 910 time at all ! 
 The Israelites, according to them, come to the wilderness 
 at even, at six o'clock ; and at six o'clock on the same 
 evening, after all these transaetions, the quails are sent, 
 and next morning the manna. So that, to make their 
 account possible, time must have stood still during all those 
 transactions. 
 
 But what time, think you, gentle reader, was there for 
 
60 SCniPTUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 all these transactions on Mede's hypothesis ? Why, truly, 
 much less than no time. He says, that they did not arrive 
 until night. Suppose at nine o'clock ; and yet quails came 
 at even, at six o'clock of the same evening. So that to 
 make good his argument, time must not only have stood 
 still, to allow space for those multiplied transactions, but it 
 must have actually gone backwards some hours to get at 
 the even for the coming of the quails. Where now are 
 Bramhall's horns, and where is Mede's certainty? 
 
 But I have still stronger proof. During the progress of 
 the murm'uring — take it as early as you please, annihilate 
 time, and place it at even — Moses tells them that in the 
 morning they " shall see the glory of God."* And when 
 the glory of the Lord did appear in the morning, the Lord 
 said, " At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye 
 shall be filled with bread," ver. xvi. I'i. " And it came to 
 pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the 
 camp, and in the morning the dew lay round about the 
 host.'' Now, if the glory which Moses told them they 
 should see in the morning was the glory of the Lord which 
 they really did see in the cloud, the quails were not sent 
 until the evening closing the day after their arrival, nor the 
 manna given until the following morning. Indeed, I should 
 consider it rather an insult on my reader's understanding, 
 and puerile trifling, to suppose it necessary to prove that 
 the glory foretold by Moses was to be understood of the 
 glory which appeared so soon after, if some commentator 
 
 * In the daytime the usual appearance of the pillar was that of 
 a cloud. When a divine connnnnication was made it assumed the 
 appearance of fire. At night it always assumed the appearance of 
 fire ; therefore at that time there could not have been a sign of 
 a divine communication, as during the daylight : this probably 
 was one of the reasons lor deferring the eonnmniication until 
 morning. 
 
THE SABBATH. Gl 
 
 {I forget who) prizing interpretations as the Romans did 
 their hixuries, (the farther fetched the better,) had not 
 stated the doubt that the glory to be seen in the morning 
 might mean the miracle of the manna ! But why the 
 manna in the morning should be called a glory more than 
 the quails in the evening, this commentator has not informed 
 us ; but the existence of a doubt obliges me to prove that 
 the same thing is intended in both passages. The transla- 
 tors of the Bible considered them one and the same, for in 
 the marginal note on the seventh verse, they refer to the 
 tenth, and in that on the tenth, they refer to the seventh*. 
 In fact, the very same word is used in the Hebrew in both 
 places. There are, moreover, other connecting circum- 
 stances mentioned, which clearly identify the one with the 
 other. Verse 7, " And in the morning ye shall see the 
 glory of THE Lord, for tliat he heareth your murmurings 
 against the Lord." And when Moses summoned them 
 before the divine presence, he repeats the very same words, 
 verse 9, " Come now before the Lord, for he hath heard 
 your murmurings.'''' And in the tenth verse, when "the 
 glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud, the Lord spake to 
 Moses out of the glory, / have lieard the murmurings of 
 the children of Israel.''^ Is it possible, then, to doubt 
 whether the same thing be meant in the three verses, when 
 precisely the same words are used ; and the same word 
 used in the Hebrew for the glory of the Lord, in the dif- 
 ferent passages ?* It seems to me, as I trust it will to my 
 
 • The pillar always accompanied the Israelites, or rather led 
 them. It directed their journeyings and their encampments. 
 When it rose, they prepared for a march ; when it rested they 
 halted. They had a tabernacle before the order for making one 
 was given on Sinai. On this tabernacle the pillar rested, or rather 
 the tabernacle was pitched where the pillar rested. Tliis place 
 was always witliout the camp, (Ex. xxix. t"> ; xxxiii. 7.) This 
 
62 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 readers, that proof need not to be more decisive, and that 
 the time occupied in considering these transactions has not 
 been misemployed. Time occupied in examining the 
 minute agreements, and harmonious coincidences of scrip- 
 ture cannot be lost. 
 
 Tlie fixing of this date of the first sabbath mentioned, 
 will be very useful for many purposes. We have, thus, the 
 seventh day of the week, and the twenty-third day of the 
 month firmly bound together, which I request my readers 
 to bear in mind. 
 
 In this transaction, which has been so much relied on as 
 a proof that the sabbath was not known or practised before 
 that time, I find many traces of the contrary. I have 
 before proved, that after the giving out of the law on Sinai, 
 we have no reason to expect any mention of early practice 
 to enforce the sabbath ; and I think I have abundantly 
 proved, that the silence of the Scriptures as to its observ- 
 ance, is no proof of its non-existence. All that we can 
 reasonably expect to find is traces^ and such traces are 
 numerous and manifest in the history of this transaction. 
 Not only do we find traces of the sabbath, but also of laws 
 antecedent to the giving of the law on Sinai, and among 
 them of a commandment to keep the sabbath. All this I 
 now proceed to show, bespeaking the kind attention of my 
 readers, and their frequent reference to the chapter under 
 consideration. 
 
 In the extract above given from Mede, he says, ' that on 
 that occasion, in the Wilderness of Siri, the Israelites were 
 commanded to keep the sabbatli.' This is a mistake, for 
 no such command is given. The only command given is to 
 gather a double portion of manna on the sixth day, because 
 
 explains the meaning in verse 10, of their looking towards the tvil- 
 derness, which is tlic same as if lie had said fro})i the camp, toward 
 the tabernacle and pillar. 
 
THE SABBATH, 63 
 
 the folloiving day was the sabbath. If this had been the 
 first mtimation or mention of the sabbath, it would have 
 been defined — the IsraeUtes would have been told what it 
 was; there would have been some command to rest and 
 keep it holy, and some reason assigned for so sanctifying it, 
 as we see in Gen. ii. ; Exod. xx. Locke lays it down as 
 an abuse of language to introduce new or unusual words 
 without defining them; and he considers the contrary 
 practice of defining, as necessary for perspicuity. Now, 
 Moses is one of the most perspicuous of writers, and we 
 cannot believe that he would have introduced the sabbath 
 to the notice of the Israelites in this slight and incidental 
 way, if they had never heard of it before. But no defini- 
 tion, no explanation is given, nor any command to rest or 
 keep it holy. The only command given is verse 5, " And 
 it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall pre- 
 pare that which they bring in. And it shall be twice as 
 much as they gather daily." As yet, not one word is said 
 about the sabbath, nor any reason given why they were to 
 gather twice as much on the sixth day. The sabbath was 
 not mentioned until the end of the sixth day, after they 
 had gathered the double quantity. All this is unaccounta- 
 ble on any other supposition than that the sabbath was 
 previously known. " 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 ; and he said unto them, this is that which 
 the Lord hath said, to-morrow is the rest of the holy sab- 
 bath unto the Lord ; bake that which ye will bake * and 
 seethe that ye will seethe. And that which remaineth 
 over lay up for you, to be kept until the morning. And they 
 laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade ; and it did not 
 stink, neither was there any worm therein. And Moses said, 
 • ' To-day' is added I)}' the translators, but is not in the Hebrew. 
 
64 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 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 ye shall 
 gather it, but on the seventh,* the sabbath, in it there shall 
 be none." My readers are aware, that in Hebrew the same 
 word with very slight inflections signifies seven^ seventh, 
 rest and sabbath. Therefore, if the sabbath, and the pre- 
 cise inflection of the word denoting it, had not been pre- 
 cisely known, this first mention of it would have been 
 utterly unintelligible. I have given some proofs already, 
 that it had been known before ; and I think it will appear, 
 that the knowledge of it had not been lost during the bon- 
 dage in Egypt, but was not only known to them before this 
 transaction, but that they actually had the commandment 
 for its observance. 
 
 I proceed, therefore, to show, that the observance of the 
 sabbath, the cessation from labour on that day, and even 
 the particular mode of rest, had been, before that time, 
 sanctioned by law. 
 
 In the fourth verse, " The Lord said unto Moses, behold, 
 I will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall 
 go out and gather a certain rate every day, that / may 
 prove them whether they will walk in my LAwf or no" 
 And then immediately follows the order to gather a double 
 quantity on the sixth day, hut no prohibition against going 
 out to look for it on the seventh. What then was to prove 
 them ? What law were they to keep ? No law was then 
 mentioned, nor any law or order given in the mean time, 
 except to gather a double quantity on the sixth day, and 
 with this they strictly complied. Now read the account 
 of the following sabbath, verse 27 ; " And it came to 
 
 • The translators have here added " which is," and in my opinion 
 it weakens the sense. 
 
 f Exod. xvi. i, " inij lavj," is in llie singular nnnil)L'r in the 
 Ilehrcw.— H. S. 
 
THE SABBATH. 65 
 
 pass * there went out of the people on the seventh day for 
 to gather, and they found none." And then, immediately, 
 without any law having been given either before or during 
 the transactions, they are reproached with having broken 
 God's laws. " And the Lord said unto Moses, How long 
 refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws ?" 
 Now, this seems to me to be demonstration that the sabbath 
 had been previously known, and its observance enforced by 
 law and commandment. For one only fact is mentioned ; 
 this alone, therefore, could have been a breach of any law 
 or commandment, the simple fact of " their going out on 
 the sabbath ;" which certainly was not forbidden here, and 
 yet it provoked God as a breach of his laws and command- 
 ments; and therefore must have been previously forbidden 
 by a commandment well known to the Israelites. It is in- 
 disputable, that the disobedience consisted in their going 
 out ; for Moses cautions them, in verse 29, against a similar 
 breach. " See, for that the Lord hath given you the sab- 
 bath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of 
 two days : abide ye every man in his place ; let no man go 
 out of his place on the seventh day." 
 
 Therefore, there were laws and commandments before 
 this time, and the observance of the sabbath was one of 
 them, and we know from hence that rest was one particular 
 part of the observance, but we are not to conclude that it 
 was the only one. I shall in a subsequent place prove 
 more at large the existence of laws and commandments 
 before this period. Thus much of the subject as being 
 connected with this transaction I have been obliged to 
 anticipate. 
 
 * I omit the words supplied by the translators. I shall subse- 
 quently have occasion to do the same, and will not further notice 
 the omission than by supplying tho place of the word with an 
 asterisk.(*) 
 
 F 
 
66 SCIUPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 I have in the above quotation directed my readers' atten- 
 tion to some very remarkable words not immediately con- 
 nected with the topic then in hand. The attentive reader 
 will not have failed to observe, and to observe with delight, 
 that the sabbath is spoken of in the preter or past tense, 
 HATH GIVEN, as having been given before that time, whereas 
 the giving of the manna is spoken of in the present tense, 
 " he giveth."" Is not this a demonstrative refutation of the 
 assertions of our authors, that the sabbath and the manna 
 were given together ?* 
 
 How surprisingly the proofs of the pre-existence of the 
 sabbath have accumulated from a careful consideration of 
 
 * I particularly directed the attention of my Hebrew friend to 
 these words, for fear of making a mistake, and proving too much ; 
 although the English translators were of this opinion. The follow- 
 ing is his answer,(c) ' In Exod. xvi. 29, " he gave," is preter of 
 Kal : "he yiveth," is participle, Benoni, or active, " he is giving." 
 — H.S.' And here, to give my readers, who, by this time, I hope, 
 are my allies, a little rest after this long battle with our adversaries 
 in the Wilderness of Sin, I conclude this note with remarking a 
 peculiarity of the Hebrew language. It has no present tense. It 
 has a past tense and a future ; no pluperfect or variation of the 
 past, no paulo-post futurum or division of the future. The want 
 of a present tense is considered a great defect in the lang\iage 
 (although I have stated in note {b) how it is supplied). What 
 others have considered a defect appears to me as a proof of its 
 divine original, being in perfect conformity witli the nature of 
 things. We, indeed, who speak the English language, have 
 endeavoured by encroaching on the past and the future, to erect 
 a moveable platform for action, which we may call our own, and 
 which we denominate the present. But what is the true present "4 
 A quickly flowing mathematical point, itself possessing no space, 
 describing the line of time, dividing the past from the future, and 
 rapidly converting one into the other ; warning us, as it runs, to 
 profit by the stream wliicli hurries us along to the immense expanse 
 where the flux of time shall cease, the pitst aud fiifitre both miite, 
 and all be an etgrnai. i'kksknt. 
 
THE SABBATH. 67 
 
 this single chapter ! What powerful evidence it furnishes 
 of the truth and accuracy of holy writ ! What beauties it 
 unfolds to the eye of faith ! What harmony for him that 
 hath ears to hear the words of life ! 
 
 SECTION XI. 
 
 THE DAY OF DEPARTURE OUT OF EGYPT. 
 
 We give the name of " Genesis'' to the first book of Moses 
 from a Greek word, signifying creation, and of " Exodus," to 
 the second from a Greek word signifying " a departure, or 
 going out." I propose now to fix the day of the week on which 
 the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt took place. As 
 to the day of the month there can be no doubt ; and the trans- 
 action in the Wilderness of Sin, and the dates there deter- 
 mined will enable us to ascertain this day also. 
 
 With regard to this departure, authors have fallen into 
 two errors. The first and most palpable is, that the pas- 
 sage of the Red Sea is to be considered as the day of de- 
 parture out of Egypt ; the second, and most general is, 
 that the Israelites came out of Egypt on the day of the 
 week which was afterwards observed by them as their 
 sabbath, and that they observed that particular day of the 
 week in commemoration of that event. 
 
 As to the first error, the day of their leaving Rameses. 
 The first day of their setting out, the 15th day of the 
 month, is the day of their " departure out of Egypt." They 
 sacrificed the passover in the evening of the 14th (at the 
 close of the 14th inter duas vesperas). At midnight, the 
 beginning of the 1.5th, they commenced their march, and 
 
 1-2 
 
68 
 
 sen IP JURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 halted that night at Succoth. In Exod. xii. 17, speaking 
 of that day, the sacred historian says, speaking for God, 
 "In this self-same day have I brought your armies out of 
 the land of Egypt." (verse 41.) " Even the self-same day 
 it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out 
 from the land of Egypt. (42.) It is a night to be much 
 observed unto the Lord, for bringing them out from the 
 land of Egypt. This is that night of the Lord, to be 
 observed of all the children of Israel in their generations."" 
 (Verse 51.) " And it came to pass the self-same day, the 
 Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt 
 by their armies." And in Numb, xxxiii. .3, it is expressly 
 said, that the children of Israel " went out on the 15th day 
 of the first month, on the morrow after the passover."" 
 This day, then, is the day of their departure, and not the 
 day of the passage of the Red Sea, which did not take 
 place until several days afterwards. This corrects the first 
 error. 
 
 We are now to determine on what day of the week the 
 departure took place. This will appear by inspection of 
 the table in the note.* The months mentioned in this 
 
 • 
 
 
 First 
 
 month 
 
 
 Second niontli. 
 
 
 
 Day ol 
 
 Day of I Day ol 
 
 Day ot 
 
 Day ot 
 
 Day of 
 
 Day ol 
 
 Day ot 
 
 
 
 the 
 
 llie 
 
 the 
 
 the 
 
 tilt- 
 
 tlie 
 
 the 
 
 tliu 
 
 
 
 tnonlli. 
 
 week. 
 
 iiiontli. 
 
 week. 
 
 inoii'li 
 
 wi'fk. 
 
 month. 
 
 week. 
 
 
 Passover at even 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 26 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 \S 
 
 4 
 
 
 Departure 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 ii. 
 
 vii. 
 
 14 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 5 
 
 28 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 Ariival ai Sin. 
 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 29 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 xvi. 
 
 vii. 
 
 i Sabbath ami ap- 
 ( pearaiiceof uloty. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sabbatli 
 
 xviii. 
 
 vii. 
 
 30 
 
 S 
 
 li 
 
 3 
 
 17 
 
 1 
 
 t Quails sell! in the 
 s evening, niaiiiia 
 ( in the inoiiiini;. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 () 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 2 
 
 2n(l (lay of manna 
 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 :t 
 
 19 
 
 3 
 
 3rd ditto. 
 
 
 21 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 20 
 
 4 
 
 4th ditto. 
 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 ix. 
 
 vii. 
 
 21 
 
 .') 
 
 5lh ditto. 
 (C\\\ ditto, and 
 ' double manna 
 
 
 23 
 
 ,"> 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 22 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 gathered. 
 
 
 24 
 
 <") 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 vii. 
 
 M.iiiiia sabbath. 
 
 
 XXV. 
 
 vii. 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
Tlii: SADBATH. 69 
 
 chapter, and in the 16th, consisted of thirty days. We have 
 proved that the sabbath after the six days of manna was on 
 the 23rd, and by reckoning back we find that the 15th day 
 of the first month, the day of the departure, was the fourth 
 day of the week. Even supposing the authors above quoted 
 to have been as right as they were wrong in fixing the 
 manna sabbath on the •2'2nd of the second month, that 
 would fix the departure on the third day of the week. 
 And therefore it is inconceivable how any person, who had 
 taken the trouble of reckoning, could suppose that the de- 
 parture was on what would have been the first day of the 
 week, if it had been previously and regularly observed ; 
 or, in other words, that the sabbath of the Israelites was 
 fixed on that day, and observed afterwards in commemora- 
 tion of their going out of Egypt. How authors, who did 
 not take the trouble of calculating, fell into that error, I 
 will show presently. I am bound in candour to say thus 
 much in their defence, that it w^as very natural that 
 they should suppose, that the day had been fixed in 
 commemoration of so great and so near an event, in which 
 they were so vitally interested. But I must expect reci- 
 })rocal candour from them, and that they will acknowledge, 
 that inasmuch as it has been proved, that the day was not 
 fixed on the day of the week corresponding to that great, 
 and near, and interesting event, it must either have been 
 fixed before, or connected vvitli a day answering to some 
 other event, which, as being more distant, must have been 
 proportionably greater. 
 
 Many well-meaning people, who acknowledge the original 
 institution of the sabbath, and the coeval commandment 
 for its observance at the time of the creation, and that it 
 was obeyed through the patriarclial ages, yet suppose that 
 the knowledge of it was lost during the slavery in Egypt. 
 Hut I cannot s\il)scribo to this opinion. Tljero was only 
 
70 SCIinTUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 about a hundred years from the death of Joseph until the 
 departure, and they were not reduced to slavery until some 
 time after his death : surely this was not a sufficient lapse 
 of time to obliterate all memory of so essential a part of 
 their religion, when we know that the viva voce command 
 of Joseph once given to bring out his bones with them, 
 was so well remembered. Nay, I should think that their 
 very slavery would have riveted their affection to their 
 religion, and particularly to the sabbath, on %\hich day, 
 above all others, they must have looked for some commu- 
 nication of their deliverance, which they must have ex- 
 pected, as it was foretold to them by Joseph, at the same 
 time that he gave them that injunction about his bones, 
 which they did not forget. It is certain that they kept up 
 the knowledge of the true God, and can we suppose that 
 they forgot the day dedicated to his worship ? We are told, 
 Exod. i. 17 — 21, that the midwives "feared God," more 
 than they did the king. See also ii. "2.3, 24, 25 ; iii. 7, 9, 
 15, 16. That they should have forgotten that there was 
 a sabbath, I think incredible ; that they might have for- 
 gotten the precise day, is possible. But had they not the 
 pillar of a cloud, the divine glory, constantly with them 
 from the day of their departure, not only to guide their 
 movements, but to instruct them in everything they ought 
 to know or do? 
 
 We have reason to think that they rested on the very 
 first sabbath after their departure. God did not lead thorn 
 by the direct road towards the promised land by the north 
 coast of the isthmus of Suez, next to the Mediterranean 
 Sea, (Exod. xiii. 17,) because it led through the land of the 
 Philistines, but by the south coast by the head of the Red 
 Sea, on the eastern :<ide of which lay the Wilderness of 
 Etham, stretching up to the point where Suez now stands. 
 This point is a hundred English miles from Kameses or 
 
THE SABBATH. 71 
 
 Cairo. They marched on the first day, the fourth of the 
 week,-. — having set out at midnight, — and encamped at 
 Succoth, — exactly one-third part of the way ; and we ma} 
 conclude that the other two-thirds took two days' march ; 
 and accordingly we know that they marched by day and by 
 night until they reached it; for we read, (xiii. 21, 22,) that 
 " the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to 
 lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give 
 them light : to go by day and night. He took not away 
 the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night 
 from before the people." 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that they reached their destination 
 " at Etham in the edge of the wilderness," (20) on the very 
 northern point of the Red Sea, in tno days, that is, on the 
 si.vth day, and there they encamped and rested on the 
 seventh day. How long they remained there I cannot 
 determine. Pharaoh and his people must have waited at 
 least until the first part of the process of embalming their 
 firstborn, and mourning for them, was over : the whole pro- 
 cess took forty days. Gen. 1. 2, 3. The Israelites encamped 
 on the sixth day of the week, at the distance of a hundred 
 miles. Some days must have elapsed before the news of 
 their being encamped there reached Pharaoh ; and some 
 days after before he could reach them. When he did ap- 
 proach them, they moved a part of a day's journey down 
 the west side of the sea; and when they crossed they came 
 to the same Wilderness of Etham at the other side, on the 
 edge of which they had previously been encamped. I have 
 been particular in describing this journey, to show the im- 
 possibility of fixing the day of the passage, to show that it 
 is impossible for ihose, who supposed that they passed on 
 the seventh day, to prove it by calculation. 
 
 The error that thoy came out of Egypt on the se\eiith 
 day, — corresponding with the subsequent sabbatlis, — is very 
 
72 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 general. Some authors took up this opinion on very er- 
 roneous grounds ; and the rest followed without inquiry, like 
 a flock of sheep or of wise bipeds. Mede says, ' Upon the 
 morning watch of that very day, which they kept for their 
 sabbath, he overwhelmed Pharaoh and all his host in the 
 Red Sea, and saved Israel f/iat day out of the hand of the 
 Egyptians. This I gather from the repetition of the deca- 
 logue, Deut. V.' 
 
 Here are two errors. I have already shown that the day 
 of the passage of the Red Sea was 7iot the day of the 
 departure out of Egypt ; and I have shown that the day of 
 the departure was not on the seventh, but the fourth day of 
 the week : and I have also shown that the day of crossing 
 the sea cannot be ascertained. But as the fifth of Deutero- 
 nomy is, in despite of calculation, relied upon as the proof 
 of their erroneous opinion, it behoves me, after having 
 proved what it cannot mean, to show what it really does 
 mean. The passage is as follows, (Deut. v. 14, 15,) at the 
 end of the fourth commandment : — " That thy man-servant 
 and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou : and 
 remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt ; 
 and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through 
 a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm : therefore the 
 Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath-day." 
 The error which has been committed in the interpretation 
 of the last sentence, arose from connecting it with the sen- 
 tence immediately preceding, instead of the preceding sen- 
 tences at the conclusion of the fourteenth, and beginning of 
 the fifteenth verse, commanding them to let their servants 
 rest on the sabbath, remembering their own bondage, when 
 they were not allowed to rest on any day. 
 
 It would be very strange, that on the solenni delivery of 
 the law on Sinai, immediately after their deliverance from 
 Egypt, while the event was fresh in their memories, that 
 
THE SABBATH. 73 
 
 this reason for keeping the sabbath should not be men- 
 tioned; but that God should wait until all those men who 
 had been actually delivered, — except three, — were dead, and 
 then give the deliverance from Egypt, which happened 
 forty years before, as a reason for keeping the command- 
 ments, to those who were either not born then, or so^'young 
 as not to remember it. It would also seem strange and in- 
 consistent, that in the stone tables of the commandments, 
 which were ordered to be preserved in the ark, and which 
 were actually there when Moses wrote and rehearsed 
 the book of Deuteronomy, and to which he appeals in 
 that very book — (" there they be," Deut. x. 5,) that one 
 reason should be given, and a totally different reason 
 alleged in the recapitulation of the commandments on this 
 occasion. 
 
 The message sent down by Moses, when he brought 
 down the renewed stone tables of the commandments, 
 seems to me to be decisive against this fanciful crotchet of 
 some of our divines. Exod. xxxi. 16, 17, 18: "Wherefore 
 the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the 
 sabbath throughout their generations /or a perpetual cove- 
 nant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel 
 for ever ; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, 
 and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." 
 Here the rest after the creation is laid down to be the per- 
 petual reason for ever of the children of Israel keepiu'T the 
 sabbath. Can we suppose that Moses would have been 
 guilty of such a gross contradiction, as to substitute, forty 
 years afterwards, another reason in commemoration of 
 another fact known at the time of the above perpetual 
 injunction? Can we wonder that infidels pretend to dis- 
 cover contradictions in the Bible, when our own divines 
 labour to establish them ? 
 
 The interpretation I have given above, is the true one ; 
 
74 SCUIPTUHE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 and this mode of connecting what is given as a note or ex- 
 planation, — not with the immediately foregoing sentence, 
 but with one more distant, — similar in sense and context, 
 and not united by juxtaposition, — is very usual in scripture. 
 I could produce a hundred such cases. 'I'hese notes are 
 frequently added at a great distance and after the interven- 
 tion of much other matter, so as not to interrupt the sense, 
 and often, as in this place, with the intervention of a single 
 sentence, of which latter species, as more immediately pa- 
 rallel, I will, in the first place, give examples. 
 
 In Mark xi, 13 : — " And seeing a fig-tree afar off, having 
 leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon : 
 and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves ; for 
 the time of figs was not yet." Now, a common reader 
 supposes that the time of figs here mentioned is to be con- 
 nected with the clause immediately following, and to mean 
 the time of the grnw'mg of the figs, and he wonders why 
 the tree was cursed for not having figs, when none could 
 be expected. But, in truth, that last sentence means the 
 time of gathering the figs ; and, instead of belonging to 
 the sentence immediately preceding, is a note on the clause, 
 " if haply he might find anything thereon," for the time 
 of gathering the figs had not arrived. The fruit of a 
 fig-tree comes out before the leaves ; and when leaves 
 appeared on a fig-tree, it was a sure indication of its 
 having fruit, and he had a right to expect to find fruit, as 
 the time for taking them off the trees was not yet come. 
 Therefore the show of leaves without fruit was a sure proof 
 of the barrenness of the tree, and a fit emblem of the Jews, 
 and the blasting of the tree a prophetic warning of their 
 destruction. 
 
 And again, (Mark xvi. 3,) when the women came to the 
 sepulchre, " tiiey said among tluMusehcs, who shall roll us 
 away the stone from the door of the sepulchre ? And when 
 
THE SABBATH. 75 
 
 they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away : for 
 it toas very great." Here the third sentence manifestly 
 belongs to the first, and not to the second. 
 
 Thus, also, in Matt, vi., when our Lord has delivered 
 and concluded his prayer, he adds, " For if ye forgive men 
 their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you ; 
 but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your 
 Father forgive your trespasses." Here verses 14 and 15 
 belong to verse 12, and are connected by the conjunction 
 " for," without any intimation, except the sense and the 
 context, to what part they belong. Thus in Isaiah xxxviii. 
 (Hezekiah's sickness and thanksgiving,) verse 21 is a note 
 on verse 5, and 22 on 7. And in Exod. xvi., verse 36 
 is a note on 16, 18, 22, 32. See also the following pas- 
 sages in Deut. itself, (xv. 12 — 15; xvi. 11, 12; xxiv, 14 — 
 18, 19 — 22,) where the same motive is given almost in the 
 same words in four different places, for showing kindness 
 to servants, to strangers, and the fatherless : " Thou shalt 
 remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the 
 Lord thy God redeemed thee thence : therefore I recom- 
 mend thee to do this thing." And in some of these cases 
 the reader will perceive that this motive is separated by 
 other subjects from the command which it is to enforce, in 
 the same manner as in Deut. v. 15. See also Exod. xxii. 
 21 ; xxiii. 9. Lev. xix. 33, 34. Deut. x. 18, 19. 
 
 My interpretation of that passage is greatly strengthened 
 by the literal Latin translation, which Walton gives in his 
 Polyglot of the Hebrew word in verse 15, signifying " to 
 keep," in our English translation. He explains it by " ad 
 faciendum custodire," to make to keep^^ — not only to keep 
 
 • {d) ' In Deut. v. 15, the word translated " to keep," literally 
 means " to or for the keeping ;" it is the gerund of Kal. (lerunils 
 are formed of infinitives, by prefixing the Hebrew L, which com- 
 pletes the sense of a preceding verb, or marks the purjjose of such 
 
76 SCKIPTUIIE ACCOUNT Ol' 
 
 it themselves, but to 'iiuke those in their employment keep 
 it also. This sense still more strongly connects the end of 
 the verse with the be'i'innins. 
 
 SECTION Xll. 
 
 THE SABBATH A SIGN, &C. 
 
 The Archbishop of Dublin's arguments are taken chiefly 
 from Heylyn, to whom he refers us for further information. 
 Heylyn, as also Bramhall and Barrow, quote Exod. xxxi. 
 and Ezek. xx. as a proof that the sabbaths were to be 
 a sign between God and the Israelites, and therefore that 
 they were intended only for the Israelites. His Grace 
 applies this quotation in a very obscure manner, without 
 consideration or examination of the text in the Bible, and 
 shows a very defective memory of it. He quotes from 
 Ezekiel, where it is only repetition, and makes no mention 
 of Exodus, where it is original. He quotes only half the 
 sentence, omitting the latter half, which gives the true 
 meaning of the former ; he quotes " Ezekiel passim,'^' — 
 a proof that he did not look at Ezekiel ; for what he tells 
 us occurs everywhere in Ezekiel, occurs only in one of forty- 
 eight chapters, and there only twice, and only four times in 
 the Bible. He does not make the same use of it as the 
 other authors ; but the way in which he throws it out, is 
 
 VLTb ; as Cieii. vi. 1, — " \Vhen men began to imiltiply ;" Gen. xxiv. 
 15, — " \\c finished to speak ;" Gen. xii. .5, — " And they went forth 
 to go ;" I'vxod. iii. 8,- " And I eanie down to deliver liini." The 
 root from whence tlie verb is derived, signifies to iinikc, forui, 
 faxhioii,oh«frvf, to do, /icrfunii, art,' \e. — II. S. 
 
TFIE SABBATH. 77 
 
 calculated to make a false impression. And, by referring to 
 Heylyn, he makes himself responsible for his (Heylyn's) 
 view of the text- And, as it is one of their strongest argu- 
 ments to prove that the sabbaths were to be confined 
 to the Jews alone, it is necessary that we should ex- 
 amine it. 
 
 ' Because,' say our authors, ' the Lord says to the Is- 
 raelites, that he had given his sabbaths to be a sign between 
 him and them, therefore they belonged to them alone in 
 their national capacity, and were to cease on the dissolution 
 of the nation.' Now, I consider this question to turn not 
 so much upon the sign, as the thing signified. If the thing 
 signified were to have been peculiar to them, and confined 
 to them, and coeval w^ith their nation, so would the sign 
 also. For instance, if the sabbaths had been given as 
 a sign that they were to be his peculiar people, to the 
 exclusion of other nations, then certainly the sabbaths 
 would have ceased, when they were no longer his peculiar 
 people, and when all the nations were admitted to his cove- 
 nant. But let us see what they were to be signs of. 
 
 The declaration was originally made to Moses, Exod. 
 xxxi. 13, 17. In Ezekiel, the former declaration is merely 
 recited and referred to, with a slight variation. We will 
 consider both. Exod. xxxi. 13, and Ezekiel xx. 12, are 
 nearly alike. " My sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a 
 sign between me and you throughout your generations, 
 " that ye may know that I am tlie Lord that doth sandify 
 you" Thus recited in Ezekiel : — " Moreover, also, I gave 
 them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, 
 that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify 
 them." Thus also, Exod. xxxi. 16, 17: — " Wherefore the 
 children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the 
 sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual cove- 
 nant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for 
 
78 SCRll^TURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 ever ; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and 
 on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.'' And in 
 Ezek. XX. 20: — " And hallow my sabl)aths, and they shall 
 be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am 
 the Lord your God."" 
 
 We see in the original quotations from Exodus, that it 
 was not so much the sabbaths that were to be the sign as 
 the keeping of them. " My sabbaths ye shall keep, for it 
 is a sign," &c. Now, what was the keeping of the sabbaths 
 to be a sign of? First, that the Lord was the God who 
 sanctified them ; secondly, a sign that they served that God 
 who made heaven and earth, and rested on the seventh 
 day ; and thirdly, that the sabbath was not only to be the 
 sign that he sanctified them, but the means of sanctification ; 
 fur by keeping them they were " to know" that is, to feel, 
 that they were sanctified by the observance. And we learn 
 from Ezekiel that it was not the mere outward observance 
 that was to be a sign ; for the Lord says, " Hallow my 
 sabbaths, and they shall be a sign ;" but how could they 
 hallow the sabbaths except by keeping them holy, by dedi- 
 cating them to prayer, and praise, and worship, and by 
 spending them in such a holy manner as would conduce to 
 their sanctification ? 
 
 Now, surely there is nothing in all this to show that 
 cither the sign or the thing signified was to be confined to 
 the Israelites.* The things signified were to be of uni- 
 versal concern, — the knowledge and service of the true God, 
 
 * Mede gives testimony in our favour here. He says that tlic 
 sabbath was to be a sign to the Israelites, to show what God tiicy 
 served, — that they served the Creator of the worUl. He considers, 
 also, that Christians, as well as the Israelites, are bound to the ob- 
 servance. And he very justly considers the spirit of the law to be 
 the qnotmn of time to be given u|k and not the observance of this or 
 that day. 
 
THE SABUATH. 79 
 
 Maker of heaven and earth,— the dedication of a portion of 
 their time to his worship, — spending the sabbath in such a 
 holy manner as should conduce to their own holiness, and 
 insure their sanctification. Will any man say these were 
 mere Jewish ordinances, to be confined to that nation, and 
 to cease when their polity was broken up for their dis- 
 obedience ? The error of our authors arises from the suppo- 
 sition that because the sabbath was to be a sign to the 
 Israelites, that it was to be an exclusive sign. Our Lord 
 says, that as Jonas was a sign to the Ninevites, so should 
 the Son of man be to that generation : but was he to be a 
 sign to that generation alone ? If the sabbath was to be 
 the sign, and the means of sanctifying them, and of keeping 
 up the knowledge of the true God, we may argue con- 
 versely that so long as the knowledge of the true God was 
 necessary, — so long as fallen man needed sanctification, — 
 so long would the sabbath be necessary. 
 
 As the above quotations show the effects from a due ob- 
 servance of the sabbath, so does the same chapter of Ezekiel 
 show, in the words of the Almighty, the consequences of its 
 profanation. Ezekiel xx. 16 : " They polluted my sabbaths, 
 for their hearts icent after their idols.'' And again, 24 : — 
 " They had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after 
 their fathers' idols." So that as the observance of the sab- 
 bath produced all the above-mentioned good effects, so also 
 did the neglect of it lead to idolatry, and all manner of 
 sins so strongly denounced in the chapter of Ezekiel 
 before us. 
 
 We may further remark, that any promises or bless- 
 ings, which were to be confined to the Jewish nation, 
 were wholly temporal ; but every description, every com- 
 mand, and every exhortation we have of the sabbath, 
 from its very first origin at the time of the creation, were 
 altogether spiritual. No temporal ingredient was ever 
 
80 SCJlIPTUnE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 mixed up with the sabbath. The chapter of Genesis above 
 quoted contains a strong proof that the sabbath was to form 
 a part of the Christian covenant, xxxi. 16: " Wherefore 
 the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the 
 sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual cove- 
 nujit." In the next section, I will show that the covenant 
 was granted to all mankind : the temporal part belonged to 
 the Jews, the spiritual and perpetual part to all mankind, 
 both Jews and Gentiles, if the former had not forfeited it by 
 their disobedience and rebellion. 
 
 It is remarkable how nearly the description of the sab- 
 bath,— of its nature, tendency, objects and effects, as above 
 described, — agrees with the definition of a sacrament, 
 as given by our church. The sabbath was to be an out- 
 ward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace or sanctifica- 
 tion. It was given unto us and ordained by Christ him- 
 self, the Creator and the Angel of the Covenant, as the 
 means of obtaining that sanctification, and as a pledge to 
 assure them thereof; for it was to be a sign that they 
 should knovi that the Lord sanctified them. 
 
 SECTION XIII. 
 
 THE COVENANT. 
 
 I HAVE abstained from quoting human authorities on my 
 side of the question, cxcej)t, in a few cases, tlic authority of 
 linguists, as to the interpretation of words. I do not con- 
 sider it a transgression of my rule to (juote Cruden, as to 
 the meaning of a scriptural word, whidi he deihiccs by 
 a most copious induction from all the passages in which it 
 
THE SABI5ATH. 81 
 
 occurs, — from a diligent examination of each, and a judi- 
 cious comparison of one with the other. And, as my reader 
 will ohserve, I do not rest upon his authority, but solely on 
 that of scripture- 
 
 The popular use of the words signifying " covenant" 
 even by the sacred writers, has led some authors into mis- 
 takes, from want of due consideration. The expressions of 
 the old covenant, the new covenant, the Jewish and Chris- 
 tian covenants, are used as if these were distinct and sepa- 
 rate covenants ; whereas they are one and the same cove- 
 nant, under different dispensations. I do not here take 
 into consideration the covenant with Adam, which was 
 a separate covenant; but the covenant of grace, com- 
 mencing in the time of Abraham, and at length opened out 
 into the kingdom of Christ. Crudens says, ' It is called 
 New, (Heb. viii. 6, 8,) not in respect of its date, — it being 
 made from everlasting, — but in the manner of its dispensa- 
 tion and manifestation ; not that it differed in substance 
 from the old, — for therein Christ was promised, his death 
 and sufferings shadowed forth by the legal sacrifices ; and 
 such as were saved under the Old Testament were so 
 only by faith in the blood of the Messiah that was to come. 
 Gal. iii. 6 : — " Abraham believed God, and it was counted 
 to him for righteousness." He believed in a special man- 
 ner the promise of the covenant concerning Christ, in whom 
 believers of all nations should be blessed. (Gen, xii. 3.) 
 But this Testament or Covenant is called New, in regard 
 of the manner of its dispensation, being ratified afresh by 
 the blood and actual sufferings of Christ ; being freed from 
 those rites or ceremonies, wherewith it was formerly ad- 
 ministered ; as it contains a more full and clear revelation 
 of the mysteries of religion ; as it is attended with a larger 
 measure of the gifts and graces of the Spirit ; and us it is 
 never to be changed, to wax old, or to be abolished.' 
 
82 SCRIPIURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 The ten commandments, including the fourth, are inti- 
 mately connected with ' the covenant.' But our opponents 
 have endeavoured to connect them indissolubly with some 
 supposed temporary Jewish covenant, which is abolished, 
 and the commandments with it. I am, therefore, obliged to 
 consider with what covenant they are connected, and the 
 nature and duration of that covenant. This discussion is 
 necessary for our argument ; and even if it were not, it in- 
 volves questions of so much interest, and is likely to prove 
 so fi-uitful of information, that I hope my readers will not 
 think that I have wasted their time and my own. 
 
 Some of my readers may, perhaps, be surprised to find 
 that no distinct and peculiar covenant was ever made with 
 the Israelites. They were merely introduced to, and made 
 partakers of, a more extensive covenant. There was only 
 ONE covenant from the time of Abraham to the present 
 hour. It is true that covenants are said to have been made 
 from time to time ; and the Scriptures speak of the old and 
 the new ; but they will all be found to be either renewals of 
 the original covenant, or parts of it, which parts are, in 
 popular language, called the old and the new. I hope to 
 establish these positions, and then to show that the deca- 
 logue is not part of the limited and restricted covenant 
 permitted to the Israelites under their law, but part and 
 parcel of the extensive Abrahamic covenant, which embraces 
 the Christian dispensation, and that the decalogue, including 
 all the ten commandments, was to last as long as that cove- 
 nant : and I hope thence to deduce a variety of arguments 
 to establish the permanent obligation of all the ten com- 
 mandments. 
 
 The Covenant was made with Abraham. The tem- 
 poral part was first given (Gen. xv.) with the solemnities 
 usual in those times on making an agreement between two 
 persons. A sacrifice was offered, a victim slain and divided 
 
THE SABBATH. 83 
 
 into two parts, ami the contracting parties, by walking be- 
 tween, ratified the agreement. This ceremony was com- 
 mon to all nations : hence the Latin expression ferire 
 foediis. In the instance before us, " a smoking furnace, 
 and a burning lamp," (the shekinah or symbol of the Divine 
 presence,) passed through and ratified the covenant on the 
 part of God. But the full covenant, containing its spiritual 
 and general blessings, was entered into and confirmed by 
 an oath, on a subsequent occasion, on Mount Moriah, on 
 the virtual offering up of a much nobler victim, when Abra- 
 ham, so far as his will was concerned, offered up his own 
 son, which was a figure and representation of the offering 
 up of the Son of the high contracting party to this co- 
 venant, in the very same place. Gen. xxii. 16, &c. " By my- 
 self have I sworn, saith the Lord : for because thou hast 
 done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only 
 son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying 
 I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as 
 the sand which is upon the sea-shore ; and thy seed shall 
 possess the gates of his enemies : ajid in thy seed shall all 
 the nations of the earth he blessed, because thou hast obeyed 
 my voice." This is the true and genuine covenant, the 
 Abrahamic covenant, the everlasting covenant, the one and 
 only covenant. 
 
 To Abraham was vouchsafed a large share of light, and 
 a clear view of the Messiah's kingdom : " he rejoiced to 
 see his day." And if his descendants had trodden in his steps, 
 and been heirs of his faith, we confidently believe that the 
 same light would have been granted to them, — that there 
 would have been a gradual preparation of the gospel of 
 peace. But they did not follow his steps ; they were rebel- 
 lious, disobedient, carnal, and worldly. Eternal rewards, 
 for which they had no taste nor feeling, were removed from 
 their view ; and temporal rewards and punishments were 
 
 o 2 
 
84 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 substituted. Tlie clear light of revelation which Abraham 
 enjoyed, was obscured by veils, and types, and shadows. 
 
 From many parts of Scripture, we learn that the revela- 
 tion to Abraham, the covenant, and the promises were in- 
 tended as the commencement of a gradual developement of 
 the gospel, and of the salvation which was to be by faith. 
 The service of the Israelites was intended to have been 
 a spiritual service, a gradual exercise of faith. The Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, (iv. "2,) speaking of the Israelites who 
 perished in the wilderness, says, " For unto us was the 
 gospel preached as well as unto tliem ; but the word 
 preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in 
 them that heard it." Now, whenever we wish to found any 
 argument on the intentions of God, with regard to the 
 Israelites, we must keep an eye on the true and original in- 
 tention, and not adopt the erroneous plan of interpreting 
 the intentions of Providence, by the subsequent facts and 
 circumstances of their history, which grew out of their 
 disobedience, and fi-ustrated the good intentions of God. 
 Many authors have fallen into this error : therefore we 
 must keep the corrective given above steadily in view. The 
 law of Moses, so much talked of, made no part of the 
 original design or dispensation. On the contrary, it was a 
 withdrawal, a suspension, and a limitation of it, on account 
 of their rebellions and transgressions, and may aptly be 
 compared with the forty years in the wilderness, and the 
 suspension, during that period, of the entrance into the 
 promised land, as a punishment justly due to their trans- 
 gressions. 
 
 In many places, God is said to make a covenant with the 
 Israelites, when he merely renewed a part of the original 
 covenant ; or when, after transgression and forfeiture, he 
 re-aflmitted them. In many cases this is obvious ; in others, 
 not so apparent. 
 
THE SABBATH. 85 
 
 The Israelites, by their rebellion in making and wor- 
 shipping molten images, the golden calf at Horeb, while 
 Moses was in the Mount, forfeited the whole of the co- 
 venant and promises, and Mere condemned to death, 
 (Exod. xxxii. 10,) but spared, on the intercession of Mo- 
 ses. And (Exod. xxxiv.) after a proclamation of his mercy, 
 goodness, and forgiveness, (verses 6, 7,) he ?'e- grants a part 
 of the original covenant, \iz. the temporal part, — the pos- 
 session of the land of Canaan. And this re-grant of a 
 part is called " making a covenant." But it appears clearly, 
 from verses 10, 11, 12, that nothing was granted on that 
 occasion but the temporal possession of the land, which made 
 part of the original covenant. 
 
 The conditions of the re-grant and of their re-admission, 
 were that, as they had forfeited the promises and his favour 
 by idolatry, so were they to show their reformation and 
 hatred of idolatry, (12, 13,) by not making a covenant or 
 connexion with the idolatrous nations ; but, on the con- 
 trary, that they " should destroy their altars, break their 
 images, and cut down their groves. That they should wor- 
 ship no other God, (14,) and that they should make no 
 molten gods." (17). And, as a protection for the worship 
 of the true God, and avoiding of idolatry, they are enjoined 
 to keep the sabbaths and feasts. (21, 22.) And shortly 
 after, (27, 28,) when the new tables of the commandments 
 are delivered, they are made a part of the renewed cove- 
 nant. " Write thou these words ; for after the tenor of 
 these words I have made a covenant with thee, and with 
 Israel ; and he wrote upon the tables the words of the 
 ten commandments." Let it be kept in remembrance that 
 the commandments had been given before this renewal of 
 the covenant, or new covenant, (call it which you please,) 
 and therefore, although added as a condition, could not be 
 considered as coeval with it. 
 
86 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 The true view of the ease is, that they were at first 
 delivered as a part of the original covenant of faith : but 
 now, re-added to the re-grant of part of the covenant, but 
 on a different principle, — their rigid observance, and strict 
 obedience, making a condition of a covenant of works. 
 This distinction between the full covenant of Abraham, as 
 a covenant of faith, and the renewal of part of it, as a 
 covenant of works, appears clearly from many parts of 
 Scripture. Gal. iii. 19. " Wherefore, then, serveth the 
 law ? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed 
 should come, to whom the promise (the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant) was made,* * # * ordained by angels in the hands 
 of a Mediator." The distinction appears strongly in the 
 following verses. Gal. iii. 8. " The Scripture, foreseeing 
 that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached 
 before the gospel vmto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all 
 nations be blessed. So they which be of faith, are bless- 
 ed with faithful Abraham." This is a description of the 
 Abrahamic covenant, and shows what would have con- 
 tinued to be its nature, if the Israelites had continued 
 faithful. But now read the description of the partial renewal 
 of the covenant after their transgressions and idolatry, 
 lb. 10, 11, \'2, 13, 14. " For as many as are of the works 
 of the law are under the curse : for it is written, Cursed 
 is every one that continueth not in all things which are 
 ivritten in the hook of the latv to do them. But that no 
 man is justified by the law in the sight of God, is evi- 
 dent; iov the just s\\Si\\\\\e by faith. And the law is not 
 of faith : but the man that doeth them shall live in them. 
 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law^ 
 being made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham 
 
 • I omit the words " and it was," inserted by the translators, 
 but not in the original, as confusing the sense, and making the 
 latter sentence seem to refer to the law instead o{ the promise. 
 
THE SABBATH. O' 
 
 might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we 
 might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." 
 15. " Brethren, I speak after the manner of men ; though 
 it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no 
 man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and 
 his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to 
 seeds, as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is 
 Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was con- 
 Jirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four 
 hundred and thirty years after, cannot di<atinul that it 
 should make the promise of none effect." 
 
 Thus we see that the Abrahamic covenant was the true 
 and everlasting covenant. And the great distinction be- 
 tween it and the law was, that by the covenant Abraham 
 could be justified by faith ; but he could not have been jus- 
 tified even by faith without the covenant. But by the law 
 no man could be justified. Rom. iv. 13. " The promise 
 that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham 
 or his seed through the law, but through the righteousness 
 of faith." The law, properly so called, or the Mosaic or 
 national law of the Israelites, made no part of the original 
 everlasting covenant; but, on the contrary, was added on 
 account of the transgression and forfeiture of that very 
 covenant. The covenant, instead of being gradually un- 
 folded and spiritualized, (as was originally intended,) was 
 made temporal — was shrouded in ceremonial and ritual 
 observances. The ark of the covenant, containing the ten 
 commandments, was shut up from the Israelites until the 
 time determined to finish the transgression. Dan. ix. 24. 
 Instead of being led by the Angel of the covenant, the law 
 was a severe schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. 
 
 To some worldly-minded nominal Christians, the Abra- 
 hamic covenant may seem to be chiefly temporal, but we 
 learn from St. Paul (Heb. viii. ix.; Gal. iii.) that the temporal 
 
88 SCllIPTUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 parts were merely preparatory to the spiritual, the faint pencil 
 patterns or tracings, which were to be overlaid with gold. 
 Thus did they appear to be overlaid in St. Paul's view, for 
 he does not even notice the temporal parts in his description 
 of the covenant. 
 
 For the further confirmation of the above views of the 
 covenant, the following examples will show, that we are 
 not always to suppose that when a covenant is said to be 
 made, it is a new covenant, but merely a repetition, or 
 renewal, or confirmation of the old. I have shown this 
 already, as to the covenant mentioned on delivering the 
 new tables, Exod. xxxiv. Deut. xxxix. 1, " These are the 
 words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses 
 to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, 
 beside the covenant which he made with them in lloreb :" 
 And yet it appears to any one who reads this chapter, that 
 there was no new convenant made then, but merely the 
 former covenant renewed and confirmed to the young gene- 
 ration about to enter the promised land. 
 
 Before God is said to have made the covenant with 
 Israel after their transgression, Exod. xxxiv., he exhorts 
 them to keep his covenant. Exod. xix. o. This was the 
 Abrahamic covenant, and he promises as a reward of their 
 obedience, that they should be " a kingdom of priests," &c. 
 which means, that if they adhered to that covenant, which 
 was to be extended to all nations, thei/ should be employed 
 as the heralds and priests to proclaim and teach it to the 
 rest of the world. 
 
 In '2 Kings xxiii. '2, when Josiah found the book of the 
 law, and persuaded the people to adopt it, he is said to 
 have made a covenant, when in reality he only brought it 
 into use : for what was the covenant he and the people 
 tnade ? " To keep his connnandmcnts and his testimonies, 
 and to perform the words of this covenant " (which they 
 
THE SABBATH. 89 
 
 had found and read,) ^'^ and all the people stood to the 
 covenant." 
 
 In Isaiah Iv. beginning with " Ho, every one that 
 thirsteth," (an expression appropriated to himself by our 
 blessed Lord at the feast of dedication,) verse 3, " Inchne 
 your ear, and come unto me, hear, and your soul shall live ; 
 and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the 
 sure mercies of David." It is manifest that this refers to 
 the covenant already made, and not to a new one to be 
 made : and means that he will extend the original covenant 
 to them in the true spirit of the promises to Abraham ; 
 and that he would not only give it to them, but that they 
 should be the happy and blessed instruments of extending 
 it to other nations. Verse 5. " Behold, thou shall call a 
 nation that thou knowest not ; and nations that knew not 
 thee, shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, 
 and for the holy one of Israel ; for he hath glorified thee." 
 
 The Christian covenant is called the everlastbig covenant, 
 Ezek. xxxvii. 26. " Moreover / will make a covenant of 
 peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with 
 them." But it appears from what has been said that this 
 was not to be a new covenant. It also appears from Isaiah, 
 that the covenant of peace had existed before ; and it is 
 remarkable that this passage immediately follows chap. liii. 
 in which the Messiah is more particularly foretold, liv. 10: 
 " The mountains shall depart and the hills be removed ; 
 but my kindness shall not depart from thee ; neither shall 
 the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that 
 hath mercy on thee." 
 
 That the Jewish covenant was the same or rather part of 
 the Abrahamic covenant appears fi*om David's Psalm cv. and 
 1 Chron. xvi. 15. " Be ye mindful always of his covenants, 
 the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, 
 which ho made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac, and 
 
90 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 hath conjirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel 
 for an everlasting covenant."" And in the time of Elisha 
 the Jewish covenant is spoken of as the covenant with 
 Abraham. " And the Lord was gracious unto them and 
 had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because 
 of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." 2 Kings 
 xiii. -23. 
 
 In Deut. viii. 18, when Moses promises the blessings of the 
 " covenant which he sware unto thy fathers," he means the 
 original and everlasting covenant, for that alone was con- 
 firmed by an oath. 
 
 " In Dan. ix. 27, it is said that the Messiah " shall confirm 
 the covenant with many for one week." This must mean the 
 original covenant with Abraham, and in MaL iii. 1. " ITie 
 messenger of the covenant," refers to the Christian dispen- 
 sation, which is thus identified with the covenant of 
 Abraham. In like manner, in St. Luke i. 72, Zacharias 
 connects the Abrahamic covenant with the Christian dis- 
 pensation. " To perform the mercy promised to our 
 fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, and the oath 
 which he sware unto our father Abraham." 
 
 Enough has been said to show that there was but one 
 covenant confirmed with all the solemnities of a covenant ; 
 that it was to be an everlasting covenant gradually expand- 
 ing out into the gospel dispensation ; — that no new cove- 
 nant was made with the Israelites, but that they were 
 partially re- admitted to that covenant, the whole of which 
 they had forfeited by their rebellion and idolatry. We may, 
 therefore, conclude that in such passages as the following, 
 when a new covenant is spoken of, we are to consider the 
 same original covenant adapted to a new dispensation. Jer. 
 xxxi. .'31. " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I 
 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and the 
 house of Judah ; not according to the covenant that I made 
 
THE SABBATH. 91 
 
 with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand 
 to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant 
 they brake ; but this shall be the covenant that I will make 
 with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, 
 I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in 
 their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my 
 people." The same is repeated in Hebrews viii. 8, 9, 10, 11. 
 See also 6, 7, 13. 
 
 SECTION XIV. 
 
 CONNEXION OF THE COMMANDMENTS WITH THE ORIGINAL 
 AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. 
 
 Barrow, and others, argue against the permanent obliga- 
 tion of the decalogue, on the grounds that it formed part of 
 the Jewish law and covenant, and must cease with the sub- 
 version of the Jewish state and covenant. I have proved 
 above that there was not a separate covenant made with the 
 Israelites. But supposing, for the present, that a second 
 covenant was made after their rebellion and idolatry, and 
 acknowledging that the ten commandments were made part 
 of that covenant ; it does not follow of course that they 
 are to be coeval with it. The very supposition of their 
 being of universal and permanent obligation would have 
 been sufficient cause for incorporating them into a tem- 
 porary code of laws. Thus Christianity is made part and 
 parcel of British law ; but if the British law and state 
 were to have an end, must Christianity end with them ? 
 Or, supposing that King Charles II. had founded a college, 
 and made the acknowledgment and subscription of the 
 thirty-nine articles a necessary condition of the charter, 
 and supposing the college and charter subsequently to cease 
 
02 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 from forfeiture or other cause, would the thirty-nine articles 
 cease along with it ? If such a covenant had been made, 
 and the commandments been made along with it, there 
 might have been a presumption, but certainly no proof, that 
 they were to be coeval. But how stands the case here ? 
 The ten commandments were delivered some time before 
 that supposed covenant was made. When they were spoken 
 on Mount Sinai, there was no covenant in existence except 
 the Abrahamic covenant ; and it is extraordinary, that 
 immediately before the giving out of the commandments, 
 they are exhorted to keep that covenant, and promised that 
 they should be a kingdom of priests for the communication 
 of it to all the nations, Exod. xix. 5, 6- The command- 
 ments were given under that covenant, as I shall show on 
 another occasion, as part of a covenant of grace. After- 
 wards, on the partial renewal of the forfeited covenant, 
 they were also added, but in a different spirit, as part of a 
 covenant of works, requiring strict and undeviating obedi- 
 ence. It is true they are, according to the Scripture idiom, 
 called the covenant itself, as being the conditions of it, just 
 as circumcision is called the covenant, although nothing 
 more than its sign. 
 
 It is a great error to suppose, that because revelations 
 were made to the Israelites, they were exclusively intended 
 for them. It could not be expected that a revelation 
 should have been made to each particular nation, and it 
 would have been useless to have made it to those nations 
 which did not acknowledge the true God, which was the 
 case at that time with all other parts of the world except 
 the Jews. It was necessary, therefore, to select some one 
 nation which acknowledged the true God, and would accept 
 a revelation as coming from him. The Israelites were the 
 only such nation, and we know how difficult it was to keep 
 even them from falling into idolatry. It was necessary 
 
THE SABBATH, D3 
 
 that there should be some one people selected as the depo- 
 sitory of God's law, and as the organ and instrument for 
 communicating that revelation to others, as they should be 
 willing to receive it. And we have sufficient proofs that 
 all these objects were kept in view in the selection of that 
 people and in the communications with them, and such 
 proofs I hope to give in a subsequent section. 
 
 Instead, therefore, of saying that all the laws and com- 
 mandments delivered to them were to be abrogated with 
 their national polity, (which, by-the-bye, were not to have 
 been abrogated at all, according to the original intentions 
 when the commandments were delivered,) the cautious and 
 candid inquirer will diligently endeavour to separate the 
 general laws intended for all mankind, from the national 
 laws peculiar and appropriated to that people. It may be 
 difficult to draw the exact line between the two, but with 
 that distinction we have nothing to do at present ; if any 
 of the laws delivered to them were intended for general 
 obligation, surely the commandments were those laws, and 
 our present inquiry relates only to them. And I do not 
 think that we shall have much difficulty in proving to any 
 unprejudiced person that they were intended for all man- 
 kind. 
 
 The difference between the commandments and the law, 
 appears from the different mode of their promulgation. 
 The commandments alone were delivered with lightnings 
 and thunderings and voices, and with the sound of a 
 trumpet and a loud voice, as if to proclaim them to all 
 nations. When they were given out, Moses and Aaron 
 alone were admitted into the mount, the people and the 
 priests were forbidden even to touch the mountain. But 
 when the other laws were to be given out, not only Moses 
 and Aaron, but Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders 
 were called up. The commandments were written by the 
 
94 sciupi'Uiiio ActcjUNT or 
 
 finger of God, and on tables of atone, to represent their 
 permanency. The rest of the law was written by Moses, 
 and in a book. And again, ch. xxxiv., when the second 
 tables were given, they were written by God, and no man 
 but Moses was allowed to come up, not even Aaron ; and 
 no man was to be seen throughout all the mount. 
 
 The precautions for preserving these two tables show 
 also the intentions of the Lord as to their duration. Moses 
 was directed to make an ark for keeping them, of shittim 
 wood, the most durable kind known. It was to be overlaid 
 with gold within and without, the staves also of gold, the 
 most precious, pure, and durable of metals ; with a crown 
 (a rim or parapet) of gold round about ; and into this ark 
 Moses was to put the two tables of testimony, or the ten 
 commandments, written with the finger of God. Ex. xxv. 16. 
 This ark was afterwards called the ark of the covenant and 
 of the testimony ; and the next direction will show with 
 what covenant it was connected, and will also show the 
 great value of the commandments. Moses was next directed 
 to make a mercy-seat, of the very same dimensions in 
 length and breadth as the ark, (two and a-half cubits long, 
 and one and a-half broad,) cherubim were to be placed 
 at each end. This mercy-seat was an emblem of the 
 mediator of the covenant. St. Paul calls both it and our 
 Saviour by the same word, «\a<7rr;pio)'. Rom. iii. 25. On this 
 the divine glory was to descend, and did descend, and from 
 hence did the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Mediator 
 of the covenant, hold communications with his people. 
 The ark itself was nothing, it derived all its importance 
 as the bearer of the commandments ; and with it, — or ratiier 
 with the commandments, — was connected the mercy-seat, 
 the symbol of the everlasting covenant. Thus were the 
 tables of the decalogue kept in close connexion with the 
 mercy seat, and the future dispensation of grace and mercy, 
 
THE SABBATH. 95 
 
 i 
 and manifestly they were intended to be coeval, and of 
 
 course to be permanent. The ark and the mercy-seat 
 constituted the glory of the Holy of Holies, which was the 
 emblem as well of heaven as of the Christian dispen- 
 sation.* 
 
 The outer tabernacle was called the tabernacle of the 
 congregation. In it were the altar of incense, the table 
 for the shewbread, and the golden candlestick. In it 
 " Aaron and his sons were to order it morning and evening 
 before the Lord, a statute for ever unto their generations, 
 on the behalf of the children of Israel." On the altar of 
 incense in the outer tabernacle, Aaron was to burn incense 
 morning and evening, and to make an atonement on the 
 horns of it once a year, previous to his entering the Holy 
 of Holies. Into the Holy of Holies, the high priest entered 
 once a-year. See Lev. xvi. 1 — 17. The punishment of 
 death was denounced against him if he entered at any 
 other time. He was, at the time of his entrance, to burn 
 incense, that the cloud arising from it should cover the ark 
 and the mercy-seat, " lest he die" No other person was 
 allowed to enter at any time ; nor was any person allowed 
 to remain in the outer tabernacle of the congregation when 
 he entered. 
 
 St. Paul teaches us to consider all these things as 
 typical, — as figurative and prophetical illustrations of the 
 dispensations of Providence ; the different parts of the 
 
 * It might seem from our translation of Heb. ix. 4, as if the 
 golden pot of manna and Aaron's rod were in the ark, but that was 
 not the case, the manna was to be laid up before the Lord, and 
 also the rod ; the golden censer also was kept in the Holy of Holies 
 to be ready to burn incense when the high priest entered. We 
 read in 1 Khig viii. 9, that when the ark was moved into the temple 
 of Solomon, " there was nothing therein, save the two tables of 
 stone which Moses pxit there at Horeb." 
 
96 scun'TruE accouni" of 
 
 tabernacle showing the difference between the Jewish and 
 Christian covenants. Heb. ix, 1, &c. " The first covenant had 
 also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary ; 
 for there was a tabernacle made, the first, wherein was the 
 candlestick and the table and the shewbread, w hich is called 
 the sanctuary; and after the second veil the tabernacle, 
 which is called the Holiest of all, which had the golden 
 censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about 
 with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, 
 and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant, 
 and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy- 
 seat. Now, when these things were thus ordained, the 
 priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing 
 the service of God ; but into the second went the high 
 priest alone* once every year, not without blood, which he 
 offered for himself and for the errors of the people : the 
 Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the Holiest 
 of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first taber- 
 nacle (the outward one) was yet standing, which was a 
 figure for the time then present, (of the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion,) in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, itc." 
 
 It is manifest from this quotation and the remainder of 
 the chapter, that the outward part of the tabernacle was a 
 figure of the Jewish dispensation, and the inner of the 
 Christian: the outward with its Jewish ceremonies and 
 sacrifices — the inner with its ark and mercy-seat, and 
 commandments, into which the high priest alone, — as the 
 
 • The high priest entering alone into the holy place where the 
 commandcnts were kept, and all persons, even the priests, being 
 removed at that time from the outer tabernacle, fnrnish a beautifid 
 similitude of Moses entering alone into the mount and the glory, 
 to receive the commandments, and all the |)eople, and even the 
 priests, being prohibited at that time from coming within the boun- 
 daries of the mountain. 
 
THE SABBATH. 97 
 
 type of our Saviour, — having offered a sacrifice in the 
 outer, entered the inner, and offered incense upon the 
 golden censer, kept there for the purpose. These two 
 parts of the tabernacle were transferred to the temple 
 afterwards, and were to have continued until the coming of 
 the Messiah : until then the Holy of Holies was to have 
 continued in all its strictness of exclusion to every one 
 except the high priest once a year. 
 
 The exclusion was to continue until our Lord, by the 
 sacrifice of himself in the outer tabernacle, that is, under 
 the Jewish dispensation, should throw down the veil and 
 enter, and open the Holy of Holies, the inner tabernacle, 
 the emblem of the Christian dispensation, to all the world. 
 And accordingly, the veil of the temple which inclosed the 
 inner part, immediately on his death was rent in twain 
 from the top to the bottom, and the interior opened. Now, 
 all these things show clearly that the inner tabernacle was 
 a type of the Christian dispensation, — of the kingdom of 
 heaven : and in this tabernacle the mercy-seat and the 
 commandments were to have been preserved if the repeated 
 rebellions of the Jews had not forfeited the keeping of 
 them. They were removed in fact, but I follow the 
 apostle in considering them to remain in ajigure, as show- 
 ing the intentions of their founder, and the prophetic illus- 
 trations of the two dispensations. 
 
 Here, then, we have the commandments closely shut up 
 in the part prefiguring the Christian dispensation, there to 
 be preserved until they should be opened out in their 
 spiritual perfection, with that spiritual dispensation, of 
 which they were to form a part. Is it possible then to 
 doubt this plain intention, that the commandments were 
 intended to be carefully preserved either in fact or in figure, 
 until the coming of Christ, to be a part of the gospel 
 dispensation, and be coeval with it? 
 
 H 
 
1)8 SCRll'TUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 I have before remarked, that whatever is said of the ark 
 is to be understood of the commandments, of whicli it was 
 merely the depository, and the outward case. So long as 
 the ark was to continue either actually or figuratively, so 
 long must the commandments also be understood to con- 
 tinue in force : and we have, in Rev. xi. 15, 19, a strong inti- 
 mation that they were to abide for ever under the dispensa- 
 tion of grace, the full establishment of which is there de- 
 scribed, and the ark (and of course the commandments) 
 mentioned as a necessary part or accompaniment. "And 
 the seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices 
 in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become 
 the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ; and he shall 
 reign for ever and ever. And the temple of God was 
 opened in heaven; and there was seen in his temple the 
 ARK of his testament (testimony*) : and there were light- 
 nings, and voicesj'and thunderings, and an earthquake, and 
 great hail." 
 
 It may, however, be objected, that the commandments 
 were preserved in the ark for the use of the Jews. This 
 was not the case. Even the high priest was not allowed to 
 enter within the veil, on pain of death, more than once 
 a year, after solemn sacrifices of atonement for himself and 
 all the people. So far from being permitted to look into 
 the ark on that occasion, he was not allowed even to look 
 on it, but to burn incense, so that the cloud arising ft-om 
 the incense should hide the ark, " lest he die." On this 
 annual entrance, no one, not even a priest, was suffered to 
 remain in the outer tabernacle — no one was to see the ark. 
 When the tabernacle was to be removed, the Lcvites were 
 to cover up the ark with the curtains and coverings of the 
 tabernacle. (Numb. iv. 5.) When the camp was to move, 
 
 • The word " testimony," so constantly jipplied to the aik, is by 
 St. Paul appliid lo I'.ii- fco.'^pil. (I Cor. i. 6 ; ii. 1. ; y Tim. i. S.) 
 
THE SABBATH. 09 
 
 Aaron and his sons were to take down the covering veil, 
 and cover the ark with it, and to put two more coverings 
 over that; but they were not to touch the ark, lest they 
 die. (ver. 15.) The ends of the staves by which it was 
 borne appeared from under the veil of the Holy of Holies. 
 These alone were ever seen, — and seen only by the priests 
 who ministered in the outer tabernacle of the congregation. 
 It was death to touch the ark. Uzzah was smitten with 
 death for putting his hand to it even with a good intention. 
 (1 Chron. xiii. 9, 10.) It was death to look into it: 1 Sam. 
 vi. 19 : " And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because 
 they looked into the ark of the Lord : even he smote of the 
 people fifty thousand, and threescore and ten men." 
 
 From all that has been said it appears that the command- 
 ments were connected with the original and everlasting 
 covenant, and not with the law ; that the covenant was 
 that given to Abraham, and to be confirmed in Christ ; that 
 the commandments are connected with that covenant and 
 the Christian religion, and belong to all the nations of the 
 earth ; that they were shut up from the Israelites and Jews, 
 from the law and its ceremonies ; that the law was no part 
 of the real everlasting covenant, but added because of trans- 
 gressions ; that the spiritual part of the covenant, and the 
 spiritual meaning and sanctions and obedience of the com- 
 mandments were suspended and locked up, until the trans- 
 gi-ession should be finished, the veil taken away, and the 
 covenant perfected and confirmed in Christ. 
 
 H L> 
 
100 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 SECTION XV. 
 
 A REVELATION, LAWS, AND COMMANDMENTS, BEFORE 
 MOSES. 
 
 The revelation by Moses having superseded any that might 
 have preceded it, we cannot expect more information from 
 his writings than faint traces, and incidental mention arising 
 out of other subjects. We have no antediluvian history 
 from the time of Adam to that of Noah, and next to none 
 from the flood to Abraham. I have already shown the 
 great probability of the divine presence having been esta- 
 blished at the east of the Garden of Eden ; and I think it 
 hkely that this continued as the medium of communication 
 and revelation of the will of God as to the direction and 
 instruction of mankind, and condemnation of their evil 
 deeds. The Lord says before the flood, that "his spirit 
 should not always strive with man." Therefore we may 
 conclude that it hadhither to been striving with them : but 
 we do not read of any revelations in the history of God's 
 dealings with man as given by Moses, without some visible 
 appearance, except to Moses himself. 
 
 When God said that " his spirit should not always strive 
 with man," he adds, " yet his days shall be one hundred and 
 twenty years;"— that is, "he shall have a respite, and a 
 similar trial for one hundred and twenty years to the trial 
 and striving which I have hitherto had with him." And I 
 have shown before, that Christ preached to tliem duviug all 
 that time while the ark was a building : and as he preached 
 to the Israelites in the wilderness (Hob. iv. 2) from the 
 Divine Glory, we may conclude that he preached to the 
 
THE SABBATH. 101 
 
 antediluvians in the same manner. And I have given rea- 
 sons for supposing that immediately before the flood the 
 Divine presence removed into the ark, and remained there 
 during the year that it was inhabited. If my view as to the 
 time before the flood be correct, surely mankind would re- 
 quire the same instruction afterwards ; and accordingly we 
 find that the people which continued in the same country 
 still preserved the knowledge of the true God, while those 
 who removed from thence quickly fell into idolatry. The 
 distinction between clean and unclean beasts was known 
 before the flood, which must have been established by divine 
 revelation. 
 
 There must have been laws before the time of Moses ; — 
 for in Gen. xviii. 19, the Lord says of Abraham, " I know 
 that he will command his children and his household after 
 him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice 
 and judgment." Therefore the way of the Lord must have 
 been revealed, and they must have had laws, or how could 
 they do justice and judgme7it ? And in Gen. xxvi. 5, he 
 says, " Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my 
 charge, my commandments^ my statutes, and my laws." 
 Indeed this expression is so strong, that the Jews found it 
 impossible to account for it in any other manner than by 
 supposing that he kept all the Mosaic law which had been 
 communicated to him by anticipation through a special 
 revelation : Ezekiel (xx. 8, 9) says, that the Lord had even 
 threatened to destroy the Israelites in Egypt " for rebelling 
 against him and not hearkening unto him." Rebellion and 
 not hearkening, suppose laws which they had broken. 
 
 I have shown, in my remarks on the transactions in the 
 Wilderness of Sin, that there were laws antecedent thereto, 
 and that the law of the sabbath was one of them. 
 
 Exod. xviii. 16. Before the Israelites came to Sinai, when 
 Moses was giving an account to Jethro of the way in which 
 he judged the people, he said, "When they have a matter 
 
iO'2 SCllIl'TLKE ACCOUNT ()!• 
 
 they come unto me, and I judge between one and another, 
 and / do make them know the statutes of God and his 
 laws" 
 
 It appears from Exod. xix. xx. that the Israelites had 
 priests before the giving out of the law, therefore they must 
 have had an established form of worship and a ritual. 
 
 Whatever laws had governed mankind before that time, 
 they were repealed by the law on Sinai ; and as no one had 
 any longer any concern with them, Moses does not mention 
 them. He never condescends to gratify our curiosity, other- 
 wise he woidd not have let the long period of time before 
 the flood pass without recording a single fact. 
 
 Since we can see enough to suppose that there was a 
 revelation before Moses, and laws constantly enacted and 
 handed down, may we not conclude that the primeval law 
 of paradise, the foundation and safeguard of all others, was 
 preserved before the eyes and minds of men, and continually 
 handed down from generation to generation. 
 
 SECTION XVI. 
 
 DISTINCTION NECESSARY TO BE OBSERVED BETWEEN DIF- 
 FERENT CLASSES OF THE LAWS OF THE ISRAELITES. 
 
 It appears, from several passages of scripture, that a great 
 difference is to be observed between some of the laws de- 
 livered to the Israelites, and others :— some are municipal 
 and local;— some typical and ceremonial, the concomitants 
 and instruments of a preparatory and temporary dispensa- 
 tion, along with which they were to cease :— some penal, 
 and added on account of transgression, to be remitted when 
 the great atonement should be made: but, on the other 
 hand, there were others, whicli were to be universal and per- 
 manent,— intended for all niinikiiid, but lodged for the pre- 
 
THE SABBATH. 103 
 
 sent with the only nation which acknowledged the true 
 God, — to be preserved by them for the present, and dis- 
 seminated by them thereafter. 
 
 This distinction appears clearly from Ezek. xx. 24, 25 : — 
 " Because they had not executed my judgments, but had 
 despised my statutes and had polluted my sabbaths, and their 
 eyes were after their fathers' idols : therefore I gave them, 
 also, statutes which were not good, and judgments whereby 
 they might not live." Here is manifestly a distinction be- 
 tween two descriptions of laws, the latter much inferior, and 
 called in comparison ^^ not good;" — given in consequence 
 of the transgression of those of a superior kind among which 
 was the law of the sabbath and the worship of the true 
 God, which they gave up for idolatry. The inferior are 
 manifestly the ritual and ceremonial observances. 
 
 The same distinction is kept up in Malachi iv. 4 : — " Re- 
 member ye the laiv of Moses my servant, which I com- 
 manded unto him in Horeb/or all Israel ; with the statutes 
 and judgments ;" where the statutes and judgments, al- 
 though given by Moses for the observance of the Israelites, 
 are mentioned separately from the law given peculiarly for 
 all Israel. 
 
 St. Peter, in Acts xv. 10, alludes to the ceremonial part, 
 when the question was whether they were to keep the law 
 of Moses : — " Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a 
 yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our 
 fathers nor we were able to bear ?" 
 
 Let us now compare with these expressions of "laivs 
 which were not good," and " statutes by ivhick they could 
 not live" and " a yoke which they were not able to bear" 
 the expressions of David, such as the following : ( Ps. xix.) 
 "Statutes which are right, and rejoice the heart; — The 
 law which is perfect, converting the soul, and making the 
 simple wise ; — The commandment which is pure, enlighten- 
 ing the eyes ; — The fear of the Lord, enduring for ever ; — 
 
]04 SCRimUllE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 The judgments, which are true and righteous altogether, 
 more to be desired than gold, yea than much fine gold, 
 sweeter also than honey and the honey-comb, and in keep- 
 ing of which there is great reward." And Ps. cxix. : — 
 " Make me to go in the path of thy commandments, for 
 therein is my delight ; — Thy statutes have been my songs 
 in the house of my pilgrimage;— it is good for me that I 
 have been afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes ; — I will 
 delight myself in thy commandments, which I have loved; 
 — the law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of 
 gold and silver;— O how I love thy law ! it is my medita- 
 tion all the day ; — Thou through thy commandments hast 
 made me wiser than mine enemies ; for they are ever with 
 me ; — I have more understanding than all my teachers ; for 
 thy testimonies are my meditation;— Thy word is a lamp 
 unto my feet, and a light unto my path ; — Thy testimonies 
 have 1 taken as my heritage for ever, for they are the re- 
 joicing of my heart : — Thy testimonies are wonderful, 
 therefore doth my soul keep them ; — I opened my mouth 
 and panted, for I longed for thy commandments; — The 
 righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting ; all thy com- 
 mandments are truth ; — Concerning thy testimonies I have 
 known of old, that thou hast founded them for ever ; — Thy 
 word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy 
 righteous judgments endure th for ever ; — Great peace have 
 they that love thy law." 
 
 David manifestly understood the commandments in their 
 spiritual sense, and in their wide and extensive application ; 
 for he says, "Thy coinmandment is exceeding broad;" and 
 the spiritual view wliicli was vouchsafed was in answer to 
 prayer : — " Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold w on- 
 (irous things out of thy law." It is manifest that he saw 
 their connexion witli the Uedcomor's kingdom and the ever- 
 lasting covenant, for he says, '• Lord, I have hoped for thy 
 
THE SABBATH. 105 
 
 salvation ; I have done thy commandments ; — I have longed 
 for thy salvation, O Lord ; and thy law is my delight;— For 
 evei; O Lord, thy word is settled m heaven ; thy faithful- 
 ness is unto all generations ; — Thou hast established the 
 earth, and it abideth : they continue this day according to 
 thine ordinance, for all are thy servants ; — Thy righteous- 
 ness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is tJie 
 truth ; — The righteousness of thy testimonies is ever- 
 lasting." 
 
 I might multiply quotations of this kind. The reader 
 knows how they abound in the 119th Psalm alone. But 
 sufficient has been quoted to show that the revelation to 
 the Israelites before the time of David consisted of laws of 
 different descriptions, temporary and permanent. Can any 
 person reading even the above short extracts doubt that 
 there were laws amongst those given, which were to be 
 permanent and everlasting, and for all nations ? If it be 
 granted that there were any such laws, the question is 
 proved, for the ten commandments must be at the head of 
 that list. What stronger expressions could he have chosen 
 to signify durability and permanency ? Why, even the de- 
 voted admirers oi the laiv of nature^ and of the eternal fit- 
 ness of things^ will find expressions here commensurate 
 with the eternity of their boasted unchaligeable laws ; for 
 here we have laws " settled for ever in heaven." 
 
 In several parts of the 119th Psalm, the testimonies, 
 commandments, &c. are called the truth. The critical 
 reader of the Bible knows that in such phrases ^^ truth" is 
 not opposed to ^^ error," but to figurative representations 
 and ritual observances. Thus in St. John i. 17, — "The 
 law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus 
 Christ:" which means that the types and figures of the 
 Christian dispensation were given by the law of Moses; 
 but that the reality and substance, which those types and 
 
106 SCIUPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 figures shadowed out, came by Jesus Christ Therefore 
 when David says, " all thy comniandments are truth" he 
 does not understand the Jewish law, properly so called, 
 consisting of ritual observances, but the commandments of 
 perpetual duration. 
 
 The true state of the case, as I have before said, seems 
 to be that the Israelites were to have been partakers of the 
 full Abrahamic covenant, and to have had the nature of 
 their Redeemer's kingdom gradually unfolded to them ; but 
 in consequence of their rebellions, a veil and coverings of 
 ceremonies and rites were drawn over the ark and the 
 mercy-seat, of which, however, although hid from their 
 view, they were still the depositories and the guardians. 
 And in pursuance of that intention of making them the in- 
 struments of publishing the glad tidings of salvation, if they 
 should have returned to obedience, many laws and com- 
 mandments were also intrusted to them, which were to have 
 been interwoven into the Christian scheme ; and to have 
 laid a preparatory foundation upon which the truth should 
 afterwards be built ; — but I am trenching on the subject of 
 the next section, and have a few words more to add in this 
 to the subject of David's description of the command- 
 ments. 
 
 He evidently refers to laws which were to last under the 
 Redeemer's kingdom, and were, by new sanctions and a 
 s})irit of grace breathed over them, to become instruments 
 of salvation. " Salvation is fiir from the wicked, for they 
 seek not thy statutes." Therefore the statutes of which he 
 speaks could lead to salvation ; and yet Ezekiel says, that 
 God had given the Israelites laws, by which '''■they could 
 not live." See also how he connects salvation and the 
 commandments ; for the critical admirers of Hebrew 
 poetry know that the second member of a sentence is a 
 repetition of the idea of the first in different language. " I 
 
THE SABBATH. 107 
 
 have hoped for thy salvation ; I have done thy command- 
 ments." And in another place, " I have longed for thy 
 salvation, O Lord, and thy law is my delight." 
 
 Nehemiah also, in ix. 13, 14, draws a distinction between 
 the laws given on Sinai directly to the assembled people, 
 and those given through Moses. Of the first description 
 are the following : — " Thou camest down also upon Mount 
 Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them 
 right judgments^ and true laivs, good statutes, and com- 
 mandments, and madest known unto • them thy holy sab- 
 bath/' These were not the laws which the Lord pro- 
 nounced, by the mouth of Ezekiel, to be " laws that were 
 not good.'''' These latter must be sought among the other 
 class mentioned by Nehemiah, — " and commandedst them 
 precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy 
 servant." 
 
 I must return, in a subsequent place, to this quotation 
 of Nehemiah, to rescue it out of the hands of our adver- 
 saries, who have seized upon it to help to construct their 
 batteries against the sabbath. 
 
 SECTION XVIL 
 
 THE ISRAELITES AND JEWS THE DEPOSITARIES OF REVELA- 
 TION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATING Ff TO 
 OTHER NATIONS OF THE WORLD. 
 
 The subjects of this and the three preceding sections are 
 so intimately connected, that I have been obhged, in some 
 measure, to anticipate what more appropriately belongs to 
 
108 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 this. But I prefer submitting to the charge of repetition, 
 to the omission of any remark calculated to elucidate the 
 topic immediately before us. I shall not think it necessary, 
 therefore, in the remainder of this discussion, to apologise 
 for any repetition, which I may feel necessary for giving the 
 question of the sabbath such a full investigation as its 
 importance demands, and as may be unavoidable in fol- 
 lowing the miscellaneous objections of a number of au- 
 thors. 
 
 The Archbishop of Dublin, Sanderson, Baxter, Barrow, 
 &c. say that the Mosaic law did not bind Christians, unless 
 so far as we can prove that it has been sanctioned and 
 adopted into the Christian religion. For our present pur- 
 pose, I might join issue upon that principle. I admit as a 
 general rule that the whole Mosaic law does not bind 
 Christians ; but I deny that no part of that law is binding. 
 The national municipal law is not binding ; the ceremonial 
 and ritual law, which has been fulfilled, is not binding ; but 
 we know, from the Scriptures, that revelation was granted to 
 the Israehtes for the sake of the Gentiles, whom they were 
 conunanded to teach what had been entrusted to them for 
 that purpose : they were not to ' give to a party, what was 
 meant for mankind.' If it had not been for their rebellions, 
 which ended in their being cut off, they would have been 
 the teachers of all other nations. 
 
 Our seventh ' Article of ileli<2;ion ' harmonizes with the 
 principle I have laid down : ' The Old Testament is not 
 contrary to the New ; for both in the Old and New Tes- 
 tament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who 
 is the only Mediator between God and man ; being both 
 God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which 
 feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory pro- 
 mises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as 
 touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, 
 
THE SABBATH. 109 
 
 nor the civil precepts thereof ought, of necessity, to be 
 received in any commonwealth ; yet, notwithstanding no 
 Christian man w hatsoever is free from the obedience of the 
 commandments which are called moral.' 
 
 Exod. xix. 5, 6, God says to the Israelites, " Ye shall be 
 to me a kingdom of priests." This has no meaning, if it 
 be not that they were to teach all other nations. But the 
 occasion on which this was said was very remarkable : it 
 occurs immediately after his saying, " All the earth is 
 mine," and immediately before his giving out the command- 
 ments on Sinai. 
 
 With regard to the underneath prophecies of Isaiah, we 
 must bear in mind, that they were intended to prepare the 
 Jews for the reception of the Messiah, and for co-operating 
 with him ; and, if it had not been their own fault, his pre- 
 dictions would have received their literal accomplishment. 
 Isa. ii. 2 : " And it shall come to pass in the last days that 
 the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in 
 the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the 
 hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people 
 shall go and say. Come ye, and let us go up to the moun- 
 tain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he 
 will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths, for 
 out of Zion shall go forth the law^, and the word of the Lord 
 from Jerusalem." These verses are repeated verbatim by 
 Micah, iv. 1, &c. 
 
 Micah V. 7 : " And the remnant of Jacob shall be in 
 the midst of many people, as a dew from the Lord, as the 
 showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor wait- 
 eth for the sons of men ; and the remnant of Jacob shall be 
 among the Gentiles in the midst of many people, as a lion 
 among the beasts of the forest." 
 
 Isa. XXV. 6, &c. : " And in this mountain shall the Lord 
 of Hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast 
 
110 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on 
 the lees wejl refined. He will destroy in this mountain the 
 face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that 
 is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in 
 victory : and the Lord God shall wipe away tears from off 
 all faces, and the rebuke of his people shall he take away 
 from off the earth ; for the Lord hath spoken it." , 
 
 In Isa. Ivi. 7, the temple of Jerusalem is called " the 
 House of Prayer for all people." And this text our 
 Saviour particularly quotes, when the Jews profaned the 
 outer court, because it belonged to the Gentiles. 
 
 Isa. Ix. 2 : " For behold the darkness shall cover the 
 earth, and gross darkness the people ; but the Lord shall 
 arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 
 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the 
 brightness of thy rising : the forces of the Gentiles shall 
 come unto thee ; I will glorify the house of my glory. 
 The isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, 
 to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with 
 them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy 
 One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee : and the sons 
 of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall 
 minister unto thee ; therefore thy gates shall be open con- 
 tinually : they shall not be shut day nor night ; that men 
 may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that 
 their kings may be brought. The sons also of them that 
 afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee, and all they 
 that despised thee shall bow down themselves at the soles 
 of thy feet : and they shall call thee the City of the Lord, 
 the Zion of the Holy One of Israel." 
 
 Isa. Ixi. 6 : " But ye shall be named the Priests of the 
 Lord : men shall call you the Ministers of our God. Ye 
 shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall 
 ye boast yourselves. And their seed shall be known among 
 
THE SABBATH. Ill 
 
 the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people : all that 
 see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed 
 which the Lord hath blessed." And Ixii. 2 : " The Gen- 
 tiles shall see thy righteousness, and all the kings thy 
 glory." And verse 7 : " And give him no rest, till he 
 make Jerusalem a praise in the earth." 
 
 How sincerely and heartily the ancient and godly Is- 
 raelites desired the conversion of the Gentiles, may appear 
 from the prayer which Solomon addressed to God at the 
 dedication of the temple. 1 Kings viii. 41, 42, 43 : "When 
 the stranger shall come and pray towards this house, hear 
 thou in heaven, that all the people of the earth may know 
 thy 7iame, and fear thee as thy people Israel."'' 
 
 Thus, also, Simeon (Luke ii. 32) bursts forth into a hymn 
 of praise and thanksgiving, that " his eyes had seen the sal- 
 vation of the Lord, which he had prepared before the face 
 of all people ; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory 
 of his people Israel" 
 
 The hundred-and-fifth Psalm is very strong on this subject; 
 but, in order to know the particular purpose and object for 
 which it was written, I must request my readers to look 
 at it in 1 Chron. xvi. This psalm was composed by David, 
 when he brought up the ark of God to the tabernacle he 
 had pitched for it. It was written especially for the Le- 
 vites, who were appointed to minister before the ark of the 
 Lord, to be used by them before it, at the time of their 
 ministration. The reader will not fail to see and admire, 
 how closely the ark, and the commandments, and the ever- 
 lasting covenant, and the Gentiles, are interwoven together 
 in his mind, whilst he was composing this psalm. And let 
 it be borne in mind that the ark before which this psalm was 
 to be continually performed contained nothhig but the two 
 tables of the ten commandments. 
 
 15. " He ye mindfid always of his covenant , the word 
 
11'2 SCHIPTURE ACCOl'NT OF 
 
 which he commanded to a tltotimiid generations, even the 
 covenant which he made tritk Abraham, and his oath unto 
 Isaac, and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law and to 
 Israel for an everlasthig covenant." But what I wish par- 
 ticularly to bring under the notice of ray readers, is the close 
 connexion in the mind of the royal psalmist, between the 
 ark, and the commandments, and the Gentiles. 23. " Sing 
 unto the I^ord all the earth, show forth from day to day his 
 salvation ; declare his glory among the heathen, his mar- 
 vellous works among all natio7is. For the gods of the people 
 are idols ; but the Lord made the heavens. [Here is a par- 
 ticular reference to the fourth commandment.] Glory and 
 honour are in his presence, [alluding, I should think, to the 
 Divine glory and presence which descended upon the ark,] 
 strength and gladness are in his place. Give unto the 
 Lord, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the Lord glory 
 and strength ; give unto the Lord the glory due unto his 
 name; bring an offering, and come before him; worship 
 the Lord in the beauty of holiness ; fear before him all the 
 earth. Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice ; 
 let men say among the nations, the Lord reigneth." And 
 he concludes, (verse 36,) " Blessed be the Lord God of 
 Israel for ever and ever : and all the people said, Amen, 
 and praised the Lord. So he left there before the ark of the 
 covenant of the Lord, Asaph and his brethren, to minister 
 before the ark continually, as every day's work required." 
 
 Acts xiii. 46 : When St. Paul turned from the Jews to 
 the Gentiles, he proclaimed to the latter /row the Jewish 
 Scriptures, the long-established purpose of God to call 
 them (the Gentiles). " For so hath the Lord commanded 
 us, saying, I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles, 
 that thou shouldest be for salvation to the ends of the earth. 
 And when the Gentiles heard this they were glad, and 
 glorified the word of the Lord." But to prove this point, it 
 
THE SAUUATH. 1 13 
 
 is unnecessary to multiply quotations. Every reader of the 
 New Testament must be satisfied in his own mind, that the 
 apostles, both in the Acts and in the Epistles to the Gen- 
 tiles, appeal to the Jewish Scriptures, as standard authority, 
 by which the persons addressed should consider themselves 
 bound, so far as those Scriptures could be shown to bear 
 upon the gospel dispensation. Thus, in the Epistle to the 
 Romans, (Gentiles,) St. Paul frequently appeals to the 
 Jewish Scriptures : and in xv. 8, &c. is an argument that 
 the jevelation to the Jews was intended for the Gentiles ; 
 for " Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision." But 
 for what purpose ? " To confirm the promises made unto 
 the fathers." And what were those promises ? " That the 
 Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy." If, then, our 
 Lord was a minister of the Jewish dispensation for the pur- 
 poses of fulfilling promises made to the fathers, but which 
 belonged to the Gentiles, does it not follow that the Jewish 
 revelation was intended for the Gentiles ? This text also 
 is a further proof, if more were necessary, that the covenant 
 and the promises to Abraham were intended for all man- 
 kind. 
 
 Rom. xi. 24 : St. Paul represents the Gentiles as graffed 
 into a good olive-tree, and says, that " the root bears them, 
 and not they the root.'' If they were ingrafted into the tree, 
 what could that tree be but the former dispensation, from 
 whence, as the root and parent stock, the ingrafted branch 
 was to derive its sap and nourishment? But what nor.- 
 rishment could they derive from a dispensation, which, nation- 
 ally considered, was now abolished, except the vital principle 
 of its revelation preserved in the root and stem to be cir- 
 culated through the young and healthy branches, even after 
 the old and fruitless branches had been cut oflf? 
 
 Rom. iii. 2: St. Paul considers it the chief advantage of 
 the Jews, that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 
 
 I 
 
114 SCRITTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 The full force of the original does not appear in the words 
 so translated. The verb Triarevoi-iai used here means that 
 something has been entrusted to particular persons for the 
 henejit of others. The verb in this voice is used in five 
 other places in the New Testament ; and in all by the same 
 apostle who applies it here : and from those passages we 
 may gather its true meaning. 1 Cor. ix. 17, he says he 
 was entrusted with the dispensation of the gospel. Gal. ii. 
 7, he says that the gospel of the uncircumcision was en- 
 trusted to him, and of the circumcision to Peter. 1 Thess. 
 ii. 4, he was thought worthy to be entrusted with the gospel ; 
 and the same expression occurs again, 1 Tim. i. 1 1. And in 
 Titus i. 3, preaching was entrusted to him. The true mean- 
 ing of the word appears from all these passages, and the 
 same must be the meaning in Rom. iii. 2. And the incon- 
 trovertible conclusion is, that the oracles of God were en- 
 trusted to the Jews/or the henejit of others. 
 
 I conceive that I have abundantly proved that the deca- 
 logue, as a whole, is binding on Christians, lliis, one 
 should think, ought to be sufficient proof with regard to any 
 particular commandment. But some authors, who cannot 
 shut their eyes to the general conclusion as to the whole, 
 still take upon themselves, without any proof or warrant 
 from Scripture, to cut out the fourth commandment as 
 decayed, and gangrened, and rotten. I therefore come now 
 to the consideration of the fourth commandment : and here 
 more particularly I will endeavour to justify the title I 
 have prefixed to this book, as ' The Scripture Account of 
 the Sahhath.'' 
 
THE SABBA'J'H. 1 I, 
 
 SECTION XVI 11. 
 
 THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT. THE SABBATH. 
 
 The law of the sabbath was one of two laws instituted in 
 the time of man's innocency ; the one positive, the other 
 negative or prohibitory : the one standing in place of the 
 first table of the decalogue, the other in place of the second 
 table. When man saw his Creator day by day, face to face, 
 and loved him above all things, no commandment of the 
 first table was necessary, except that for prayer and praise. 
 When none of the relations of human society existed, no 
 proof of obedience could be drawn fi-om commandments 
 founded upon those relations. Therefore another test of 
 obedience was established. 
 
 The sabbath was the first of these two commandments. 
 Gen. ii. 3 : " And God blessed the seventh day, and sanc- 
 tified it, because that in it he had rested fi'om all his work 
 which God had created and made." 1 have proved that 
 this law was given at the very time of the creation. I hope 
 I have also refuted the proleptic argument of Heylyn and 
 the Archbishop of Dublin, by which they would endeavour 
 to pervert these plain words of Scripture. I have shown 
 that at best their argument is a mere pctitio principii, a 
 mere begging of the question, without a shadow of proof, 
 and, at the utmost, can only amount to a bare possibility 
 of their interpretation being correct; but 1 have shown at 
 the same time that the words in the fourth commandment 
 will not even admit of that bare possibility, and are entirely 
 untouched by their argument. I have also shown that 
 there is no possible way in which we can conceive the 
 
 i -2 
 
IIG SCIUPlTltE ACCOUNT OV 
 
 sabbath to have been sanctified and blessed, except by 
 a command from God to man, to keep it holy, and dedicate 
 it to the worship of his Creator. They attempt to build 
 some little argument (some little hay and stubble) on the 
 omission of any command to rest in this original command- 
 ment, which was afterwards so prominently put forward in 
 the decalogue. But this very omission is a strong proof, in 
 my mind, that this precept was given in paradise before the 
 fall, when labour was unnecessary for the support of man ; 
 but afterwards, when man was to " eat bread in the sweat 
 of his brow," a cessation from labour in one day of seven 
 became necessary, and therefore was added. 
 
 The sabbath had no peculiar mark by which it could be 
 known from other days, because it was not to be kept for 
 its own sake. Our Saviour has given us a true key to the 
 knowledge of the observance. " The sabbath was made 
 for man, and not man for the sabbath." The sabbath, con- 
 sidered in itself, was noihing ; but man was ordered to keep 
 one day in seven on his own account. It having been 
 blessed and hallowed, is the same as to say that man and 
 his posterity were commanded to keep it holy. If, then, 
 tVie sabbath was instituted in paradise, and necessary, not- 
 withstanding daily converse with God, how much more was 
 it necessary after the fall, when the knowledge of God was 
 not preserved by daily converse ; and how necessary is it 
 even under the Christian dispensation ! 
 
 Our Creator, who formed our souls and bodies, best knows 
 the precise j)eriod of time during which we may be safely 
 left to ourselves without danger of our forgetting him. 
 He knows also the precise recurrence of time, within which 
 it is necessary that our minds should be refreshed with 
 divine knowledge, and renewed by prayer and communion 
 with liim. lie has decided tliat one day in seven is the 
 proper distimce of time, and also the ])roper quantity. 
 
THE SaBKATM. 1 1 7 
 
 The concerns of life might make a shorter period incon- 
 venient, a longer period might be incompatible with the 
 concerns of eternity. 
 
 To secure the observance of this all-important command, 
 on which the knowledge of the true God, his worship, and 
 the sanctification of man, the life of true and pure religion, 
 and the health of human society, so mainly depend, he 
 founded the observance on his own example, he connected 
 the command in indissoluble association with the most 
 magnificent objects of creation, so that the " heavens, 
 which declare the glory of God, and the firmament which 
 sheweth his handy work," shall, with the voice which is 
 heard throughout the world, and in that universal language 
 which is understood in all nations, proclaim the sabbath, as 
 the tabernacle and sanctuary, in which the ark and the 
 mercy-seat, the divine presence and the glory of God, are 
 present. This, being the foundation and the safeguard of 
 all the other commandments, is repeated oftener than any 
 other, and its beneficial and spiritual eff"ects insisted on, 
 lest any mistaken man should suppose it to be a mere tem- 
 porary command. 
 
 In Exodus xxi., xxii., and part of xxiii., an amplified 
 comment is given on the ten commandments, and they are 
 accommodated to particular cases ; and in this accommoda- 
 tion the attentive reader will perceive that the particular 
 circumstances of the nation of the Israelites are chiefly 
 kept in view ; which, in my mind, is a strong proof that the 
 commandments were not formed for them alone, since a 
 supplementary law or comment was necessary to fit these 
 commandments, intended for universal observance, to the 
 peculiar local and national manners and customs of the 
 Israelites. And this necessity for accommodating those 
 universal commands to that peculiar nation is a strong 
 
118 sriUl'TUHE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 proof that the original law, as delivered on Sinai, was not 
 intended for them alone, but for all mankind. 
 
 While Moses remained in the Mount on the occasion of 
 receiving this commentary, the subject of the fourth com- 
 mandment is repeated, Ex. xxiii. 12; and to show the 
 tendency and object of the sabbath, the following is imme- 
 diately added : " In all things that I have said unto ye, 
 be ye circumspect, and make no mention of the name of 
 other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth." 
 This shows also that the 4th commandment was to be the 
 safeguard of the second, and of all the others, of all the 
 things he had said unto them. 
 
 And in xxxi., immediately after giving directions about 
 making the ark and mercy-seat and tabernacle; and imme- 
 diately before delivering the two renewed tables of the 
 commandments, the only commandment he specifies is the 
 fourth, verse 13 — 17 : " Speak thou also unto the children 
 of Israel, saying, verily, my sabbaths ye shall keep, for it 
 (the keeping of them) is a sign between me and you 
 throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am 
 the Lord that doth sanctify you" Here the blessed effects 
 of keeping it are mentioned, and in the next verse, the 
 14th, "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy 
 unto you." And again, 15, " Six days may work be done, 
 but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, ]ioly to the Lord ,•" 
 and again, 16, " Wherefore the children of Israel shall 
 keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their 
 generations for a perpetual covenant." And also, 17, 
 " It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for 
 ever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and 
 on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." 
 
 In all these passages, although the commandments were 
 about to bo delivered engraven on stone, yet one of them, 
 
THE SABIJA'I'H. . 119 
 
 and one only, is enforced, and that Jive times. And let it be 
 remembered, that this message enforcing that commandment 
 alone was brought down by Moses at the very time he 
 brought down the commandments. In this chapter (xxxi. 
 14) the attentive reader will perceive the new and severe 
 sanction added to the 4th commandment, in pursuance of 
 the altered plans of God in governing the Israelites after 
 their rebellion and idolatry and forfeiture of the original 
 covenant of grace. No other commandment has been so 
 frequently enforced in the Scripture as the fourth. Nor is 
 this the case in the Old Testament alone, but also in the 
 New, as we shall see below. We may therefore conclude, 
 that it is the foundation of all the others, as I will show 
 more at large in another place. 
 
 It is again mentioned when the covenant was renewed 
 after the transgression touching the golden calf at Horeb. 
 Ex. xxxiv. 21. And again, xxxv. '2, by Moses, when 
 addressing the congregation ; and here we find the obsei'- 
 vance made much more strict than before, as was also the 
 sanction in xxxi. 1 4 ; and here also : " Whosoever doeth 
 work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire 
 throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day." This 
 is part of the law which was added because of transgress io)i. 
 The Archbishop of DubUn, in the hurry with which he 
 wrote his ill-digested little pamphlet, did not take time to 
 consider this distinction, for he says, that if we are bound 
 to keep the sabbath, we are equally bound not to kindle a 
 fire on the sabbath day ! He might have added, that we 
 ought to be hanged or stoned if we did. 
 
 In Lev. xix. 3, after an exhortation to holiness in imitation 
 of God, the 4th commandment is mentioned in connexion 
 with the 5th : " Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God 
 am holy : ye shall fear every man his father and his mother, 
 and keep unj sahhatlis. I am the Lord your God." And 
 
120 
 
 SCUII'TURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 in immediate connexion with the observance of the sabbath, 
 and the same awful sanction of the divine authority, the 
 2nd commandment is enforced, (ver. 4,) "Turn ye not to 
 idols, nor make to yourselves molten images. — I am the Lord 
 your God." Such an intimate connexion do we everywhere 
 find between the sabbath and the knowledge of the true 
 God, and avoiding of idolatry. In the remainder of this 
 chapter we find all the commandments of the second table 
 severally enforced and summed up into the golden rule, 
 " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord." 
 But as if something were still wanting, which is necessary 
 for the observance of all and of every commandment — 
 after the exhortation to obedience and the enumeration of 
 the particulars of the second table, the whole concludes 
 with, " Ye shall keep my sabbaths and reverence my sanc- 
 tuary. I am the Lord." So that in this one chapter we 
 find the sabbath in connexion with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd 
 commandment of the first table, and with the .'ith, 6th, 7th, 
 8th, and 9th, of the second. The 10th is not mentioned, 
 being itself only a guard or fence round the other command- 
 ments of the second table. 
 
 After the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan the 
 sabbath is not mentioned except three times, and then only 
 incidentally (viz. firsts 2 Kings iv. 23 ; 6econd, 1 Chron. 
 ix. 32; t/iircl, 2 Kings xi. 5, 7, 9 ; or 2 Chron. xxiii. 4, ike.) 
 until the time of Isaiah, the evangelical proj)het, and not 
 by him until towards the conclusion of his prophecies, in 
 which his inspired mind burst forth into the full effulgence 
 of anticipated gospel light. lie then mentions the sabbath, 
 on such occasions and in such terms, as afford convincing 
 proof that the sabbath was to continue under the Christian 
 dispensation. 
 
 Amidst his several denunciations against the Jews, and 
 liis earnest exhortations to them, the sabbath is not men- 
 
THE SABBATH. 121 
 
 tioned ; but when he comes to describe the Messiah's person, 
 and sufferings, and atonement, and kingdom, then the 
 sabbath rises to his view, and becomes the theme of his 
 inspired eulogy. 
 
 In chapters xhx. 1. and h. he foretells the kingdom of 
 Christ and the calling of the Gentiles ; and in liii. he 
 delivers his well-known description, more like history than 
 prophecy, of the Messiah's character, vicarious atonement 
 and sufferings ; and in the liv. and Iv., a further prophecy 
 of the Christian dispensation ; and with his mind glowing 
 with evangelical visions he proceeds thus, in chap. Ivi. : 
 " Keep ye judgment, and do justice; for my salvation is 
 near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed 
 is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth 
 hold on it ; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and 
 keepeth his hand from doing any evil," Here, polluting the 
 sabbath is considered synonymous with doing evil, or rather 
 as the head and fountain of all other evil actions. And 
 ver. 6, " Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves 
 to the I^ord, to serve him, and to love the name of the 
 Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sab- 
 bath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant, 
 even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make 
 them joyful in my house of prayer ; their burnt offerings 
 and their sacrifices * shall be accepted upon mine altar, for my 
 
 * It may be said that the mention of sacrifices in this quotation 
 shows that it refers to the Jews. But the careful reader of the 
 Ilpistles knows that sacrifices of a different description were to 
 continue under the Christian dispensation. Thus^ Rom. xii. 1, 
 " present your bodies a living sacrifice," &c. 1 Peter ii. 5, " An 
 holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by 
 Jesus Christ." Heb. xiii. 15, 16, " Let us offer the sacrifice of 
 praise to God continually," &c. " To do good and to conununicate 
 forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Phil, iv 
 
\'2'2 SCR IPX LIKE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 house shall be called a house of prayer for all people." The 
 expression of " the sons of the stranger," means the Gen- 
 tiles ; therefore this refers to the dispensation during which 
 the Gentiles were to be called. We may also remark that, 
 "joining themselves to the Lord, — serving him, — loving his 
 name, — and being his servants," are put in apposition to 
 ^ keeping the sabbath and taking hold of his covenant" 
 We may also remark that, "keeping the sabbath," and 
 " taking hold of his covenant," are here connected together ; 
 and the covenant here mentioned being connected with the 
 calling of the Gentiles, must mean the Abrahamic covenant, 
 the original and everlasting covenant, which Isaiah, in 
 another place, liv. 10, and Ezekiel xxxiv. 25, call a " Cove- 
 nant of Peace," that is, the Gospel. And the sabbath 
 being so connected with it must be coeval with it, and con- 
 sequently continue under the Christian dispensation. 
 
 Any candid person reading the above quotation, and those 
 which follow below, will consider the sabbath as the grand 
 instrument and support of religion, — of the Christian 
 religion ; and not as a mere shadow of some future good, 
 which was itself to be abolished ; — and seeing in the 
 above quotation the sabbath so connected with the prophecy 
 that the temple shall be " the house of prayer for all 
 people,^' he cannot but conclude that the sabbath was 
 
 18, " Having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent 
 from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable and well 
 pleasing to God." The word Ovata does not always signify a 
 bloody sacrifice. The verb Ouw, from whence it is derived, is 
 applied by Homer to the custom of throwing a small quantity of 
 food and wine into the fire as a sacrifice to the gods at the begin, 
 ning of a meal or feast.— Iliad ix. 'ilJ), 220. 
 
 In the Old Testament the word sacrifice is frc(iuently applied in 
 the same way as in the above quotations from the Kpistles. Vs. 
 iv. 5; xxvii. 6 ; li. 17 ; evil. 22; cxvi. 17. Jer. xxxiii. 11. Amos 
 iv. 6. Dcut. xxxiii. 19. 
 
THE SABBATH. 1'23 
 
 intended still to continue the instrument and means of the 
 promotion of the love and service of God, when that time 
 should come when all nations should unite in prayer to 
 God. 
 
 But in chapter Iviii. the importance of the sabbath, 
 not as a shadow of some future and expected blessing, but 
 as the present, and permanent, and perpetual promotive 
 cause and means of genuine religion, is strongly portrayed. 
 But first, I must remark, that the leading part of the exhor- 
 tation contained in this chapter, in ver. 3 — 7, affords a key 
 to the whole ; it gives a rule to show the difference between 
 unprofitable ordinances, which were useless per se, for their 
 own sakes, and ought to be observed in the spirit and not 
 in the letter, and those ordinances which were to continue 
 to be observed, as in themselves highly beneficial. He con- 
 demns the fastings used by the Jews, which they considered 
 as in themselves meritorious and deserving of reward. 
 " Wherefore have we fasted {say they) and thou seest not ; 
 wherefore have we afflicted our souls, and thou takest no 
 knowledge." The prophet, on the other hand, directs them 
 to a more spiritual and more practical religion of the 
 spirit and not of the letter. " Is it such a fast as I have 
 chosen ? A day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down 
 his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes 
 under him ? Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable 
 day to the Lord ? Is not this the fast that I have chosen ? 
 To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy 
 burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every 
 yoke ? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that 
 thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house ? when 
 thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou 
 hide not thyself from thy own flesh." But when he comes 
 to speak of the sabbath, he speaks in a very different man- 
 ner, as we shall sec presently. 
 
124 SCniPTUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Heylyn, the most learned of the opponents of the sab- 
 bath, was so overcome by the force of truth on reading the 
 prophecy of Isaiah Ivi. '2, " Blessed is the man," &c. quoted 
 above, and so satisfied that it related to the Christian dis- 
 pensation, that he was compelled to acknowledge that it 
 proved that there was to be a Christian sabbath. But how 
 does he get out of the difficulty ? — why truly in such an in- 
 genious way as would have broken the bars of all difficulties 
 asunder ; viz. by a perversion of the meaning of the re- 
 mainder of the sentence, — "who keepeth his hands from 
 doing evil." And instead of considering, from this ex- 
 pression, that the sabbath was to be the instrument and 
 means of keeping him from doing evil, he says, that " to 
 abstain fi'om evil and to rest from sin," was to be the 
 Christian sabbath ! He has forgotten, however, to tell us 
 on what day of the week this rest was to be observed as a 
 sabbath. 
 
 But if this were Isaiah's meaning, would he not, after 
 having corrected the Jewish errors as to fubting, have also 
 corrected their errors as to the sabbath, and have shown 
 the true way in which it was to be understood. But in- 
 stead of this, he uses every expression he can find to in- 
 crease their reverence for it, and their love and delight in 
 it. He endeavours to evangelise it, and fit it for that true 
 and pure religion of which he was the herald ; and whilst 
 he is employed in preparing and making ready the way, 
 he exalts and purifies and spiritualises the sabbath, as one 
 great instrument for the maintenance and preservation of 
 that religion. 
 
 Does he describe it as one of the statutes by which they 
 should not live,— as a law which was not good, — as a yoke 
 too heavy to be borne, — as only deserving to be abolished 
 on tlie establiflunont of that now era which filled his mind, — 
 as the hand-writing of an ordinance whicli was to be nailed 
 
THE SABBATH. \'2!) 
 
 to the cross ? O no I very different is the view of the sab- 
 bath, and the regard and feeling for it which he endea- 
 voured to recommend. Hear his words, (Iviii. 13,) — "If 
 thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath," (from tram- 
 phng on it,) "from doing thy pleasure on my holy day," 
 (in gratifying human wishes and desires,) "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 dehght thyself in the Lord." Surely this seems 
 much more hke one of the statutes which enlighten the 
 eyes, convert the soul, and rejoice the heart, which are 
 sweeter than honey and the honey-comb, more valuable 
 than gold, yea than much fine gold, in keeping of which 
 there is great reward, — which are true and righteous alto- 
 gether, and to endure for ever, and by which the servants 
 of God are taught. 
 
 Can any one, after reading the above description of an 
 institution, holy of the Lord and honourable in his sight, 
 on which human ways and works and pleasures were to be 
 suspended, and the works and ways of God, and things 
 pleasing in his sight, were to form the subjects of our con- 
 templation, and by constant practice be rendered so 
 habitual, so interwoven with the purified texture of the 
 mind, so harmoniously responding to the sweetest sym- 
 pathies of a converted heart, as to render the day itself a 
 delight, to make us "willing in that day of his power," 
 not speaking our own worldly carnal words, but the words 
 of God, and the language of heaven, until it should lead us 
 to the highest degree of excellence and enjoyment of which 
 our fallen but converted and renewed nature is capable, — 
 " to delight ourselves in the Lord ;" (and all this is included 
 in Isaiah's description ; (can any Christian suppose that 
 such an institution was but a shadow, and to be abolished 
 
12() SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 at the very time when it would have been most necessary, 
 most practical, and most pleasing ? If a mnn have no 
 Christian sympathetic feelings in his heart to claim kindred 
 with such an institution, to see written over its holy portals, 
 " this is the narrow way which leadeth unto life, walk ye in 
 it;" — still if he have a mind capable of judging and reason- 
 ing, let him decide from the language and context of the 
 prophecies with which this description is mixed up, whether 
 the sabbath were not to make a part of the kingdom and dis- 
 pensation of the Messiah, with the everlasting and wide- 
 spreading and comprehensive glories of which these pro- 
 phecies encircle this description. 
 
 Abundant as are the prophecies relating to the Re- 
 deemer's person, and character, and sufferings, and atone- 
 ment, and kingdom, throughout the book of Isaiah, yet they 
 shine out with peculiar lustre in the last eighteen chapters, 
 (xlix. — Ixvi.) commencing with a proclamation to the Gen- 
 tiles, for whom they were in a great measure intended, and 
 to whom they were addressed,— opening with "Listen, O 
 isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far;" and occa- 
 sionally breaking forth, " Sing, O heavens, and be joyful, O 
 earth, for the Lord hath comforted his people ; — Behold I 
 will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard 
 to the people ; — Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to 
 the waters ; — I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul 
 shall be joyful in my God, for he hath clothed me with the 
 garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of 
 righteousness ; — And the Gentiles shall see thy righteous- 
 ness, and all kings thy glory ; — Behold the Lord hath [)ro- 
 claimed to the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of 
 Zion, Behold thy salvation cometh." 
 
 These expressions show that this noble prophecy was 
 particularly addressed to the Gentiles, and peculiarly ap- 
 plies to the Christian dispensation. I beg of the reader 
 
THE SABBATH. 1*27 
 
 carefully to peruse this prophecy ; and when he is con- 
 vinced, as convinced he must be, of the truth of these two 
 assertions, the concluding argument for the permanence of 
 the sabbath to be found in the last chapter of the book of 
 this prophecy, will fall with tenfold weight upon his mind, 
 (Ixvi. 1*2,) " For thus saith the Lord, behold I will extend 
 peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like 
 a flowing stream. (18.) It shall come, that I will gather all 
 nations and tongues, and all they shall come and see my 
 glory. (2*2.) For as the new heavens, and the new earth, 
 which I will make," (the kingdom of Christ,) "shall re- 
 main before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your 
 name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one 
 new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another^ 
 shall alljiesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." 
 Here, in the very conclusion of the prophecy, he declares 
 from the mouth of the Lord, that when the kingdom of the 
 Messiah shall have been completely established, and nU 
 flesh, all mankind, included in it ; still shall the periods of 
 time be as strongly marked by the sabbaths, as by the 
 revolution of the luminaries. This argument and this 
 proof (it is Isaiah's, not mine) the unstable may wrest ; but 
 if they do, they may also wrest all the other scriptures. 
 
 On the restoration of the Jews after the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity, when Nehemiah (ix. 13, 14) is recapitulating the 
 mercies of God to his nation from the calling of Abraham, 
 he uses the following expressions : — " 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 knotvn unto them 
 thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, 
 and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant." In this quo- 
 tation the difference of expression used with regard to the 
 
I'28 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 sabbath, from that used in respect to the commandments, 
 statutes, See. is very remarkable. He gave and cnmmmided 
 them the laws^ and atatutes, and commandments ; but the 
 sabbath he made known unto them. Does not this clearly 
 prove, that the laws^ &c. were then instituted for the first 
 time, but that the sahhath had been previously instituted 
 and established ; and that he restored the knowledge of it 
 by a full account of the mode and reason of the observance. 
 Would he not otherwise have mentioned the commandment 
 of the sabbath in the same manner as the other laws, and 
 why should he otherwise have so studiously varied the ex- 
 pression, and advisedly used a different word for the sab- 
 bath, if it were not that it stood on a very different founda- 
 tion from the others ? 
 
 Some special pleader may here also allege that the sab- 
 bath was known before Sinai at the Wilderness of Sin ; but 
 this argument would be an odd reason for the necessity of 
 making it known a few days afterwards. Nehemiah sup- 
 poses all the transactions from leaving Egypt, and particu- 
 larly those at Sin, to have taken place at the same time 
 with those at Sinai, as we in modern times speak of all 
 the transactions of a particular session of Parliament, some 
 years past, as happening together. He even inverts the 
 order of events. Although the giving of manna and of 
 water happened before the giving of the law, he mentions 
 them after ; not so much regarding the order of time as the 
 importance of the events. See verses 13, 14, 15.* 
 
 • In Nehemiah ix. \^, the Hebrew word, signifying " madcst 
 known," from a Hebrew verb, signifying he perceived senxib/y in 
 Hiphil, which implies, to " cause to feel," "make to feel," "cause 
 to know," as Job xxxviii. V2. In Rnth ii. 1, and Prov. vii. 4, it 
 signifies a person already kuoini, nn acquaintance, but at the time 
 of speaking pointed ont to their particular attention, as in 1 Sam. 
 
THE SABBATH. 129 
 
 ii. 12 ; Jer. i. 3 ; xxii. 16 ; Ps. i. G ; Amos iii. 2 ; Ezek. xix. 7. The 
 verb being in the preter tense, refers to what did precede : " gavest" 
 is future in tense and preter in sense, and therefore subsequent in 
 event to what preceded in the leading verb : " madest known " is 
 preter both in tense and in sense, and therefore being doubly so it 
 implies a priority in event to "gavest." — H. S. 
 
180 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 SECTION XIX. 
 
 THE SABBATFI IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 We come now to consider the New Testament account of 
 the sabbath. The most superficial reader must observe 
 how frequently our blessed Lord explains the true nature 
 and object of the sabbath, how he corrects all false opinions 
 relating to it, and how he accommodates it to the spirit of 
 the religion he was about to establish. 
 
 The acute mind of the eminent Heylyn could not be in- 
 sensible of this general impression, which the gospels are 
 calculated to make, and he endeavours to counteract a feel- 
 ing so repugnant to his own favourite opinion. I have no 
 doubt but that many of my readers have long ere now been 
 struck with wonder and surprise that such men as Heylyn 
 and Bramhall should come forward as strenuous opponents 
 of the sabbath, and labour to set up the Lord's day in oppo- 
 sition and rivalship to it, instead of connecting them both 
 together, or rather, more properly speaking, of identif) ing 
 the one with the other. And perhaps there may still be in 
 the minds of a few of my readers, some lurking inclination 
 to tln-ow the authority of those great men into the scale 
 along with their arguments. And so perliaps I might be 
 inclined myself to do, if I did not see in the other scale the 
 tried gold of the sanctuary. 
 
 It seems to me that the minds of those great and good 
 men were imperceptibly warjcd by i)arty bias unknown to 
 
THE SABBATIL 131 
 
 themselves. The revolutionists and fanatics in the time of 
 Charles the First, exalted and enforced the sabbath with 
 Jewish and puritanical strictness and severity. What 
 wonder, then, that Heylyn, the friend and adviser and ad- 
 vocate of Charles and his devoted adherent, he who was 
 frequently driven from his benefice and his home, and 
 obliged to wander about and conceal himself in the disguise 
 of a peasant from puritanical fury; — what wonder that 
 Bramhall, the friend and companion of Strafford, seeing the 
 scaffold reeking with the blood of his friend and patron, 
 shed by the axe sharpened and uplifted by the same hypo- 
 critical fanaticism ; — what wonder that both such admiring 
 and faithful sons of the established church, the object of the 
 hatred and attack of sectarian virulence, should have a 
 strong feeling against the most favourite dogmas and 
 opinions of their bitter persecutors, thus written in the 
 blood of noble and royal martyrs ! But we live in an age 
 when we can coolly and soberly investigate religious truth 
 without party bias or feeling. Heylyn was an eminent 
 and learned divine, and when borne on the full tide of 
 scripture, was powerful, but when struggling against it was 
 weak and impotent. 
 
 Heylyn (page 391, foho edition) gives a good enumera- 
 tion of the various acts and miracles of our Saviour, em- 
 ployed for the purpose of correcting Jewish errors relating 
 to the sabbath-day ; but, with strange inconsistency, he 
 says that this was done for the sake of the Jews only, be- 
 cause our Lord did not intend immediately to dissolve their 
 polity and abolish their laws and their sabbath. For the 
 purpose of removing this objection, as well as of unfolding 
 the true nature of the Christian sabbath, I am obliged to 
 consider the various passages in the gospels connected with 
 this subject. 
 
 I think that a candid review of the gospels will convince 
 
 K '2 
 
132 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 US, that they were written entirely with a view to the esta- 
 blishment of Christianity, and that the correction of Jewish 
 errors had the same grand object in view. In all such 
 cases those errors alone were corrected, or at least recorded 
 by the evangelists, which had disfigured or defaced pure 
 maxims or precepts of their law, which were to be of uni- 
 versal observance. We find no corrections of temporary or 
 national ordinances which were to be abolished, when the 
 substance of which they were the prefiguring shadows should 
 take their place, or when their necessity or usefulness should 
 cease with the dissolution of their national polity. He cor- 
 rects errors in several ordinances which were intended to have 
 a spiritual reference, but which the Jews considered as in 
 themselves meritorious and deserving of reward, while in 
 their practice and their lives they merged and destroyed the 
 spiritual sense. Thus he condemned their fiequent wash- 
 ings of their hands, and cups, and platters, and tables, 
 while they were strangers to the purity which those acts 
 were intended to inculcate. He condemned the minute 
 and scrupulous payment of the tithes even of the herbs in 
 their gardens, — mint, anise, and cummin, — while they 
 omitted the weightier matters of the law, — ^judgment, 
 mercy, and faith. He condemned them for making broad 
 their phylacteries or borders, on which texts of scripture 
 used to be written, with a pretence of increasing the num- 
 ber, for the purpose of ostentation, whilst in reality they 
 had taken away the key of knowle<lge, and neither entered 
 the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor suffered others to 
 enter. He condemned their corrupt maxims, by which 
 they endeavoured to supersede the fifth commandment, 
 saying that a man was meritorious who presented, as a gift 
 to the temple, what he ought to have expended in the sup- 
 port of his parents, whom he left in destitution and distress. 
 It is however impossible for me, within the limits which I 
 
THE SABBATH. 133 
 
 must prescribe to myself, to give such an induction of par- 
 ticulars as would show at large that all his corrections, 
 which have been handed down to us, were for the sake of 
 disencumbering some moral Christian precept inculcated 
 by their law, but intended to have been permanent, from 
 the false glosses with which the Jews had overlaid them. 
 The abuse of a mere Jewish law or ceremony he never cor- 
 rects for its own sake ; but a law, or a ceremony, — the 
 shadow and representation of some future substance, or the 
 type of some future antitype, — he cleanses, and purifies, 
 and polishes, to make it fit to be transferred into his king- 
 dom, to " be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for 
 the Master's use." 
 
 The following are the particular transactions and occa- 
 sions upon which our blessed Lord corrected, both by ac- 
 tions and conversations, the erroneous opinions which pre- 
 vailed among the Jews on the subject of the sabbath; and 
 to each 1 add references to show in which of the four 
 gospels they are to be found. 
 
 1. The disciples plucking the ears of corn. Matt. xii. 1. 
 Mark ii. 23. Luke vi. L 
 
 2. The cure of the man with the withered hand in the 
 synagogue. Matt. xii. 10. Mark iii. 1. Luke vi. 6. 
 
 3. Cure of a demoniac in the synagogue. Mark i. 23. 
 Luke iv. 33. 
 
 4. Simon's wife's mother raised from a fever. Mark i. 30. 
 Luke iv. 38. 
 
 5. On the same evening, the cure of all who were 
 diseased, or possessed with devils, and also his approval 
 thereby of their being brought or carried to him. Mark i. 
 32. Luke iv. 40. 
 
 6. On another sabbath, he laid his hands on a few sick 
 folk, and healed them. Mark vi. 2 — 6. 
 
134 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 7. The woman with a spirit of infirmity for eighteen 
 years cured in the synagogue. Luke xiii. 1 1. 
 
 8. Cure of the dropsy in the house of a chief pharisee. 
 Luke xiv. L 
 
 9. Impotent man cured at the Pool of Bethesda, John v. 
 2—16. 
 
 10. Feast of tabernacles, and renewed controversy re- 
 lating to the performance of the preceding miracle on the 
 sabbath. John vii. 14 — 29. 
 
 1 1. Cure of the blind man. John ix., the whole chapter. 
 The Gospel of St. Matthew is allowed on all hands to 
 
 have been written for the Jews, and by many supposed, 
 with great appearance fo truth, to have been written in 
 Hebrew. 
 
 St. Mark's was written under the direct superintendence 
 of St. Paul, as a short summary for the use of the Gentiles. 
 
 St. Luke, who was the constant companion of St. Paul 
 the apostle of the Gentiles to the very end of his ministry, 
 wrote his gospel for the use of the Gentiles, and addressed 
 it to a Greek. 
 
 St. John wrote his gospel after the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem and the total overthrow of the Jewish nation and 
 polity. All these three last-mentioned evangelists wrote 
 their gospels in Greek, the most generally-used language in 
 all nations at that day, but less known or used in Judea 
 than anywhere else. 
 
 Now, it is very remarkable, that of the eleven above- 
 enumerated occasions and transactions, tfco only are re- 
 corded by St. Matthew, who wrote for the Jews, siv of them 
 are recorded by St. Mark, and aeven by St. Luke, who 
 wrote for the Gentiles. St. John wrote his as a supple- 
 mental gospel, to supply what had been omitted by the others. 
 He records three of tlic above occasions, which are not no- 
 
THE SABBATH. 105 
 
 ticed by the others. Thus, then, of the eleven occasions, 
 two only are recorded for the use of the Jewish converts. 
 Whereas, all the eleven are recorded by the other three 
 evangelists for the use of the Gentiles or Christian con- 
 verts from heathenism. 
 
 In St. Matthew, we have only to the extent of fourteen 
 verses on the whole subject. In St. Mark, thirty ; and in 
 St. Luke, thirty-four. St. John occupies forty-one verses 
 with the single miracle of the cure of the blind man, and 
 the controversy arising from his performing it on the sabbath- / 
 day : ix. and eighty-seven with the circumstances of the 
 miracle at the Pool of Bethesda on the sabbath-day, and the j 
 controversy thereupon : v. 1 — 47 ; and vii. 14 — 53 ; or a 
 hundred and twenty-eight verses altogether : and yet St. John 
 wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem. Do not these ' 
 facts prove strongly that these corrections of our Lord's 
 were intended for the general body of Christians, and there- 
 fore that the sabbath was to continue to be observed under 
 the new dispensation ? But I must give this part of the 
 question a more particular consideration. 
 
 There are many proofs in the gospels that nothing was 
 recorded by them which was not to be considered as neces- 
 sary for the establishment and development of the Chris- 
 tian religion. I must, however, be satisfied with a brief 
 selection of such proofs : — to the generality of my readers, 
 any proof is unnecessary. 
 
 I choose St. John's gospel, which goes more fully into the 
 correction of the error relating to the sabbath than any 
 other, although it was not w ritten until after the subversion 
 of the Jewish state. He informs us that he had made a 
 very scanty selection of the acts and sayings of our Saviour, 
 of such only as were necessary for a particular purpose, 
 viz. for the belief of those to whom lie wrote. He concludes 
 his gospel in these words. " And there are also many 
 
136 SCRIl'TURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be 
 written every one, I suppose that even the world itself 
 could not contain the books that should be written." Com- 
 pare with this description the short gospel of St. John ; and 
 how very limited must be the epitome which he has given ? 
 In two other places he gives us a key to judge of the pur- 
 poses for which he wrote that short epitome, xx. 30, 31 : 
 " And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of 
 his disciples, which are not written in this book ; but these 
 are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christy 
 the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life 
 through his name. And again, xix. 35 : " And he that 
 saw it, bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth 
 that he saith true ; that ye might believe." These last 
 words refer to the whole verse. 
 
 Therefore what he has wTitten relating to the sabbath 
 Wiis, together with everything else which he has recorded, 
 " written that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
 and that, believing, they might have life through his name." 
 Is not all this accumulated evidence absolute demonstration 
 that the corrections of the sabbath, which he details, were 
 intended for Christians, and therefore that they were to 
 continue to observe the sabbath corrected from the errors 
 of the Jews, from whom they received it, and restored to 
 its original true and spiritual purposes, the sanctification 
 of man and the glory of God ? 
 
 We must now look a little into the particular corrections, 
 and see whether they be alterations or restoratiotis ; and I 
 think we shall find that they are the latter ; that our Lord 
 makes no new commandment, makes no alteration in, or 
 addition to, the old, but merely restores it to what was 
 always intended to be its sj)iritual nature : for I think by 
 tlie time that we sliall have conchidod our review of " The 
 Scripture Account of the Sabbath," my candid reader, who 
 
THE SABBATH. 137 
 
 shall have kept his mind unprejudiced and open to the truth, 
 will find, with me, that of all the observances delivered to 
 the Israelites, the sabbath, and, perhaps, the sabbath 
 alone, was purely spiritual ; and, perhaps, in this review 
 of the particular instances recorded by the evangelists, we 
 shall find some few more little arguments, to prove that the 
 law of the sabbath was to continue under the Christian 
 dispensation and religion. 
 
 Of all the accounts given by the evangelists of such 
 miracles as gave rise to discussions on the sabbath, per- 
 haps the most important is the healing of the man at the 
 Pool of Bethesda. It not only gave rise to a controversy 
 between our Lord and the Jews at the time, but seemed to 
 make a very strong impression upon the Jews, and to con- 
 tinue fresh in their memories until the following feast, which 
 must have been at least four months after. 
 
 In the discussion on this miracle, he gives us a key 
 formed by the hand of a master, by means of which we may 
 arrive at a just conclusion in the consideration of this ques- 
 tion. In a few words, he shows the faulty manner in which 
 the Jews considered it, as well as the true mode in which it 
 ought to be considered. In immediate connexion with the 
 subject of the sabbath — the cause of the conversation — he 
 says, (verse 24,) " Judge not according to the appearance, 
 but judge righteous judgment." The word here translated 
 " appearance," («>/"''>) signifies the outward appearance or 
 surface of any material body, as it presents itself to the 
 eye ; and, when applied in a figurative sense to a law, ex- 
 presses the literal meaning of the law, as it first strikes the 
 ear. 
 
 Our Saviour here cautions asrainst this mode of inter- 
 pretation, and forbids its use, and directs us to judge ac- 
 cording to the spirit of the law, and, after accurately 
 weighing the different parts of each particular case, and 
 
138 SCRIITITUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 comparing one witli the other, to give the preponderance to 
 that which agrees with the spirit, over that which agrees 
 with the letter and not with the spirit. This true mode of 
 interpretation is given in the remainder of the verse. The 
 word translated ^^ Judged {kpivare,) is the word used for a 
 judge, sitting in judgment and diligently investigating both 
 sides of a question: the word translated ^^ righteous," (cuatocj) 
 is here taken in a legal rather than a religious sense, and 
 means ^^just," as the same word is translated in a pre- 
 ceding chapter, v. 30 ; and in the septuagint translation 
 of the Bible is used for a Hebrew word which primarily 
 denotes the equipoise of a balance, or the equality of 
 weights and measures. And this may show the true mean- 
 ing of the word here as applied to a judge, forming his 
 opinion from a diligent and discriminating review of both 
 evidence and law, weighing evidence against evidence, or 
 where one law clashes with another, or one part of a law 
 with the other, considering the spirit of the laws and the 
 intention of the legislator, and making his decision as agree- 
 able to both as possible. 
 
 This first mode of judging according to the outside 
 appearance or superficial view of the fourth commandment, 
 was the error of the Jews. They supposed that the sab- 
 bath was to be hallowed /or its oivn sake; — that it was the 
 matter of paramount consideration in the law ; — that man 
 was an object of inferior and secondary consideration ; and 
 that his good, or his comfort, or even his safety, must give 
 way to the superstitious, and almost idolatrous veneration 
 which they paid to the sabbath. But our Lord, on the 
 contrary, proceeds by the second mode of judging, by con- 
 sidering the spirit and intention of the law, and whenever 
 its strict, literal interpretation may be irreconcilable with 
 the spirit, or may clash with another law, by giving prece- 
 dence to the more weighty and important. He shows that 
 
THE SABBATH. 139 
 
 man is the paramount object, and the sabbath only secon- 
 daiy, " the sabbath was made for man, not man for the 
 sabbath," and therefore whenever their interests clash, those 
 of the sabbath, as being inferior, must give way to those of 
 man as superior. The sabbath was instituted for the good 
 of man. Its primary object was to keep up in the mind 
 of man a knowledge of his Creator, a knowledge of true 
 religion, and consequent practice of true holiness : — and 
 the only way in which it was ever sanctified or hallowed, was 
 by a command to man to keep it holy, by devoting it to the 
 worship and praise of the great Creator, and to the acquire- 
 ment and preservation of holiness. This was the primary 
 object, and in paradise the sole object, for the spontaneous 
 productions of willing nature left man sufficient time with- 
 out a day of rest; the '■'^ rest" of the sabbath was of later 
 appointment, when man, doomed to labour for his daily 
 bread, required a provision to give him ample time and 
 leisure for the primary object, and also required to have the 
 day more particularly marked and separated, as a further 
 security for the promotion of the primary objects of religion, 
 worship, and holiness. 
 
 This was the view which our Saviour took, and which he 
 wishes us and all Christians to take of it, and which he 
 takes so many occasions of telling the Jews was the true 
 and genuine spirit of their own laws. Wherever the primary 
 object of religious worship was incompatible with rest, the 
 latter, which was only the mean, was to give place to the 
 former, which was the object and end. Thus as rest was 
 commanded, to give leisure for a due observance of the 
 sabbath, if at any time labour became a necessary mean, 
 it became a duty, and suspended the rest, which not only 
 ceased to be the mean, but counteracted the end. In 
 proof of this, our Lord appealed to their own law, (Matt, 
 xii. 5,) " Have yo not read in the law, how that on the 
 
140 SCRIFrUKE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 sabbath-days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, 
 and ore blameless f" By the law, a greater number of 
 sacrifices were offered on the sabbath than on any other 
 day, which being necessary for their worship, superseded 
 the resti and obliged the priest to labour twice as much on 
 the sabbath as on other days. Hence, they might have 
 learned the spirit of their law, and distinguished between 
 the end or object, and the necessary means, and when both 
 were incompatible, ought to have preferred the end. Under 
 the Levitical law, works were not only allowed, but ordered, 
 on sabbaths. Lev. xxiii. 39 — 43, which prescribes and regu- 
 lates the feast of tabernacles, says, " On the first day shall 
 be a sabbath, and on the eighth day a sabbath ; and ye shall 
 take you on the^r*^ day the boughs of goodly trees, branches 
 of palm-trees, and the boughs of thick trees and willows of 
 the brook ; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God 
 seven days." But this was for a religious purpose, and to 
 keep up the knowledge of God and the remembrance of 
 his mercies, and therefore not only allowable, but necessary ; 
 the object being thus stated, ver. 43 : " That your genera- 
 tions may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell 
 in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. 
 I am the Lord your God." And in Nehem. viii. 14 — 18, 
 after reading the law, in obedience to this command, on the 
 15th day of the month the first day of the feast of taber- 
 nacles, which was a sabbath, the Jews were busily employed 
 in building booths as prescribed above : and yet on this 
 very day. Num. xxiv. 12, &c., they were forbidden to do 
 any servile work. 
 
 And again, in Nehem. viii. 9 — 12, on the celebration of 
 the first day of the seventh month, which was a sabbath, and 
 on which no work was to be done, Ezra and Nchemiah 
 issue these orders to the Jews, " Go your way, eat the fat, 
 and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom 
 
THE SABBATH. 
 
 141 
 
 nothing is prepared. And all the people went their way, 
 to eat and to drink, and to send portions, and to make 
 great mirth, because they had understood the words that 
 were declared unto them." If his Grace had lived then, 
 what would he have thought of the great labour of building 
 the booths for the whole nation to dwell in, when he con- 
 siders the carrjdng of a bed by one man to his house, as 
 abolishing the sabbath ? What would he have thought of 
 their sending portions of meat and drink everywhere 
 through the city, when he looks upon the pulling of ears of 
 corn and rubbing them in their hands by the disciples, also 
 as an abolition of the fourth commandment ? 
 
 Our Lord also instructs us, that the sabbath being made 
 for the good of man, it is lawful to do good to man on that 
 day, and consequently to do such works as may be neces- 
 sary for that end, and even to supersede the prescribed re&t 
 Thus he worked several miracles on that day for the very 
 purpose of correcting their false notions, and he showed 
 from their own laws and their own practice, that he acted 
 according to the spirit and intention of the law. Thus it 
 was lawful by their law to circumcise a child on the sabbath 
 if it should happen to be the eighth day, because that was 
 a reliuious ceremony, and necessary for the introduction of 
 the child into covenant with God, and consequently pro- 
 ductive of much good to the child. And our Lord argues, 
 that if the law of Moses ordered a work on the sabbath 
 which put an infant to severe pain, how could it be con- 
 sidered unlawful for him to remove pain and make a man 
 altogether whole and healthy on that sacred day ? 
 
 He also quotes their own allowed practice ; if an ox or 
 an ass should fall into a pit, they would not forbear the 
 very great labour necessary for pulling it out. They would 
 also loose their cattle and lead them out to water ; and be it 
 remembered, that in that country they would very often 
 
14'2 SCIUPTUIIE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 have to lead them very far before they found any. He 
 argues from thence very justly, that it was lawful for him 
 on the sabbath-day to deliver those who were possessed by 
 the devil, or oppressed with sickness, or bound by infir- 
 mity, or afflicted with blindness. 
 
 In truth, his miracles on the sabbath were justifiable on 
 a double ground, as being not only performed for the good 
 of the bodies of the persons healed, but being most effi- 
 cacious means for the promotion of religion and the esta- 
 blishment of Christianity. It was necessary for this latter 
 purpose that he should work them in the most public man- 
 ner, — on the sabbath, and in the synagogue, when numbers 
 were collected and the rulers and scribes or lawyers were 
 present, — that they might be generally seen and be more 
 openly canvassed and free from suspicion, and that he might 
 have a better opportunity of preaching to the people, while 
 strongly impressed with a conviction of his divine authority 
 and mission evidenced by the miracle — the powerful effects 
 of which in bringing conviction we know from Nicodemus 
 himself, a ruler of the Jews. " We know that thou art a 
 teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles 
 that thou doest, except God be with him." 
 
 On several occasions our Lord allowed of work on the 
 sabbath which was necessary for the good of man ; he ap- 
 proved of the carrying of the sick to him on the sabbath, 
 Mark i. 32 ; Luke iv. 40. He also permitted the man 
 whom he healed at the Pool of Bethesda to carry his bed, 
 although the Jews were forbidden to carry burthens on the 
 sabbath.* 
 
 * The Israelites were not particiilarly forbidden l)y the law of 
 Moses to carry burdens on the sab1)ath^ that I am aware of. They 
 were subsequently forbidden by Jeremiah and Neheniiah, because 
 the sabbath had hvcn jjrofaned and given up entirely to labour by 
 that practice. Jeremiah (xvii. IW — 27) was ordered to make the fol- 
 
THE SABBATH. 143 
 
 That the attention of the Jews to the sabbath was 
 merely outward and not spiritual , we have pretty strong 
 proof; although they were filled with madness at his curing 
 diseases on the sabbath, yet they frequently held councils 
 to put him to death on the sabbath, Matt. xii. 14; Mark 
 iii. 6; Luke vi. 11 ; John v. 16 ; and they actually did put 
 
 lowing proclamatioHj standing in all the gates of Jerusalem, because 
 they used to bring the burdens through the gates on the sabbath. 
 <' Bear no burden on the sabbath-day nor bring it in by the gates of 
 Jerusalem, neither carry I'orth a burden out of your houses on the 
 sabbatli-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 necks stiff, that they might not 
 hear nor receive instruction:" upon which he threatens them, " If 
 ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath-day, and not to 
 beaf a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the 
 sabbath-day ; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it 
 shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." 
 This was just before the Babylonish captivity, and the extent of 
 the profanation both before and after the captivity may be learned 
 from Nehemiah. When he was making various reforms, mentioned 
 xiii. he says, " In those days saw I some treading Mune-presses on 
 the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses ; as also 
 wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they 
 brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath-day. And I testified 
 against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt 
 men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish and all manner of 
 ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah and in Je- 
 rusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto 
 them. What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane tlie sabbath- 
 day } Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this 
 evil upon us, and upon this city ? Yet ye bring more wrath upon 
 Israel by profaning the sabbath." He here alludes to the time 
 before the captivity mentioned by Jeremiah, from whence we may 
 conclude that the carrying of burdens in Jeremiah's time was 
 similar to that detailed by Nehemiah. To remedy this abuse, Nehe- 
 miah kc])t the gates shut all the sabbath, and placed his servants as 
 guards at the gates to prevent the profanation, ver. 19, 20,21. 
 
144 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 him to death on a sabbath, on the passover and first day of the 
 feast of unleavened bread, which was always a sabbath. He 
 alludes to this inconsistency, and tells them that, in their pre- 
 tended zeal for the fourth commandment, they broke the sixth 
 in their hearts, and endeavoured to break it in reality. John 
 vii. 19: " Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of 
 you keepeth the law ? Why go ye about to kill me ?" 
 
 He showed, also, that works of necessity, and of providing 
 food on an emergency, were allowable, when he defends his 
 disciples for plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath-day. 
 This action would have been allowable by their law on any 
 other day. Deut. xxiii. 25 : " When thou comest into the 
 standing corn of thy neighbour, thou mayest pluck the ears 
 with thine hand ; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy 
 neighbour's corn." In confirmation of his defence, he in- 
 stances the case of David, who, when necessity obliged him 
 and his attendants, " entered the temple, and ate the shew- 
 bread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, but only for 
 the priests." 
 
 In this miracle, also, our Lord gives us another clue 
 to direct us to a right understanding of these matters : he 
 directs the Jews to their own Scriptures, and says, that if 
 they had attended to them, they would not have condemned 
 the disciples, but would have pronounced them guiltless. 
 Matt. xii. 7 : " But if ye had known what this mcaneth, I 
 will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have con- 
 demned the guiltless." The quotation is from Hosea vi. 6 : 
 " For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge 
 of God more than burnt-oficrings." According to scripture 
 language, " mercy and tiot sacrifice," means mercy rather 
 than sacrifice ; and so it is expressed in the second member 
 of the verse, — "the knowledge of God more than burnt- 
 offerings." Now, our Lord applies this (juotation to the ob- 
 servance of the sabl)ath. And what is tiie meaning of 
 
THE SABBATH. 145 
 
 Hosea ? that the Lord prefers the mercies and hlessings 
 derivable from laws, to their severities; that he prefers 
 such an observance, as will lead to a knowledge of God, to 
 that which consists in outward ceremonies. — Thus are we 
 to regard the law of the sabbath. 
 
 We have also further proof, that his miracles of healing 
 on the sabbath were not against the spirit of the law of the 
 Jews. For when he was about to cure the man in the 
 synagogue, (Mark iii.) he asked them, "Is it lawful to do 
 good on the sabbath-days, or to do evil, to save life or to 
 kill ? But they held their peace." And yet they are con- 
 demned for holding their peace, and not giving a ready 
 affirmative answer. " He looked round about upon them 
 with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts," — 
 the only occasion in all the gospels of anger being attributed 
 to our Saviour, — does not this show, that it was only wilful 
 blindness and perverse hardness of heart, which prevented 
 them confessing that his conduct was lawful by their law ? 
 
 And again, when he healed the woman with the spirit of 
 infirmity for eighteen years, (Luke xiii.) he calls the ruler of 
 the synagogue a hypocrite for disapproving of the cure. This 
 shows that on the principles of Jewish law he ought to 
 have approved of it, — nay, it proves that he really did 
 approve, for by calling him a hypocrite he accuses him of 
 concealing his real opinion. 
 
 He instructs us farther, that it is lawful to do good on 
 the gabbath both by his Father's example and his own, for on 
 the occasion of the miracle at the Pool of Bethesda, and in 
 defence both of the miracle and of the man's carrying his 
 bed, he says, " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." 
 U'his is spoken with a reference to the sabbath, and the 
 meaning is, that his Father carried on the course of his 
 providence, and the growth of everything necessary for the 
 food of man, on the sabbath; and in like manner he also 
 
 L 
 
14G SCHIPTURK ACCOUNT OV 
 
 worked works of mercy for the good of man. The course 
 of Providence, beside being intended for the support of 
 man, is also a demonstration of the existence of a God, and 
 a proof of his continual superintendence ; as St. Paul argues, 
 Acts xiv. 17, " Nevertheless he left himself not without 
 ^I'itfiess, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, 
 and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and glad- 
 ness." In like manner our Lord's sabbath-works were 
 meant both for the good of man, and for a witness or testi- 
 mony of the truth of his mission and religion. 
 
 On the whole, I think it appears abundantly, that our 
 Lord, so far from abrogating the sabbath, did not even make 
 any alteration in it ; that he was competent to alter it, who 
 can doubt, who acknowledges him to be the Creator of the 
 world, "by whom all things were made, and without whom 
 was not anything made that was made — who is God over 
 all blessed for ever;" by whom the commandment was 
 originally given to man in a state of innocence in paradise, 
 by whom it was renewed on Sinai, and h\ whom the 
 sabbath was, during his ministry, cleansed from the ftilse 
 glosses and corruptions of man, and restored to its spiritual 
 meaning and original purity and intention ? 
 
 There is a great similarity between the sabbath, as re- 
 stored by our Lord to its original beauty, and the descrip- 
 tion given of its true nature by Isaiah, — that we should not 
 do our own ways or our own pleasure ; that is, that we 
 should not spend it in our ordinary and usual mannei*, for 
 our own profit and pleasure, or speaking our own words on 
 earthly and carnal subjects ; but that we shoidd delight in 
 its spiritual nature, and spend it in such a way as to make 
 it holy of the I^ord, for our own sanctification, and in such a 
 way as may be honourable to God, and lead us to honour 
 him, and finally bring us to delight in him. All this is ex- 
 pressed in thivt part of Isaiah which I !i;nt> before quoted 
 
THE SABBATH. 147 
 
 from the fifty-eighth chapter, and which I mentioned as de- 
 scriptive of the sabbath under the Messiah's kingdom. 
 
 From the above view of our Lord's corrections, so care- 
 fully and so fully handed down by the evangelists, who can 
 doubt that our blessed Lord intended that the sabbath 
 should continue as an integral part of his religion ? 
 
 I have, however, still farther proofs to adduce ; but I can 
 better bring them forward, while I answer various objections 
 which have been made by the opponents of the sabbath : 
 and I must here beg the indulgence of my readers if I do 
 not observe much order or method, which indeed are in- 
 compatible with a consideration of miscellaneous objections 
 of various authors. 
 
 SECTION XX. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWEUEn. 
 
 (a) Miscellaneous Objections. 
 
 I HAVE incidentally answered several objections urged by 
 Heylyn, and must take notice of some more. 
 
 He instances the many particulars of the Life of iVbra- 
 ham which are recorded, and yet there is no mention of the 
 salibath. We may say the same of Samuel, David, and 
 Solomon, in whose histories there is no mention of it, or of 
 the passover, although we know that both were observed. 
 He says, that the Christian fathers unanimously deny that 
 Abraham kept the sabbath. They may deny that there is 
 any account of it ; but if their denial stand good with re- 
 gard to Abraham, it will be equally good against David, 
 
 L 2 
 
148 SCRIPrURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Solomon, and all the kings of Israel, until the revolt of the 
 ten triljes. He says that there is no mention of it in the 
 book of Job. Is there any in the Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle- 
 siastes, or Song of Solomon? Will he and the fathers 
 maintain that the sabbath was unknown when those books 
 were written ? 
 
 He says, that it is the general opinion that the Israelites 
 came out of Egypt on the seventh day, and therefore tra- 
 velled on the sabbath. I have proved this to be impossible. 
 He then goes on to say, that the day they came to the 
 Wilderness of Sin ought to have been the sabbath, but was 
 not kept as a sabbath. I have proved, that not that day, 
 but the next-) was the sabbath. 
 
 He calls the day of their passing the Red Sea the day of 
 their coming out of Egypt. I have shown this to be di- 
 rectly contrary to the history of Moses, and a mere popular 
 error. 
 
 He says that they made no scruple afterwards of journey- 
 ing on the sabbath : of this he gives no proof, because he 
 can give none. It is certain that they were encamped at 
 Etham on the first sabbath after they came out. We have 
 proved, that they rested on two others at Sin. There were 
 seven sabbaths between their departure from Egypt, and 
 their arrival at Sinai, and the giving out of the law. Here 
 are three sabbaths accounted for, occupying two encamp- 
 ments. But there were eleven encampments (Numb, xxxiii. ) 
 during the seven sabbaths, and therefore nine rests during 
 the four remaining weeks. 
 
 He says that the sabbath was peculiar to the Jews, and 
 distinguished them from the Gentiles; and thence he illo- 
 gically deduces the conclusion that it must end with them. 
 The premises do not warrant the conclusion. The know- 
 ledge and worship of the true God were also j)eculiar to the 
 IsraeUtes and Jews ; — were these also to cease with their 
 polity ? 
 
THE SABBATH. 149 
 
 Heylyn endeavours to prove that even the Israelites and 
 Jews, after their settlement in Canaan, broke the sabbath. 
 He asserts that the day of David's flight and eating the 
 shewbread was on the sabbath; but of this he has no 
 proof — his mistake arose from misunderstanding our Sa- 
 viour's argument, which was not that David transgressed 
 the fourth commandment, but that, on the plea of necessity, 
 he had transgressed another law, which restricted the use 
 of the shewbread to the priests. 
 
 He says that Elijah travelled forty days and forty nights 
 to Horeb, (1 Kings xix. 8,) and therefore must have tra- 
 velled on the sabbath ; and yet he makes a question, ' how 
 possibly Elijah could spend forty days on so small a journey?' 
 The true meaning is that he was six weeks, or forty days, 
 from the commencement of his journey to the conclusion : 
 'forty days and forty nights' is a Hebrew expression; as 
 the Greeks would say, forty nukthemera, or as we would 
 say, ' forty days of twenty-four hours each.' But it does 
 not follow, and indeed was impossible, that he travelled 
 every day : he must have halted many days ; and we may 
 conclude that he rested on the sabbath — at least there is no 
 proof that he did not. We have a similar expression, — we 
 say ' the forty days of Lent,' and yet the Sundays are not 
 reckoned in. 
 
 The battle recorded 1 Kings xx. 29, he says must have 
 been on the sabbath, because the Israelites and Syrians 
 " encamped over against each other for seven days, and on 
 the seventh the battle was joinetl ;" but if they encamped on 
 any other day than the sabbath, they rested on the sabbath, 
 because the seventh day mentioned is evidently the last of 
 the seven, during which they were encamped, the seventh 
 from the encnmp'mg. It is true he quotes Zanchius to 
 prove that it was the sabbath ; but tve know just as much 
 of the matter as Zanchius did, who had no information but 
 
150 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 what the scripture affords, which he manifestly misunder- 
 stood. There are several instances in scripture of the 
 mention of a seventh day, which was not the sabbath. The 
 raven and dove were sent out of the ark on seventh days, — 
 but not on the sabbath. 
 
 Pole makes a similar mistake in su])posing that the 
 seventh day after the passover, celebrated in Egypt, was 
 the weekly sabbath, which I have shown to be impossible. 
 He confounds the first day of unleavened bread, the day of 
 the Passover, which was always kept as a sabbath, with 
 the weekly sabbath : but erroneously ; for the sabbath 
 which accompanied the passover was ambulatory, and 
 movable through all the days of the week. 
 
 Heylyn quotes the Shunamite on the death of her son, 
 having called to her husband ('2 Kings iv. 22) and said, 
 " Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men, and one of 
 the asses, that I may run to the man of God and come 
 again ; and he said. Wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day, 
 it is neither new moon nor sabbath ?" — from whence Heylyn 
 observes, that if it had been the sabbath, she might have 
 taken such a journey, although Elijah was ten miles distant. 
 No doubt she might resort to a man of God on the sabbatb, 
 although at that distance. And this, instead of being an 
 argument against the sabbath, would have been according 
 to its spirit on the ])rinciples above laid down ; and proves 
 nothing except that the law was understood, and practised, 
 according to its spirit at that time. Indeed, in another 
 place, he himself proves that, on an average, the Israelites 
 must have been ten miles from a city of the Levites, and 
 could not have resorted to them on the sabbaths without 
 travelling ten miles. '^This proves that works were allow- 
 able for the purposes of religion, wliich would, otherwise, 
 have been improper : and in this ^ cry place he acknow- 
 letlges that ' the nicety of the sabbath-day's journey came 
 not uj) until long after.' 
 
THK SABBATH. 151 
 
 SECTION XXI. 
 
 (b) OBJECTION. — John ix. 
 
 Heylyn mentions our Lord's making plaster of clay, 
 which he says was a work, and his sending the blind man 
 to the pool of Siloam, (which by the way was less than a 
 sabbath-day's journey,) and says that 'these words and 
 actions gave the first hint to his disciples for abolishing the 
 sabbath amongst the ceremonies which were to have an end 
 with our Saviour's suffering, to be nailed with him to the 
 cross, and to be buried with him in his grave for ever.' 
 This argument, if it deserve the name of one, has been 
 fully answered before. He ought to have said that it served 
 to teach the disciples the true nature of the sabbath, and 
 the true spirit of the law. 
 
 His Grace the Archbishop adopts the same line of argu- 
 ment, and says, ' It is worth remarking, again, that in the 
 cure of the blind man (recorded in John ix.) on the sabbath, 
 Jesus is not content with choosing that day for his work ; 
 but instead of merely speaking the word, he makes clay, 
 and anoints the man's eyes, as if on purpose to draw atten- 
 tion to the circumstance of doing a ivork on that day.' I 
 think what I have said above on the true nature of the sab- 
 bath shows how little there is in this argument, but I quote 
 it to explain the reason of our Lord having done this. It 
 was a custom among the Jews to anoint sore eyes with 
 spittle ; but a learned controversy had arisen amongst these 
 most scrupulous and conscientious men, (who thought no- 
 thing of j)lotting murder on the sabbath,) whether this 
 anointing of the eyes was legal or illegal on the sabbath- 
 
152 SCKIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 day ; and these learned casuists decided that it was a work, 
 and illegal!— and his Grace agrees with them! Our 
 Lord's action was designedly levelled against this opinion, 
 which he condemns as contrary to the genuine spirit of the 
 law. — It may not be amiss here to remark that our Lord 
 very seldom used any means in working his miracles, ex- 
 cept speaking the word : he did on this occasion, because 
 the blind man could not see him; and on curing a deaf 
 man, he put his fingers in his ears, because he could not 
 hear him. 
 
 SECTION XXII. 
 
 (c) OBJECTION. — Mark ii. '23.— disciples plucking eaks of 
 
 CORN. 
 
 The Archbishop founds a long argument on the disciples 
 rubbing out the ears of corn. I should have thought the 
 case very simple, and in perfect keeping with our Lord's 
 restoration of the spiritual meaning and intention of the 
 law. I have already considered this case ; but must 
 give it a further consideration in connexion with his Grace's 
 argument. His Grace maintains, that the only defence our 
 Lord makes rests upon his own special authority. This 
 I cannot assent to; his defence shows that their conduct was 
 justifiable by their own law, as I shall show presently. 
 He alludes to our Lord's argument from David's case, who 
 ate the shewbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat ; 
 and says that ' this was tacitly acknowledging that the act 
 of the discii)les was in itself as unlawful as the eating of the 
 shewbread by any l)ut the* })ric's;t.' 1 cannot agree to this. 
 
THE SABBATH. 153 
 
 He uses the case of David as much stronger than the case 
 of the disciples, and yet as a case, which the Jews would 
 not be apt to question. His Grace says, that our Lord ac- 
 knowledged that the act of the disciples was unlawful : 
 whereas our Lord asserts the very reverse. He tells the 
 Jews, that if they had understood their own law "they 
 would not have condemned the guiltless" that is, the disci- 
 ples. His Grace says they acted unlawfully, and were 
 guilty, and required the especial authority of our Lord to 
 shield them. But our Lord, on the contrary, says that they 
 did not act unlawfully, and that they were not guilty. 
 
 His Grace goes on to say that our Lord ' declares j that 
 the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath, inasmuch as the 
 sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. 
 On this passage, which has often been but indistinctly un- 
 derstood, it may be remarked, 1st, that it implies an actual 
 violation of the sabbath, else it would have been needless 
 to plead a supreme power over that ordinance ; — 2ndly, that 
 it not only cannot imply that any other man had a similar 
 dispensing power, but implies the very reverse, else it 
 would have been nugatory to claim for the " Son cf Man" 
 (the title by which Jesus distinguished himself) a power 
 which others might equally claim ; — 3rdly, that these are 
 not (as some have represented) two distinct remarks, but 
 stand in the relation of premises and conclusion—" The sab- 
 bath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath ; 
 therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath." ■" 
 
 This and much more, which he adds in page 19, all goes 
 to prove that the disciples were guilty of an actual violation 
 of the sabbath. Although our Lord had said that the Jews, 
 even by their oivn laws, without any reference to his autho- 
 rity, ought to have pronounced them guiltless. Supposing 
 that his Grace's interpretation of the passage be correct, 
 which I very nuich question, does it follow that because our 
 Lord claimed authority o\'er the sabbath, that he exercised 
 
154 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 it ? Did he not say that, if he were to pray to his Father, 
 he would irive him more than ten legions of angels, and yet 
 he suhmitted to the few officers of the high })riest ? Did he 
 not say, " All power is given to me hoth in heaven and in 
 earth," and yet he allowed himself to be led before an 
 earthly tribunal? A sudden and momentary iiTadiation of 
 his glory burst forth on his simple enunciation of his divine 
 Majesty, I AM he,* and struck the officers and guards to 
 the ground ; yet he immediately veiled his glory, and was 
 led as a lamb to the slaughter. 
 
 I have so far supposed his Grace"'s interpretation of the 
 sentence, "the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath," 
 to be right, that I might show that even on that admission 
 his argument was wrong. I now proceed to consider whe- 
 ther his Grace's interpretation be right, and I rather sus- 
 pect that it will turn out to be wrong. He concludes that 
 " the Son of Man," in this text, applies to our Lord — and 
 certainly his argument is very curious — indeed he thinks 
 that it follows directly from the words of the text, " the 
 sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath, 
 therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the sab- 
 bath ;" — and his Grace supposes the conclusion to follow 
 from the premises. What has this to say to the ques- 
 tion, as to who is meant by the Son of Man ? And sup- 
 posing " the Son of Man " to mean our Lord, how could 
 the conclusion follow ? His Grace supposes the argument 
 to be this, that because the sabbath was made for man, and 
 not man for the sabbath, therefore our Saviour was Lord 
 of the sabbath. How the conclusion follows I can- 
 not conceive; but suppose it true, the converse of the 
 conclusion must also follow, ' that if man had been made 
 for the sabbatb, and not the sabbath for man, then our 
 blessed Saviour, the Creator of the world, and of man, and 
 of tlie sabbath, would not bo Lord of the sabbath;' — 
 • "he " is iiiseiti'd l>v tlic translators. 
 
THE SAEBATH. 155 
 
 this conclusion is absurd, and yet it must follow if his 
 Grace's interpretation and argument be allowed to stand. 
 
 I beg now to give an interpretation, which will allow the 
 conclusion to follow naturally from the premiss without any 
 absurdity. The " Son of Man " means " man " in general, 
 and the meaning is this : — " The sabbath is made for man, 
 and not man for the sabbath;'' therefore man is the supe- 
 rior of the sabbath, and the sabbath must be accommodated 
 to the benefit of him for whom it is made. This makes 
 common sense ; — but I must give some reasons for prefer- 
 ring this interpretation. 
 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke omit the sentence, " the sab- 
 bath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath,*"' and 
 only give the other sentence, — a pretty strong proof that 
 they considered it synonymous, and included in that other. 
 71ie tAvo sentences are in St. Mark — and by-the-bye it 
 seems irreconcilable with his Grace's opinions, that St. 
 Mark, who wrote for the Gentiles, should communicate to 
 them our Saviour's claim of being Lord over the sabbath, 
 which they never were to observe. The expression, " the 
 Son of man," is used very frequently in scripture without 
 being applied to the Messiah. Ezekiel, passim. His Grace 
 will not accuse me of using the word ^^ passim" too widely 
 here, for the expression, as applied to Ezekiel, occurs up- 
 w^ards of eighty times — much oftener than it is applied to 
 our Lord in all the gospels put together. It is also ire- 
 quently used in the Psalms. And it is very remarkable, 
 that in the very quotation of Isaiah which I have adduced 
 as an argument in favour of the permanency of the sabbath, 
 the same phrase is used : (Isa. Ivi. 2) : — " Blessed is the man 
 that doeth this, and the son of man that taketh hold of it ; 
 that keepeth the sabbath." — See also Numb, xxiii. 19 ; Job 
 XXV. 6; XXXV. 8; Ps. viii. 4; Ixxx. 17; cxliv. 8; cxlvi. .*?; 
 Isa. li. 12; Jer. xhx. 18; li. 43. 
 
156 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 SECTION XXIII. 
 
 {(I) OBJECTION. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OBJECTS OF 
 
 THE SABBATH. 
 
 I PROCEED now to consider some more of his Grace's 
 ' Thoughts,' on the sabbath, and to place them beside the 
 scripture account. His Grace acknowledges, page 16, that 
 ' the rule, laid down by most persons of piety and good sense, 
 is to abstain from anything that may interfere (in respect of 
 ourselves and of others) with the primary object of the 
 Christian sabbath, viz. public worship and religious studies 
 and exercises. This, in the Jewish sabbath, he adds, 
 * seems to be the secondary, and rest the primary circum- 
 stance.' And has his Grace so read the Holy Scriptures ? 
 I think I have shown, that religious worship was the primary 
 object. In the commandment, given immediately after the 
 creation, (which I must beg pardon for persisting to call a 
 commandment,) worship was the ivhole of the command- 
 ment, and rest none. For I have proved that the only way 
 in which we can conceive it to have been " blessed and 
 sanctified,"" is by a command to keep it holy ; and the only 
 way man could keep it holy, was by prayer and praise. 
 
 And yet his Grace says, ' Tlie fourth commandment, ac- 
 cordingly, does not even contain any injunction respecting 
 public worship or religious duty.' Indeed ! Hut I hope 
 that most of my readers will agree with me, that, in the 
 fourth commandment also, worship and religious duty were 
 the primary object. The Israelites were commanded to 
 "• Remoml)or tlie sabbath-day to keep it hohj." 'lliis was 
 the way in vvliich it was to be roiiiombon>(l and coinnie- 
 
THE SABBATH. 157 
 
 morated. Afterwards comes the command to rest. How 
 they could keep the sabbath holy, except by religious wor- 
 ship, and duty, and exercises, I cannot conceive. Perhaps 
 his Grace will have the goodness to tell us. Surely mere 
 rest does not tend to keep it holy. If so, the pharisees 
 kept it holy, and his Grace's horses keep it holy. 
 
 His Grace goes on, and inadvertently establishes the 
 very principle for which I have been contending, as the 
 true spirit of the law, and which our Lord shows was the 
 spirit of the Jewish law, and which he establishes as the spirit 
 of the Christian sabbath. ' But the day was naturally made 
 a day of worship, because it was a day of rest. The Lord's- 
 day ought to be made a day of rest, because it is a day of 
 worship. The two objects are, indeed, generally so far 
 from interfering, that they aid each other; but if a case 
 should arise in which they do interfere, the secondary 
 point should give place to the primary. If, for instance, it 
 should happen, that a man could not attend public worship 
 without labouring to clear away some obstruction in a road, 
 or employing the services of cattle, the Christian would be 
 as clearly bound to go as the Jew to stay at home.' I beg 
 to say that, according to the true intent and meaning of 
 the Jewish law, as expounded by our Lord, the Jew would 
 have been just as much bound to go as the Christian. So 
 thought the Shunamite. What does his Grace think of the 
 Jewish priests labouring twice as much on the sabbath-day 
 as on any other day, and being blameless ? 
 
 SECTION XXIV. 
 
 (e) OBJECTION. — FOURTH COMMANDMENT—" REMEMBEH." 
 
 In reviewing his Grace's arguments, I find one of a very 
 curious nature. He wishes to prove that the sabbath 
 
158 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 had not been known before the giving out of the law on 
 Sinai ; and that even the mention of its having been sanc- 
 tified at the creation was inserted by Moses with reference 
 to the law on Sinai. This I have endeavoured to disprove. 
 There was, however, a great stumbling-block in the way of 
 his bold asertion (for, after all, it is nothing but assertion). 
 The word " Remember," in the beginning of the fourth 
 commandment, so manifestly pointed to an antecedent com- 
 mand, that his assertion could not stand a moment against 
 its influence, unless he could get rid of it, or at least bend 
 or warp it out of his way : and how he has done this, him- 
 self shall tell. 
 
 ' Nor does the expression, Remember the sabbath-day, 
 necessarily imply its having been before observed, but rather 
 that the precept was one liable to be violated through neg- 
 ligence and forgetfulness. We often say, in like manner, 
 " Remember to call at such a place at such an hour, or 
 remember to deliver this letter, &c." — meaning, take care 
 not to forget it. It is not said, remember not to steal ; re- 
 member to honour your parents, &c. 
 
 If the word " remember," was necessary to be prefixed 
 to a commandment on account of the Ukelihood of forgetful- 
 ness, it would be a very necessary preamble to every other 
 commandment : the first would be the .better of it ; and the 
 last could not do without it, for I fear both, as well as all 
 the rest, are very liable to be forgotten. " Thou hast for- 
 gotten God that formed thee." Deut. xxxii. 18. " Mine 
 enemies have forgotten thy words." Ps. cxix. 109. " Thou 
 hast forgotten the God of thy salvation.' Isa. xvii. 10. 
 " My people have forgotten me days without number." 
 Jer, ii. ^32. " They have forgotten the Lord their God." 
 Jer. iii. 21. " They forget, as their fathers have forgotten, 
 my name." Jer. xxiii. 27. See also Ezek. xxii. 12; xxiii. 8.5. 
 Hosoa iv. 6; viii. 14; xiii. 6, cum multis aliis : but why 
 nudtiply texts to prove so humiliating a truth ? But, strange 
 
THE SABBATH. 
 
 159 
 
 to say, it seems to me that the fourth commandment requires 
 the prefix of the word less than any other, on his Grace's 
 principle. For every other, we have only individual me- 
 mory ; but for the sabbath, the joint memory of the whole 
 community. 
 
 His Grace's mode of interpretation has, however, the 
 merit of novelty. He has invented an entirely new princi- 
 ple for eliciting the latent sense of Scripture, by determining 
 the true meaning of a Hebrew word, from the misuse, 
 abuse, and perversion of an English word. For although 
 his Grace's application of the word " remember" might be 
 good enough English for his messenger or letter-carrier, 
 when so applied, that the context would keep them from 
 mistake, yet it will be condemned by every English 
 scholar. The word always supposes antecedent knowledge, 
 as its etymology {re-memoro) proves. Can his Grace show 
 us any precedents in the Bible for such a use of the word ? 
 In a hundred and seventy-two passages in the Jewish 
 Scriptures, M'hich I have examined, it supposes antecedent 
 knowledge, and a revocation of that knowledge. If his 
 Grace could in all this number of cases have found a single 
 instance to countenance his interpretation, we may conclude 
 that he would have preferred it to invoking the aid of his 
 messenger and letter-carrier ; but as he has not quoted any 
 such, we may fairly conclude that none such was to be 
 found. But if he can produce half the number of passages 
 in the Old Testament with his meaning, still there would 
 be an even chance against his meaning applying in this 
 particular case. But it is unnecessary to say more. The 
 conclusion which he endeavours — not to prove, but to 
 save from ruin by this ingenious device, viz. ' that the sab- 
 bath was not known before the time of Moses,' I have, I 
 think, a1)undantly refuted in a former chapter, by showing 
 that the sabbath wan known before the first mention of it 
 in the time of Moses at the Wilderness of Sin. 
 
160 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 SECTION XXV.. 
 
 (/) OBJECTION. — Col. ii. 16. 
 
 His Grace, in page 10, quotes Col. ii. 16, to show that the 
 sabhath was to be abolished. " Let no man judge you in 
 meat, or in drink, or in any respect of a holiday, or of the 
 new moon, or of the sabbath-day, which are a shadow of 
 things to come, but the body is Christ." This quotation 
 shows the hurry and precipitancy with which his pamphlet 
 was written. He quotes entirely from memory, and does 
 not even give a reference to direct where the text was to 
 be found, he neither looked at the English translation, to 
 see the words, nor at the Greek, to see the meaning. 
 
 His Grace alters the English text. It is true he alters 
 only by one letter ; but that letter one of infinite power 
 and importance in the English language, — the fruitful germ 
 of multiplication, — whose addition can, in a moment, con- 
 vert a unit into countless thousands, and whose subtraction 
 can, in the twinkling of an eye, leave the general of a 
 mighty army alone upon the field of battle. In plain 
 English, he converts " the sabbath-day«" in the plural^ as it 
 is in our translation, into " the sabbath-day," in the singular, 
 as it is in his quotation. This, as I shall presently show, 
 makes a material difference in the sense. 
 
 In the first place, this quotation, when adduced as a proof 
 that the sabbath was to be abolished, would also prove, that 
 all the other things mentioned are to be abolished also. 
 Iliis would prove too much — alas ! much too much — for it 
 would lead to the mournful conclusion, that meat and drink, 
 eating and drinking, were also to be abolished !* 
 
 • The following is the Greek. M^ iv ns u/x"" xpiutTw iv fi^dcrti fi iv 
 TTOfffi, ^ iv fjifpft ioprfis fi vovuvvias, ^ ffa^fiitoiv. The Grecian scholar will 
 
THE SABBATH. 161 
 
 The Greek word is CTa/3/5nrw»' in the plural, without the 
 article. This word in the plural is of very extensive signi- 
 fication. Besides the weekly sabbaths, it means also the 
 Jewish sabbaths, which accompanied all the feasts, some- 
 times flanking the feasts on both sides, as I have shown in 
 Sect, v., vi., vii. They seldom happened on the weekly sab- 
 baths, but were movable through the days of the week like the 
 feasts themselves. That this is the meaning of the word 
 in this passage is very probable, for it is very remarkable 
 that the word which is translated " a holyday" is eopr»?j 
 which signifies a " feast-day," — one of the Jewish festivals, 
 and this word is in the singular, although " sabbaths" is 
 plural, and the meaning is a feast or the feast with its 
 accompanying sabbaths. Two of the feasts, the Passover 
 and Tabernacles, werejlanked by sabbaths ; that is, had one 
 at each end. Each of the others had one only at the beginning. 
 There were seven such sabbaths. It would appear, there- 
 fore, that the feast here mentioned, being accompanied by 
 sabbaths., must have been either the Feast of the Passover 
 or of Tabernacles ; but eoprrj, — a feast, or the feast, when 
 not particularly specified, generally means the passover, 
 which was the only feast for which any regulation was made 
 as to meats : these were the bitter herbs, the unleavened 
 bread, and the passover. It seems probable, then, that the 
 apostle is cautioning them against those Jewish ordinances, 
 and states strongly, that they were shadows of things to 
 come, — the paschal lamb the shadow, the substance the 
 body of Christ. 
 
 The attentive reader, on examining this chapter, will 
 find that the discussion of the apostle was entirely with 
 regard to using particular meats and drinks on particular 
 days, and had nothing to say to the days themselves. In 
 
 not fail here to observe the (lifTerciit niaiiiier in which tlic three latter 
 are nicutioiied from the two first. 
 
 M 
 
I6'2 SCRIPrURF, ACCOUNT OF 
 
 verses 8, 9, 10, he guards them against " the tradition of 
 men and the rudiments of the world," directs them to 
 Christ, and tells them that they are " complete in him," 
 without the addition of any of the ordinances which only 
 prefigured him ; and in verse 19, directs them to hold the 
 " Head," Jesus Christ; and says in verse 20, " Where- 
 fore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the 
 world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to 
 ordinances?" And in verses 21, 22, he shows that the 
 rudimeiits and ordinances to which he refers here and 
 above, are meats and drinks ; for, alluding to those Jewish 
 errors, he says, " Touch not, taste not, handle not ; which 
 all are to perish with the using." 
 
 " Sabbaths," is also used to express the feasts themselves. 
 Lev. xix. 30, where " keep my sabbaths'"' means " kcej) 
 my festivals." Heylyn says, that in Lev. xxiii. ' the feast 
 of trumpets, the feast of tabernacles, and the passover, 
 are severally intituled by the name of Fabbaths.' See 
 Lam. i. 7 ; where " mock at her sabbaths," probably 
 means " her festivals." Horace calls the feast of the new 
 moon, triccsima sahbata. 
 
 In the passage in question, the word is plural, without 
 the article. It is sometimes used in the j)lural, to signify 
 the weekly sabbath, but never without the article. When- 
 ever given by the evangelists, as contained in any saying 
 of our Lord's, it is given in the singular, except where it 
 means the sabbaths in general ; because our Lord inteudtnl 
 to abolish, or rather, displace by fulfilling, the plural sab- 
 baths attending the feasts, along with the feasts themselves, 
 but to preserve the single weekly sabbath. In Joim's gos- 
 pel, who wrote after llie cessation of the Jewish polity and 
 laws, th(? word is never used except in the singular, for 
 a like reason. 
 
 IJut what makes still more against his Grace's assunijition 
 of the word in that passage, as signifying the suhbath-duy. 
 
THE SABBATH. 163 
 
 is, that it is often applied to the days of the week, and might 
 have that signification here. Thus, m<« <Ta/3/3orw»^, literally 
 one of the sabbaths, 0Y,Jirst of the sabbaths, means the first 
 day of the week. Matt, xxviii. 1. And Siq rov aal3i3urov, 
 literally twice of the sabbath, means twice in the week : " I 
 fast twice in the week." Luke xviii. 12. 
 
 From all these arguments, I trust that my readers are 
 convinced that this passage affords no grounds for the 
 abolition of the sabbath. 
 
 P.S. TO Section XXV. 
 
 This text (Col. ii. 16) is quoted by all the opponents of 
 the sabbath, and relied upon as their strongest argument 
 for its abolition. It has, therefore, been necessary to give 
 it a full examination : and I hope I have proved above, that 
 it cannot bear the meaning which they attribute to it. 
 This would have been sufficient for my purpose. The pas- 
 sage, however, is difficult: and it must be confessed that 
 the answer would have been more complete, if the true 
 meaning had been given and proved. But I could not find 
 a satisfactory interpretation in any commentator ; and I had 
 sent the above section to press before I had arrived at 
 a clear developement of the difficulty. I trust, therefore, 
 that my readers may bear with me, while I endeavour to 
 give, and to establish, what appears to me to be an adequate 
 solution. 
 
 " The body," in verse 17, is, by every one, allowed 
 to mean, not the material body of the Lord, but the sub- 
 stance and reality, as opposed to the types and shadows ; 
 but what those types and shadows are, to which St. Paul 
 alludes, remains to be shown. I expect to prove that, by 
 meat and drink, in this passage, he means m eot-o/fc rings 
 and drink-off'erinys. It is otherwise inconceivable liow 
 
 M 2 
 
1()4 SCKll'll'KE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 moat and drink could be mentioned among the types and 
 shadows of Christ. Nor do we read anywhere of supersti- 
 tious observances of the Jews, as to drhiks. 
 
 St. Paul uses the same mode of expression in another 
 passage, where, by meats and drinks, he must be understood 
 as meaning meat-offerings and drink-offerings. Heb. ix. 9, 
 
 10 : " which was a figure for the time then present, in 
 
 which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not 
 make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the 
 conscience ; which stood only in meats and drinks, and 
 divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them 
 until the time of reformation." No ordinances relative to 
 meats and drinks were imposed as figures, except the meat- 
 offerings, and drink-offerings. 
 
 'Eopni, translated " a holyday," means, as already men- 
 tioned, a feaat, and ought to have been so translated. It 
 appears to me that the genitives eoprfji;, rovjuriyiat: and 
 (Tafjijcirioy depend upon ftfjucrei and noaet, as well as upon 
 jue'juet. 2«/3/]a'rw»' being without an article, seems to mean 
 the week-days, (which are always so called,) as well as the 
 sabbaths. 
 
 If these premises be granted, then we may conclude 
 that St. Paul speaks of the meat-offerings and drink-offer- 
 ings, which accompanied all the sacrifices which were 
 appointed for week-days, sabbaths, new-moons, feasts, and 
 every day of a feast which consisted of more than one. 
 And we may also conclude, that he merely speaks of tlie 
 offerings^ which were appointed for the davs he mentions, 
 and pronounces nothing whatsoever as to the days them- 
 selves. Of this, I have further ]m)of from a text in Nehe- 
 miah, the great similarity of whicii to that boforo us, first led 
 me to its true interpretation. Nehem. x. .*3"2, 3.*3: " Also 
 we made ordinances for us to charge ourselves yearly with 
 the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our 
 God, for the shew-biead, and for the continual meat-ollering, 
 
THE SABBATH. 165 
 
 and for the continual burnt- offering of the sabbaths, of the 
 new-moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and 
 for the sin-offering, to make an atonement for Israel, and 
 for all the work of the house of our God," 
 
 In this passage of Nehemiah, and in that of St. Paul, we 
 have precisely the same particulars, either expressed or 
 necessarily implied. Firstly, the subject-matter of the dis- 
 course, viz. meat-offerings, drink-offerings, and sacrifices. 
 Secondly, the times and occasions for which they were 
 appointed, viz. the week-days, the sabbaths, the new- 
 moons, and the feasts. And, thirdly, the purpose or end, 
 which Nehemiah considered as the atonement itself, but 
 which St. Paul, having seen the real atonement, considered 
 but as the shadow of that atonement. 
 
 It may not be amiss here to remark that, with the 
 exception of the books of Moses, the Jews, at the time of 
 our Saviour, were most particularly attached to the sacred 
 books written after their return from captivity, which they 
 considered as peculiarly their own. Many of their ob- 
 servances were founded upon those books, of which we have 
 an example in the strictness with which they adhered to 
 the letter of Nehemiah's directions, as to carrying burdens 
 on the sabbath. They also continued to adhere to this 
 ordinance of Nehemiah for the payment of a part of a 
 shekel by each individual for the service of the temple- 
 worship ; for, in Matt, xvii, 24, the persons who came to 
 St. Peter, to ask whether his master paid tribute (c^/cpa^/ta) 
 were ol rd SiSpax/ja Xufxi^dvovTeQ, the collectors of the didrach- 
 ma. Now, the didrachmon was half a shekel paid by each 
 person for the temple service ; and, from Peter's prompt 
 reply, we may gather the readiness with which the Jews 
 paid this impost. 
 
 Fully to understand these parallel passages of Nehemiah 
 and St. Paul, we must refer to the institution of the meat- 
 offerings and drink-offerings; the regulations regarding 
 
166 sciup-ruuE account of 
 
 which, being too long to quote, I must request my readers 
 to consult the following parts of Scripture : Exod. xxix. 
 38 — 42. Lev. ii. vi. 14 — '23. Num. xv. 1 — 16; xxviii. 
 xxix. Ezek. xlv. 14 — 25; xlvi. 1 — 15. 
 
 From these passages, it appears that every sacrifice was 
 accompanied by its appropriate meat-oiferings and drink- 
 offerings. The meat-offerings were composed of fine flour, 
 oil, and frankincense. For a bullock, the meat-offering was 
 three tenth deals of flour ; for a ram, two tenth deals ; and 
 for a lamb, one. For a bullock, the drink-offering was half 
 a bin of wine ; for a ram, a third ; for a lamb, a fourth. In 
 the above-quoted chapters, the numbers of sacrifices are 
 detailed for the common or week-days, for the sabbaths, for 
 the new-moons, for the several feasts, and for the particular 
 days of the respective feasts. 
 
 In Lev. ii. 3, 10, it is said that the meat-offering is " the 
 most holy of the offerings made by fire."" On account of 
 their superior holiness, the meat-offerings and drink-offer- 
 ings are sometimes mentioned for the entire sacrifices. 
 Thus, Joel i. 9 : " The meat-offering and the drink-offering 
 is cut off from the house of the Lord : the priests and the 
 ministers mourn." And in 13, "Lie all night in sackcloth, 
 ye ministers of my God, for the meat-offering and the 
 drink-offering is withholden from the house of our God." 
 And also in Heb. ix. 9, already quoted. Tliey are sometimes 
 briefly called meats and drinks, as in the text last quoted, 
 as also (if I may so say) in that under consideration. 
 
 The reader is now prepared to form his final judgment 
 upon this passage of St. Paul. On considering the days 
 mentioned, he will be convinced that by " meat and drink," 
 the apostle must mean the meat-offerings and drink-offer- 
 ings appointed for those days. From the exact parallelism 
 between his words and those of Neliemiah, he will he satis- 
 fied that the same things are intended in both. And, from 
 observing that there cannot be any doubt that Nehemiah 
 
THE SABBATH. 167 
 
 speaks of the offerings upon these certain days, without 
 pronouncing anything as to the days themselves, the reader 
 will draw the same conclusion as to the parallel passage of 
 St. Paul. 
 
 It is probable that the anxiety of the Jewish disciples to 
 make the Gentile converts observe these ordinances arose 
 from the following directions relative to sacrifices, meat- 
 offerings, and drink-offerings. Num. xv. 14 — 16 : " And if 
 a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you, in 
 your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire of a 
 sweet savour unto the Lord, as ye do, so he shall do. One 
 ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also 
 for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for 
 ever in your generations. As ye are, so shall the stranger 
 be before the Lord : one law and one manner shall be for 
 you and for the stranger that sojourneth with you." 
 
 From St. Paul only alluding to the meat-offerings and 
 drink-offerings, it is not unlikely that the Jewish converts 
 had given up the sacrifices, as manifestly fulfilled and 
 abrogated by the sacrifice of Christ, but continued the 
 meat-offerings and drink-offerings, as not being so evidently 
 typical of Christ ; and that this is the error against which 
 the apostle guards in this place. 
 
 The conclusion of the whole matter is, that St. Paul 
 here speaks of offerings on those days, without any inten- 
 tion of affirming anything as to the days themselves. And 
 if this conclusion be just, we have rescued this strong-hold 
 out of the possession of the enemies of the sabbath.* 
 
 • I request the reader's particular attention to Niun. xxviii. 
 above quoted, but not for the above purpose. The sacrifices for the 
 Feast of Tabernacles were much more numerous than for any other 
 feast. It lasted for eight days. On the weekly sabbath, which oc- 
 curred within the feast, there would have been offered from seven 
 to tliirtcen bullocks, two rams, and eighteen lambs. ('o!isc(iuently 
 it was the most laborious sabbath, if not day, on the priests in llic 
 
168 sciurruHE account of 
 
 SECTION XXVI. 
 
 (y) OBJECTION. — Gal. iv. 9, 10. Rom. xiv. 
 
 Barrow quotes Gal. iv. 10, against the sabbath. " Ye 
 observe days, and months, and times, and years." And 
 from their having been found fault with for observing days, 
 he thinks that they were thereby forbidden to observe the 
 sabbath. But even if we had not a host of arguments and 
 a cloud of witnesses at the other side of the question, this 
 argument could not stand a minute on its own merits. The 
 context, the contiguous verses, slay it. These two verses 
 (8 and 9) precede that above quoted : " Howbeit, then, 
 when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by 
 nature were no gods. But now, after that ye have known 
 God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the 
 weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to 
 be in bondage ? Ye observe days, and months, and times, 
 and years." 
 
 In the first place, I must here confi-ont one witness 
 against the other, — Heylyn against Barrow. Heylyn ac- 
 
 whole year. On the first day of the feast, which was always a sab- 
 bath, the people hud the labour of cutting and carrying the boughs, 
 and building the tabernacles. Now, it is very remarkable, that the 
 weekly sabbath in that feast, when both priests and people were so 
 laboriously employed on sabbaths, in obedience to the law of Moses, 
 was the very day on which our Lord ordered the paralytic, cured at 
 IJethesda, (John v. 1,) to carry his bed. This places in a strong 
 point of view the unreasonableness of the objections of the Jews and 
 the Archbishop to this order, as being a breach of the sa!)bath. 
 
 That the miracle occurred on that sabbath, I thus prove. It was 
 at a/east. (John v. 1 ) The Feast of Tabernacles was the last feast 
 in the year ; the Passover the first ; and it appears from John vi. 
 1, that tile Passover was the next feast after this miracle. 
 
THE SABBATH. l69 
 
 knowledges that * these expressions are considered by some 
 divines as having a reference to the superstitions of the 
 Gentiles not wishing to undertake anything of consequence 
 on unlucky days marked by the astrologers :' — dies carhone 
 notandi. This is the true interpretation of the passage : 
 and yet Heylyn takes the same view, and makes the same 
 use of the passage as does Barrow. It is strange that 
 these two great men did not see that their interpretation 
 was as much opposed to the observance of the Lord's-day, 
 which they endeavoured to establish, as of the sabbath 
 which they laboured to abolish. 
 
 The Galatians had been Gentiles ; they never had been 
 Jews ; they never had practised the Jewish ceremonies, or 
 been bound by the Mosaic law. And yet it is clear from 
 the context that the observances here condemned had been 
 used by them while they were heathens — things to which 
 they did service when they knew not God — and now, after 
 they had known God, they wished to turn again to the 
 weak and beggarly elements, whereunto they wished again 
 to be in bondage. And then, in conclusion, after having 
 brought these general charges, he specifies the particulars 
 to which they applied : " Ye observe days, and months, and 
 times, and years." These words, therefore, must apply to hea- 
 then observances, which they had formerly practised before 
 they knew the true God, or how could they be said to turn 
 again to them, and desire again to be in bondage to them. 
 They cannot include the sabbath kept in memory of the 
 Creator of the world, whom they did not know. If any 
 further argument were necessary to prove that St. Paul did 
 not mean the sabbath, we have it in the next verse but one. 
 He himself, at this time, (for a reason I will give in another 
 place,) and so long as the Jewish polity lasted, was a punc- 
 tual observer of the Jewish sabbath ; and he proposes him- 
 self, in the 1 2th verse, to the Galatians, as an example for 
 them to follow : " Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am.'> 
 
170 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Christian ! if you have " taken hold of the sahbath," and 
 kept it through the conflict of arguments which have already 
 opposed our progress, will you give it up for this ? 
 
 Supposing that they had been positively forbidden to 
 observe days, and times, &c., this would not have been 
 a prohibition against observing the feasts and sabbaths even 
 of the Jewish law\ For this prohibition evidently points to 
 some heathenish and idolatrous practice ; for the very same 
 occurs in the book of Leviticus, by which all the Jewish 
 observances are enforced. Lev. xix. 26 : " Neither shall 
 ye use enchantment, nor observe times," — the very words 
 used in the text under consideration to the Galatians, who 
 had been heathens. 
 
 Here is another argument of Barrow's. He says, 
 ' Again, in the fourteenth chapter to the Romans, the same 
 great patron and champion of Christian liberty not obscurely 
 declareth his mind that Christians of strength and judgment 
 did regard no day above another, but esteemed all days (he 
 excepteth none) alike, as to any special obligation founded 
 upon divine law and right.' 
 
 The words on which he relies, are — " One man estcemeth 
 one day above another ; another csteemcth every day." 
 The word " alike" is not in the original, but supplied by 
 the translators, and I omit it. This quotation of Barrow 
 shows us how likely we are to be betrayed into error by 
 partial quotations, without considering the context. The 
 context shows that the whole chapter relates to meats, and 
 the use of particular meats on particular days, and not to 
 the days themselves. And, after all, the words (pioted by 
 Barrow are given by St. Paul merely to show the practices 
 of i)erson8 weak in the faith. Rom. xiv. 1 : " Him that is 
 weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful dispu- 
 tations. For one beliovoth that ho may eat all things ; 
 another, who is weak [in the faith,] eateth iu'ibs. Let not 
 him that eateth, despise him that eateth not ; and lot not 
 
THE SABBATH. 171 
 
 liim which eateth not, judge hhn which eateth ; for God 
 hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another 
 man's servant ? To his own master he standeth or falleth. 
 Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him 
 stand. One man esteemeth one day above another ; another 
 esteemeth every day. * * Let every man be fully per- 
 suaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, 
 regardeth it unto the Lord ; and he that regardeth not the 
 day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, 
 eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that 
 eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God 
 thanks." And in verse 13, and following verses : " Let us 
 not, therefore, judge one another any more ; but judge this 
 rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion 
 to fall in his brother's way. I know and am persuaded that 
 there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth 
 anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy 
 brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not 
 charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom 
 Christ died. For the kingdom of God is not meat and 
 drink, but righteousness and peace in the Holy Ghost. 
 For meat, destroy not the work of God. All things, in- 
 deed, are pure ; but it is evil for that man who eateth with 
 offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, 
 nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, 
 or is made weak. Hast thou faith ? Have it to thyself 
 before God, Happy is he that condemneth not himself in 
 that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth, is 
 damned [condemned] if he eat, because he eateth not of 
 faith ; for whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." x.v. 1 : We 
 then that are strong^ ought to bear the infirmities of the 
 tceak, and not to please ourselves." From this quotation 
 it appears clearly that the whole subject of the discussion 
 was with regard to the conscientious but mistaken scruples, 
 which St. Paul palls infirmities, of some amiable, but weak 
 
172 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 brethren, with regard to using particular meats, either at 
 all times, or on particular days. From a candid review of 
 the whole chapter, it is impossible to come to any other 
 conclusion. 
 
 Well, then, faithful fellow-traveller, 1 think we may hold 
 on a little longer to the sabbath, and not give it up for 
 this argument, which, at best, is a misinterpretation or mis- 
 conception of the practices arising out of the amiable 
 scruples and infirmities of brethren weak in the faith. And 
 I think that by this time you and I have learned not to give 
 up any fundamental article of our faith on the authority of 
 any human creature, however good or great, without trying 
 it by the touchstone of divine truth, and weighing it in the 
 balance of the sanctuary. 
 
 SECTION XXVII. 
 {h) Baxter's objections. — John i. 17. 
 
 Baxter, from John i. 17, and vii. It), 28, concludes, that the 
 Jewish law was to have been altogether abrogated by Jesus 
 Christ. I do not consider either of those texts as conveying 
 that meaning. John i. 1 7 : " The law was given by Moses ; 
 but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," There are 
 two senses in which " the law " is taken here. In the first 
 place, it means, not so much the nafiire of the law itself, as 
 the obedience which was due to it. Under the law of 
 Moses, absolute, unerring obedience is rocjuired. " Cursed 
 is every one that continueth not in all the ivories of the law 
 to do them" This mode of obedience is declared in the law 
 itself, and alluded to in several parts of the epistles. But 
 « grace came by Jesus Christ," through whom a different 
 mode of obedience was accepted, by which a man might be 
 justified and accepted, without that unerring obedience, 
 
THE SABBATH. 173 
 
 and even although he had transgressed the law. This 
 made a great change with regard to the laws, although the 
 laws themselves remained unaltered in other respects. 
 There was also another countervailing (if I may use the 
 expression) change in the law. While the obedience ne- 
 cessary to obtain life by the law was thus considerably 
 relaxed by the grace which came by Jesus Christ, the law, 
 in other respects, was rendered much stricter. The com- 
 mandments under the Mosaic dispensation were considered 
 as only referring to the outward actions, but by our Lord 
 were much more spiritualized, and extended to the inmost 
 thoughts and desires ; and, beside the leading and ex- 
 pressed offence, included all those of lesser degree, but of 
 the same class, every fibre of the root, every germ or seed 
 which might, in the congenial soil of a corrupt heart, grow 
 to the full-ripe transgression of the commandment. This 
 remark and distinction will help us, as we proceed, to solve 
 some other objections. There was also a third difference 
 between some of the Mosaic laws under the old dispensa- 
 tion and under the new^ which is alluded to in the above 
 quotation. The mere ceremonial law, which was typical, 
 and shadowing out of things to come, was to cease when 
 those types and shadows should be fulfilled. This is the 
 meaning of " truth came by Jesus Christ." As I have ob- 
 served on a former occasion, " truth," here, is not opposed 
 to error, but to figures. The prefiguring types and shadows 
 came by Moses ; but the substance and reality by Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 There was also a change in the end to which the com- 
 mandments led in the two dispensations. Under the Mosaic, 
 they led to death : it was a " ministration of death," and a 
 " ministration of condemnation." 2 Cor. iii. 7, 9. But 
 under the Christian dispensation, they led to life ; for it 
 was a " ministration of the Spirit," a " ministration of 
 righteousness," (lb. 8, 9,) and a ministry of reconciliation. 
 
174 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Our r^ord says, " If ye will enter into life, keep the com- 
 mandments." Matt. xix. 17. "The letter killeth, but the 
 spirit givcth life." 2 Cor. iii. 6. " The law [in itself] was 
 holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good," and " or- 
 dained to life ;" but, through sin, " was found to be unto 
 death." Rom. vii. 10, 1 1, 12. There was yet another change 
 made with regard to the commandments, viz. in their sanc- 
 tions. Under the Mosaic dispensation, the sanctions were 
 temporal ; but under the Christian, eternal. 
 
 ITius, we find that, — not the commandments, — but the 
 nature of the obedience to be paid, were changed ; — not 
 the commandments, — but their ends and objects were 
 changed from death to life; — not the commandments, — 
 but their scope, and extension, and application ; instead 
 of the letter, they were to be interpreted by the spirit ; 
 instead of being confined to the precise, specified, out- 
 ward action, they were to apply to all the series of minor 
 transgressions of the same kind as that expressed ; — in- 
 stead of being confined to outward actions, they were to 
 apply to the inmost thoughts; — not the commandments, 
 but their sanctions were to be changed. We are indebted 
 to Baxter for sending us to the Scriptures on this subject : 
 he has enabled us to draw forth the above conclusions, 
 which we might otherwise have overlooked. His cracked 
 bucket, when repaired, has enabled us to draw water fi-om 
 the wells of salvation. I shall be obliged occasionally to 
 return to this subject. 
 
 SECTION XXVIII. 
 
 (i) BAXTER. — John vii. 19, 23. Acts xv. .5. 
 
 Baxter, to my surprise, (piotes John vii. IJ), as a jjroof of 
 the abrogation of the law of Moses, with which it has 
 
THE SABBATH. 175 
 
 nothing to do. The best mode of correcting his error, is 
 to give the true sense of the passage, which is as follows. 
 " Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you 
 keepeth the law ? Why go ye about to kill me ?" I have 
 before stated, that this passage made part of the revived 
 controversy, which arose out of the miracle at the pool 
 of Bethesda. The Jews had accused him of breaking the 
 law, by authorizing the healed man to carry his bed on the 
 sabbath : and he here tells them that their observance of 
 the law, and their zeal for the law, were hypocritical ; for 
 they did not keep the law themselves, as was proved by 
 their endeavour to break the sixth commandment by killing 
 him. But not one word occurs, which can be tortured into 
 any reference to the abrogation of the Mosaic hiw. On 
 the contrary, our Lord tells us, on another occasion, that he 
 " was not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it." 
 
 If Baxter's argument proved anything, it would be that 
 the sixth commandment was abolished ! 
 
 The next text on which Baxter relies, is John vii. 23. 
 " If a man on the sabbath receive circumcision, that the 
 law of Moses should not be broken ; are ye angry at me, 
 because I have made a man every whit whole on the sab- 
 bath-day ?" But I have already fully considered this pas- 
 sage, and shown that our Lord said this merely for the pur- 
 pose of showing, from their own laws, and their own practice, 
 the true spirit of the sabbatical law, and the true nature 
 and purpose of the sabbatical 7'est. 
 
 He then quotes Acts xv. .5 : " But there rose up certain 
 of the sect of the Pharisees, which believed, saying, that 
 it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to 
 keep the law of Moses." I wonder that a man of Baxter's 
 acuteness should not have immediately perceived that this 
 question, having been mooted " by the sect of the Pha- 
 risees," was prima facie evidence, that the ceremonial law 
 alone was concerned, and that the only particular men- 
 
176 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 tioned being circumcision, was additional proof that the 
 question was raised upon the ceremonial law. But let us 
 go to the decision of the apostles. 
 
 It was in reference to this attempt of the sect of the Pha- 
 risees that St. Peter says, verse 10, " Why tempt ye God 
 to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, whicli neither 
 our fathers nor we were able to bear ?" St. Peter had a 
 strong feeling in favour of the Mosaic law, as appears from 
 several passages in the Acts of the Apostles : and St. Paul 
 was obliged to oppose him. Gal. ii. 11, 14. Can we then 
 suppose that Peter would pronounce such a censure on the 
 whole law, both moral and ceremonial ? It is evident that 
 he here refers to the ceremonial law, — the law added on 
 account of tra)isg)'ession, — the law which was not good, — 
 by which no man could live : and not to those laws given 
 before the transgression ; — " the pure and undefiled law, — 
 the law which converts the soul, and endureth for ever :" — 
 and more particularly, that he did not include that one law 
 which they were " to call a delight, holy of the Lord, and 
 honourable," — the observance of which should lead them to 
 " delight in the Lord." 
 
 The decree of the apostles was, " That ye abstain fi-om 
 meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things 
 strangled, and from fornication." These things all belong 
 to the ceremonial law, except the last ; but it seems to be 
 agreed among commentators either that it has been er- 
 roneously translated, or that there has been a substitution 
 of one word for another [vopveiaq for ■^(oipeiaq) in the Greek 
 manuscripts. The present word frequently signifies idola- 
 trous practices and observances. The decree, then, of the 
 apostles, was formed on similar principles to those laid 
 down by St. Paul in the quotation I have given above, from 
 Rom. xiv. : " I know and am persuaded that there is 
 nothing unclean [improper to he eaten^ in itself; l)ut to 
 him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to liini it is 
 
THE SABBATEI. 177 
 
 unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, 
 now walkest thou not charitably ; destroy not him with thy 
 meat for whom Christ died." And St. Paul, again, in 
 1 Cor. viii,, although he considers meat offered to an idol 
 as nothing, and that it may conscientiously be eaten by a 
 person of knowledge, yet as there were others who could not 
 divest themselves of the feeling that there was such a con- 
 nexion between the meat offered to an idol and the idol 
 itself, and between eating the meat and worshipping the idol, 
 he advises those who are strong in the faith to abstain from 
 eating, if they should thereby run the risk of betraying their 
 brethren into idolatry, and concludes thus: — " Wherefore 
 if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while 
 the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." 
 Therefore the apostles, by their decree, give way, for the 
 present, to innocent prejudices of the Jews in matters in- 
 different in themselves, with which they had been so strongly 
 imbued from their earliest childhood by their law. These 
 directions, as well as others in St. Paul's epistles to the 
 same effect, were humane and charitable, dictated by refined 
 feeling, good taste, and common sense. I find common 
 sense to be an excellent expositor of many parts of Scrip- 
 ture, and am frequently obliged to invoke its aid against 
 the uncommon sense of our opponents. 
 
 In the conclusion of James's address, previous to the 
 apostles passing the decree in verses 19, 20, 21, we have 
 a convincing proof both that the decree was passed in 
 reference to the prejudices of the Jews, and prejudices which 
 the Gentiles might imbibe from reading the Jewish Scrip- 
 tures, or retain from their own idolatries ; and also that this 
 decree had nothing to say to the abolition of the Jewish 
 law, and more particularly the sabbath. 21 : " For Moses 
 of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being 
 read in the synagogues every sabhath-dai/." The Gentiles 
 
178 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 seem to have been prohibited from meats offered to idols — 
 also called pollutions of idols — on their own account, and 
 from eating blood, things strangled, &c. on account of the 
 Jews. 
 
 SECTION XXIX. 
 
 {k) BAXTER.— 2 Cor. iii. Heb. vii. Eph. ii. 
 
 The arguments which I have hitherto quoted from Baxter 
 were very easily answered. I come now to his best argu- 
 ment for the repeal of the commandments, stronger, indeed, 
 than any that have been used by the other opponents of the 
 sabbath, and which, I believe, has been used by him alone, 
 and has escaped his Grace of Dublin. It is a quotation from 
 2 Cor. iii. beginning thus : A'er. 3, " Ye are our epistle, writ- 
 ten in our hearts, known and read of all men, * * * mani- 
 festly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, 
 written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God ; 
 not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." 
 This expression is clearly figurative, and does not refer to 
 the tables of the commandments, but to his epistle ; and if 
 these tables of stone, whatever they are, were to be abo- 
 lished, his epistle, written with ink, must be abolished also. 
 This is well explained by the promise in Jeremiah xxxi. 33 : 
 " I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in 
 their hearts." 
 
 In verse 6, St. Paul gives us a good key for discovering 
 the true meaning of this chapter ; which was to show the 
 difl\?rencc between the letter and the spirit of the law, and 
 their tendencies. " Who also hath made us able ministers 
 of the New Testament ; not of the letter^ but of the spirit ; 
 for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." It is 
 manifest, however, that ho is speaking here of one and the 
 same law. 
 
THE SABBATH. 179 
 
 But the strength of Baxter's argument, and that upon 
 which he justly relies, is the following : Ver. 7, " But if the 
 ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was 
 glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly 
 behold the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be 
 done away, how shall not the ministl-ation of the Spirit be 
 rather glorious ? For if the ministration of condemnation be 
 glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness ex- 
 ceed in glory." At iSrst view it may appear from this quota- 
 tion, as if the law or commandments written and engraven in 
 stones were to be done away. But on a little closer inspection 
 we find that not to be the case. What, then, is to be done 
 away? The ^/ory which accompanied the former ministration. 
 The delivery of the ten commandments on Sinai was accom- 
 panied with supereminent glory. And even after the trans- 
 gression and forfeiture of the blessings of the covenant by 
 the Israelites, when Moses a second time brought down the 
 tables of the commandments, they were attended by glory ; 
 because, as St. Paul tells us, the law itself was " holy, just, 
 and good," and therefore in itself glorious ; yet it required 
 perfect obedience, which the fallen and corrupt nature of 
 man could not pay, and therefore it tended to condemnation 
 and death. Let us now consider how that glory was to be 
 done away. And this was by the revelation of a more 
 resplendent glory, by which the former was eclipsed. The 
 commandments were lit up with a new light : they still 
 continued holy, just, and good, as before; but they.no 
 longer continued as inexorable judges to condemn, they 
 held out the sceptre of mercy — they no longer required 
 perfect obedience, they were changed from a ministration 
 of condemnation into a ministration of righteousness. And 
 how was the former glory to be done away, — the glory of a 
 law holy, and just, and good, — but clouded by the certainty 
 
 n2 
 
180 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 of disobedience and condemnation ? The glory was eclipsed 
 and outshone by the superior glory of a ministration, which 
 provided for an obedience that could be accepted, and a 
 righteousness that could lead to salvation. This is strongly 
 expressed in verse 10 ; in which we are told, — that the 
 foi-mer " ministration had no glory in this respect" — that 
 is, in producing righteousness; in respect of which the 
 ministration of the Spirit did exceed in glory. The expres- 
 sion in the Greek is very strong : — verse 10 : 6vle ce^ot^aarai 
 
 TO ^€Coi,(i(T^€voy, eV tovtio tg) jnefiei, eicKet' rrjq inrepftaXXovtn)^ 
 
 B6t,r)c, which may be thus literally translated : " Therefore 
 what had been before glorious, ceased to be glorious in this 
 respect, on account of the glory which excelled and outshone 
 it." This text, then, does not refer to any change of the 
 law, but, as I have before observed, to a change of obedience 
 from one which could not be perfect, or accepted, to one 
 which could be accepted, although imperfect. Thus, al- 
 though the law of INIoscs, or, more properly speaking, the 
 commandments, were in themselves so glorious, as to clothe 
 him with glory, as he bore them, yet the ministration, with 
 vkhich they were connected, was inferior. But the new 
 dispensation was more glorious, because it was the minis- 
 tration of righteousness ; it devised a way by which imper- 
 fect obedience to that same law, could be rendered accept- 
 able, and man be justified even after having transgressed it ; 
 which could establish a righteousness, that could not be 
 by the law itself. A perfect law and perfect obedience are 
 no doubt glorious objects ; but as fallen man could not pay 
 that perfect obedience, instead of its being to him an object 
 of glory, it became an instrument of condemnation. 
 
 St. Paul, in Rom. vii. 6, &c., explains the mode in which 
 Christians are delivered from the Mosaic law. They were 
 delivered from its strict literal sense, but bound by its 
 spirit ; and this is the view we ought to take of the ques- 
 
THE SABBATH. 181 
 
 tion. " But now we are delivered fiom the law, that being 
 dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in neivness 
 of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What 
 shall I say, then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid ! Nay, I 
 had not known sin, but by the law : for I had not known 
 lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." And, 
 verse 10, he says, " The law which was ordained to life, 
 I found to be unto death." And again, " For we know that 
 the law is spiritual ; and I delight in the law of God in the 
 inward man." And, in chap. viii. 1, " There is, therefore, 
 now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, 
 who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit ; for the 
 law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath made me free 
 from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not 
 do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his 
 own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, con- 
 demned sin in the flesh ; that the righteousness of the law 
 might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but 
 after the spirit." 
 
 ' The law, in our natural state, and under the old dis- 
 pensation, was utterly unable to effect our renewal and 
 sanctification ; nay, it did but aggravate our guilt and con- 
 demnation, instead of delivering us from them. It is only 
 in our new state, and under our new affiance, that we are 
 enabled to bring forth fruits of a different kind, " being now 
 freed from the law," — that is, no longer placing our reliance 
 upon it, as a means of subduing and sanctifying our sinful 
 natures.' — Stuart. 
 
 From all this, it appears that the law and the command- 
 mandments are not abrogated, but that we are enabled to 
 fulfil them. My readers, who are " strong in the faith," 
 will have the goodness to bear with my many repetitions on 
 this subject ; there are other persons, who require that there 
 should be " precept upon precept, precept ui)on precept ; 
 
182 scRirruRE account of 
 
 line upon line, line upon line ; here a little, and there a 
 little." Isa. xxviii. 10. 
 
 Baxter next asserts that the whole frame of the Mosaical 
 law is changed, and the New Testament set up in its stead ; 
 and he draws this wholesale conclusion from Heb. vii. 11, 
 12; but in quoting this text he has shown deficiency of 
 logical acumen, for if he had considered the drift of the 
 apostle's argument, he would not have hoped for any sup- 
 port from it. 
 
 The quotation is thus ; 11, "If therefore perfection were 
 by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people re- 
 ceived the law,) what further need was there that another 
 priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and 
 not be called after the order of Aaron ? (12) for the priest- 
 hood being changed, there is made of necessity a change 
 also of the law." Hence Baxter argues, that because the 
 Levitical priesthood was abolished, the whole Mosaical 
 law, including the ten commandments, was also abolished. 
 But what is the apostle's argument ? He adduces the 
 abolition of the priesthood as a proof that the law, which 
 he had in view, was abolished. And why ? because the 
 law, of which he spoke, required the ministration of a 
 priesthood, and could not exist without it, otherwise the 
 cessation of the priesthood would have been no proof what- 
 ever of the cessation of the law. Now, what was the law 
 that required the ministration of a priesthood ? The law 
 of ordinances, of sacrifices, &c. that is, the ceremonial law : 
 for this law alone required a priesthood to celebrate it, and 
 depended upon it — but this could not be said of any other 
 law, and to no other law could tliis argument by possibility 
 extend. Therefore Baxter's argument goes no further than 
 to prove the abolition of the ceremonial law, which nobody 
 denies; therefore lie stands refuted by his own (juotation. 
 There is also further proof in the text itseU", that the law 
 
THE SABBATH. 183 
 
 alluded to by the apostle could not include the decalogue. 
 He says, "the people received the law," (the law of which 
 he spoke,) "u7ider the Levitical priestliood" Now the 
 commandments were given out before the Levitical priest- 
 hood was established, before the " transgression" which 
 cause'd much of the ceremonial law (the "yoke") to be 
 enacted and " added," which required the priesthood ; and 
 therefore the decalogue remains secure and untouched, 
 although the priesthood may have been abolished, and the 
 ceremonial law, which that priesthood was appointed to 
 administer, has been repealed, or rather fulfilled. 
 
 Baxter lastly quotes, Eph. ii. 15, 16, " Having abolished 
 in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments .... 
 in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new 
 man, so making peace, and that he might reconcile both 
 unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity 
 thereby." Baxter remarks, that the law here mentioned 
 cannot be exclusive of the chief part of the law. This 
 remark surprises me, as the apostle took particular care to 
 prevent him and others from falling into this mistake. For he 
 cautiously confines his argument to the commandments of 
 ordinances or the ceremonial law. And he still further 
 guards his meaning by saying, that it was the enmity of the 
 commandments which he had abolished. He set aside the 
 demand for perfect obedience, and the condemnation which 
 followed from any single transgression. " He made of two 
 one man." The whole context shows that the " two " 
 were the Jews and the Gentiles. See verses 5, 6, 11, 12, 
 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. In agreement with the above quotation, 
 St. Paul, in Coloss. ii. 14, calls the ceremonial law " the 
 handwriting of ordinances, that was against its, which was 
 contrary to us ; this shows the meaning of the enmity of 
 those particular " commandments in ordinances," mentioned 
 in the first quotation. This text i:^ also quoted by Baxter. 
 
184 SCUIPTUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Was the sabbath enmity ? was it against 'us ? was it a yoke 
 too heavy to be borne ? was it a penal law added because 
 of transgression ? 
 
 Baxter joins with all the other opponents of the sabbath 
 in asserting, that it was one of the shadows of good things 
 to come, and therefore to be abolished when the substance 
 was come. But not one of the authors of these shadowy 
 and unsubstantial arguments has attempted to prove either 
 part of their proposition. They have not attempted to 
 prove that the sabbath is a shadow ; they have not attempted 
 to show of what it is a shadow ; they have neither proved 
 what the substance of the sabbath is, nor have they shown that 
 it is come-— but all this they ought to have proved and shown, 
 before their argument could w^eigh a feather. But, my fellow- 
 Christian ! is the sabbath a shadow ? Is the knowledge of 
 God the Creator of heaven and earth, a shadow ? Is the 
 adoration of Him, at the footstool of whose throne all the 
 hosts of heaven bow down, a shadow ? Are prayers and 
 praises a shadow? Is the spiritual delight of man— that 
 V hich is holy of the Lord and honourable — what leads man 
 to delight in him, in whose presence is fulness of joy, and 
 at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore, — is this 
 a shadow ? But if it be in any sense to be considered as a 
 shadow of any good thing to come, as a type or representa- 
 tion of any future blessing, what that glorious substance 
 is to be, what it is worthy to represent, our authors have 
 not told us. Let us ask St, Paul, and he gives the answer 
 in Heb. iv. 9, where, alluding to heaven, he says, there 
 remaineth a rent to the people of Ciod. The word trans- 
 lated rest {anftfiuTKruoc,) signifies a '•'' sabbath keeping," and 
 that perpetual sabbath keeping is to be in heaven. If the 
 sabbath be a shadow, or type or representation of anything, 
 it is of this, and it must continue until its antitype, its sub- 
 stance, be unfolded in tlie splendour of the eternal world. 
 
Tin: SABBATH. 185 
 
 SECTION XXX. 
 
 LAWS OF NATURE. MORAL LAWS. 
 
 There is yet another class of objections, of which some 
 of my readers may not have heard, and others may consider 
 obsolete; but which I cannot leave altogether unnoticed. 
 I mean those derived from a consideration of the laws of 
 nature, and also from a distinction supposed by some 
 persons to exist in revelation itself between moral and 
 positive laws. 
 
 By the laws of nature, these advocates understand such 
 laws of human conduct, as can be discovered and proved 
 independently of revelation, by the mere light of natural 
 reason, from the nature of man and of the world. These 
 laws, although latterly a little out of fashion and repute, 
 formerly occupied a great share of the attention of the 
 learned. Eminent heathens, and ancient philosophers, 
 were praiseworthy in using the only light they had. 
 But the investigation of these laws has also occupied 
 the attention of two very different classes in more 
 modern times. One class endeavoured to prove their 
 existence, and establish their authority as external but- 
 tresses to support the edifice of revealed religion ; the other 
 for the purpose of setting up a rival, and providing a sub- 
 stitute, to prove revelation unnecessar3% 
 
 These two classes contrived to erect beautiful systems, 
 which, perhaps, they persuaded themselves that they had 
 extracted from human nature, and the nature of things. 
 But they unwittingly borrowed the laws themselves, either 
 directly from revelation itself, or from the more improved 
 state of morals imperceptibly transfused into society by the 
 operation of revelation. One class acted honestly, but the 
 infidels dishonestly ; having endeavoured by the aid of the 
 
1«SG SCRIPTUnE ACCOUNT OK 
 
 Scriptures to erect a system in opposition thereto, they 
 lighted up their censers, on which they hurned incense to 
 the Goddess of Reason, by fire stolen from the altar. But 
 to know really what kind of laws of nature unassisted reason 
 is capable of ehciting, we must examine the systems of 
 the wisest heathens : and the more we examine, the less 
 satisfaction shall we find; and the greater necessity we 
 shall find of a divine revelation. In the writings of the 
 most eminent heathens on the laws of nature, we find 
 scanty and contradictory laws, with feeble sanctions, whose 
 slender voice was drowned by the turbulent uproar of 
 human passions and the importunate and craving demands 
 of human appetites and desires. In truth, the investigators 
 of the laws of nature remind me of Gulliver's philosophers, 
 leaving the full light of day and retiring into a dark room 
 to make light for themselves by re-extracting the absorbed 
 solar rays from cucumbers. 
 
 What are the laws of nature but the laws of God dimly 
 guessed at from the consideration of his works ? But as 
 " the world by wisdom knew not God," how can worldly 
 wisdom discover his laws ? And how can they w ho, when 
 they did know God, did not wish to retain him in their 
 knowledge, set themselves to investigate those holy laws, the 
 very holiness of which indisposed them to the knowledge 
 and worship of their divine Author ? Inasmuch as " the 
 carnal mind, and the natural man is at enmity with God, 
 and neither is nor can be subject to the law of God," (Rom. 
 viii. 7,) how can it set itself candidly and disinterestedly to 
 investigate his laws, and ascertain his will ? " The natural 
 man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God [even 
 when made known to him,] for they are foolishness to him; 
 neither can he know them, for they are spiritually dis- 
 cerned." (I Cor. ii. 14,) "The wisdom which desceudetii 
 not from above is earthly, sensual, devilish." — Hopeful 
 Legislator ! 
 
THE SABBATH. 187 
 
 Some of our moral philosophers, and our divines, have 
 endeavoured to establish principles of moral obligation 
 exclusive of the aid of Revelation, such as universal bene- 
 volence, moral sense, expediency, the eternal fitness of 
 things, &c. &c. It is sufficient to mention these for the 
 purpose of understanding some of the objections urged by 
 opponents of the sabbath, who take upon them to try the 
 sabbath and its permanency by the law of nature, a light, 
 at best, obscurely dim. And if they cannot find it founded 
 in that law, they deny its permanent obligation. 
 
 Bramhall raises two questions which concern the sab- 
 bath. 1st. Whether the law of nature, which is properly 
 the moral law, prescribes to all mankind the sanctifica- 
 tion of this or that seventh day in particular, or any 
 seventh day in the week indefinitely. 2ndly. If the law of 
 nature do not prescribe it, whether it were imposed on 
 mankind by any positive law of God.' 
 
 As to the first, he says, ' A law may be called moral 
 from the ejid, as it regulates the manners of men. In this 
 sense, both the sabbath and Lord's-day are moral laws.' 
 
 ' A law may be called moral from its duration, — when not 
 made on temporary respects, not alterable according to va- 
 rious exigencies of times or persons. A perpetual law is a 
 moral law, although it be not a precept of the law of 
 nature. In this respect the law of the sabbath was a moral 
 law to the Jews, because it was perpetual so far as regarded 
 them, and to last as long as their polity, and therefore 
 called a perpetual covenant^ (Exod. xxxi. 16, 17,) a sign 
 between God and them for ever.' 
 
 'The moral law, in the most strict and proper sense, 
 signifies the law of nature, — that is, the dictate of right 
 reason. In this respect the sabbath is a moral law, because 
 the law of nature prescribes that a particular day be set 
 apart for the worship of God ; and in pursuance thereof 
 
188 SCUIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 the positive law of God, or of the church, doth set apart one 
 day in seven.' He says also, that ' the law of nature is of 
 perpetual obligation, common to all men, and cannot be 
 dispensed with.' He then goes fully into the question of 
 the moral law. But as I do not rest any part of my case 
 on the moral law, as it means the law of nature, or submit 
 the question to its jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to quote 
 any farther. I beg to refer those who wish to go farther 
 into its consideration to the author himself. He concludes 
 (page 911) that 'because the grounds of the sabbath are 
 not moral and perpetual, the law of the sabbath was no law 
 of nature.' 
 
 The law of nature may be made a convenient engine for 
 the infidel to attack the bible. But I write not for infidels, 
 — I appeal not to the only law they pretend to acknow- 
 ledge, — I write for all denominations of Christians. The 
 sabbath is not neutral but common ground, — it is friendly, 
 and therefore pleasant ground, on which all Christians can 
 meet together as friends and as brethren. And here we 
 are, all met together, and in the name of all I solemnly 
 protest against the laws of God being made subject to the 
 revision, decision, sanction, or approbation, of a court pre- 
 sided over by the natural man, who receiveth not the 
 " things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto 
 him ; neither can he know them :" ( 1 Cor. ii. 14 :) " and by 
 the carnal mind which is enmity against God, which is not 
 subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." And 
 at the same time, while we are all met together, I protest 
 against the sabbath-day being separated from the Lord's- 
 day, and cast out as a decayed branch. And I protest 
 against the union and identity of both being removed from 
 the basis of an authority which all acknowledge, and placed 
 on the confined basis of any particular church. 
 
 Baxter raises a question, 'How far we are bound by the 
 
THE SABBATir. 189 
 
 decalogue?' which he answers thus: — ' 1. As it is the law 
 of nature ; — 2. As owned by Christ and made part of his 
 law ; — 3. As it w^as a law of God to the Jews, [Israelites,] 
 and was given to them upon a reason common to them 
 with us, or all mankind. We must still judge that it was 
 once a divine determination of what is most meet, and an 
 exposition of the law of nature.' 
 
 My readers will please to recollect, that I have not 
 quoted any human authorities upon the subject of the sab- 
 bath, except either those who are decided opponents of the 
 sabbath, or those who have been summoned as witnesses, 
 and recommended as authorities, by the Archbishop of 
 Dublin, in support of his side of the question. In the lat- 
 ter class is Sanderson, whose opinion on this part of our 
 case is not altogether in his Grace's favour. — See Sander- 
 son's 'Cases of Conscience,' vol. ii. p. 215, on the subject 
 of ' The Adequate Rule of the Conscience defined."' 
 
 Sanderson says, ' We are sensible that the holy writings 
 contain precepts of a very different nature. Some respect 
 the moral, others the ceremonial law. Some are common, 
 and universally oblige; others are limited to a peculiar 
 nation, to a person, or to a particular order of men. Some 
 are to continue for a time ; others are of perpetual obliga- 
 tion. Some are delivered by way of advice about things 
 expedient to be done, as the exigence of the case requires. 
 Others are positive commands about things absolutely or 
 simply necessary. So that if there were not some other 
 rule beside the Scripture, to distinguish moral precepts 
 from ritual, — temporary from perpetual, — peculiar fi*om 
 common ; the conscience would often be at a stand, and 
 doubtful in her determination ; especially when laws of a 
 quite different nature are delivered, as it were, in one 
 breath, and immediately follow one another in the same 
 tenor of discourse, and continued connexion of words. For 
 
li)0 SCRIPrrRE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 instance, there is a command in the Levitical law, (Lev. 
 xix. 18,) that we "should love our neighbour as ourselves;" 
 and in the next verse it follows immediately, " Thou shalt 
 not sow thy field with mingled seed, neither shall a gar- 
 ment of linen and woollen come upon thee." The first 
 precept in this place is moral and vmiversal, and the others 
 but ceremonial or judicial, and peculiar only to the nation 
 of the Jews. But when these laws are read in our churches 
 it does not appear from the text how there can be so re- 
 markable a difference between them. In another verse (30) 
 of the same chapter, the sanctification of the sabbath, and 
 the reverence of the sanctuary, are equally commanded in 
 a continued course of expression, and under the same 
 solemn sanction of right. " I am the Lord." And yet we know 
 that it is the opinion of most that one of these precepts 
 lays an obligation on the conscience, but the other does 
 not. Now, there can be no reason assigned for the wide 
 difference of these two commandments, being in all appear- 
 ances the same, and of equal force, but we are guided by 
 discretion and prudence, which is the only rule to discover 
 what laws are obligator}', and what not, and without which 
 the conscience will often be in suspense, and unable to 
 decide what she is commanded to do and what to avoid.' 
 
 And again in page 245, ' The old law which we call the 
 Mosaic law is distinguished into three parts, the moral, the 
 ceremonial, and the judicial. Many and different have 
 been the opinions concerning the obligation they lay on the 
 conscience : but I shall speak freely my own sentiments, 
 and leave every one to judge for himself. I observe, there- 
 fore, in the first place, that no law delivered by Moses does 
 directly, formally, and of itself, oblige the conscience of a 
 Christian, because every Mosaical law was positive, and a 
 positive law obliges only those upon whom it is imposed. 
 Since, therefore, the laws delivered by Moses were imposed 
 
THE SABBATH. 191 
 
 only on the particular nation of the Hebrews, as will 
 evidently appear from the beginning of them, "*Hear, O 
 Israel,"" and from the address that follows it is certain they 
 have no force upon such as are " strangers to the common- 
 wealth of Israel," purely because they were delivered by 
 Moses. But if any of these laws have now an obligation 
 on Christians, {as the precepts in the decalogue certainly 
 have,) it is by accident only, and by reason of the contents 
 of them, not because they were commanded by Moses, but 
 because what he commanded was either agreeable to the 
 law of nature, or afterwards confirmed by the new law of 
 Christ' 
 
 And page 250, ' I affirm in the fourth place that the 
 moral law delivered by Moses, I mean the precepts of the 
 decalogue, oblige Christians, as well as Jews, to the obser- 
 vation of them. And this is rvhat every Protestant that I 
 ktiow in the world confesses.'' This is the testimony of a 
 witness produced by the Archbishop ! I am afraid that we 
 shall find some exceptions to such Protestants in our day, 
 although he knew none in his. 
 
 The old divines, just emancipated from the divinity of 
 the schoolmen, were still strongly imbued with the prin- 
 
 • It (Iocs not follow from this expression that the commands to 
 which this was prefixed were to be confined to the Jews. They 
 certainly were communicated to them alone. They only were 
 present, and it was natural to address them. Besides in very many 
 places of Scripture, " hear," means obey. Dent. v. 1, 27 ; xii. 28 ; 
 Josh. iii. 9. The expression is also in many places applied to those, 
 to whom a message is given to be communicated to others ; and 
 therefore is no argument that the Israelites were not to comnunii- 
 cate these commands to others. Ezek. iii. 10, 11. " Hear with thine 
 ear, and go get thee to them of the captivity unto the children of thy 
 people, and speak unto them and tell them," &c. Joel i. 2, 3. " Hear 
 tills, ye old men. Tell ye your children of it, and let your children 
 tell their children, and their children atiother ircneration." 
 
192 SCIUFI'URE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 ciples of the scholastic divinity, and were zealous admirers 
 of the law of nature, or moral law; and they were too 
 ready to appeal to it almost as a superior authority for 
 the decision of matters relating to the holy Scriptures. 
 They attributed too much to that law ; they included much 
 in the law of nature, which nature never taught, and much 
 in the moral, which unassisted reason never knew. So far 
 as these laws — of nature and moral law — or, more properly 
 speaking, tfiis law (for they are one and the same) was 
 known to the heathens, it was not learned entirely from 
 unassisted reason, but originally taught, by divine revela- 
 tion, to their ancestors before their alienation from God, 
 and had been handed down as moral precepts from genera- 
 tion to generation. And among Christians, reason bor- 
 rowed a purer system from the Bible, or from habitual 
 principles, which revelation had spread, and with which it 
 had imperceptibly leavened the mass of morals even of un- 
 believers ; and reason, in the plenitude of its pride, endea- 
 voured to pass the stolen plumes as its own. I acknow- 
 ledge the office of reason in examining the evidences of 
 revelation, both internal and external : and I would allow 
 what might be called the law of nature in the mind of such 
 a man as Sanderson— instructed as he was in divine reve- 
 lation and directed by the Holy Spirit — to sift the Mosaic 
 code, and say what laws are moral and of perpetual obli- 
 gation. But I cannot agree with him, that the mere law of 
 nature and of reason, entirely exclusive of revelation, and 
 which, in its unassisted state, was guilty of such monstrous 
 contradictions, absurdities, and idolatries — I cannot admit 
 this law as a rule to discriminate between moral and cere- 
 monial laws. The reason of a heathen or of a Mahommedan 
 would be incai)able of forming such a decision until he had 
 gained a general knowledge of christian [)rinciples.* By 
 
 ' Cato's moral law ciinoljlc'il suii'ulo. 
 
THE SABBATH. 193 
 
 what rule, then, are we to sift and sort and discriminate the 
 Mosaic law ? I answer : Reason — refined, purified, and 
 enlightened by the Holy Spirit, informed by a general 
 knowledge of holy Scripture, — with renewed sense and 
 taste and feeling of divine matters, — can bring the general 
 tenor of the Scriptures and the concentrated spirit of 
 revelation to bear upon any doubtful passage or any doubt- 
 ful law, and make the whole a commentator or interpreter 
 of the part. Such a reason, in his own excellent mind, 
 Sanderson mistook for the law of nature. And by his rule, 
 true in itself, although theoretically mixed with a false 
 principle, he accepts the decalogue as binding on the con- 
 science of a Christian. He excepts no part ; he does not, 
 with unauthorised hand, put in his scissars, and cut out the 
 foui'th commandment ; but he receives the whole. And yet 
 this is one of the witnesses produced by his Grace for the 
 abolition of the sabbath. 
 
 Some of our authors endeavour to disprove the perma- 
 nency of the sabbath, on the grounds that the law of 
 nature, — the moral law, the perpetual law, — is unchange- 
 able, and cannot be dispensed with ; whereas, say they, the 
 sabbath can be dispensed with, and therefore is not a part 
 of the law of nature, or unchangeable law. 
 
 Thus Heylyn instances the laborious works performed by 
 the priests on the sabbath, as a proof that it could not have 
 been a moral law, ' and every part thereof of the same con- 
 dition.' I have shown before that the spirit of the law was 
 not transgressed or dispensed with by those works. But 
 supposing it was ; he mighV set aside the other command- 
 ments in the same way. Let us take the sixth as an exam- 
 ple, — " Thou shalt do no murder," or literally, " Thou 
 shalt not kill."" Was not this commandment dispensed with 
 or suspended, when the Israelites invaded the land of 
 Canaan, and were ordered (Deut. xx. 16) to " save nothing 
 alive that breatheth," and to put to death all the women 
 
 o 
 
194 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 and children ? Was it not dispensed with when, in 1 Sam. 
 XV. 3, Saul was ordered to smite Amalek, and to " slay 
 both man and woman, infant and suckling ?" The Jews 
 were allowed, nay, commanded, to put malefactors to death ; 
 and fathers were ordered, (Deut. xxi. 18,) if their sons 
 should be rebellious, to bring them to the elders, and accuse 
 them, and they were to be stoned. In the 1 Kings xviii., 
 Elijah put four hundred and fifty of the prophets of Baal 
 to death, at the Brook Kishon. Were all these persons 
 guilty of a breach of the sixth commandment, or did it cease 
 to be moral because it was dispensed with, and was not of 
 universal obligation ?* In Lev. xxiv. 13 — 16, are particular 
 directions and injunctions for stoning the blasphemer; and 
 yet, in the very next verse (17) it is said, " He that killeth 
 any man, shall surely be put to death." 
 
 Supposing that Abraham had offered up his son Isaac, at 
 the express command of God, would the command to Noah 
 have ceased to be moral? Did Abraham hesitate against 
 obedience to the command to sacrifice his son, pleading the 
 law of nature, or the commandment to Noah, or the con- 
 tinued revelation which had been vouchsafed to himself? 
 
 The only true and valid foundation of law, is the will and 
 command of God. What is called the law of nature, is a 
 more remote method of determining that will, viz. by ob- 
 serving the constitution of man, and gleaning the few scat- 
 tered maxims of general tradition. But what are these 
 compared with the direct commands of God ? 
 
 But my readers will say that I have dwelt longer on the 
 subject of the law of nature than its ])resent estimation in 
 public opinion either requires or warrants ; and therefore 1 
 dismiss it. 
 
 • On the priiitiples of our opponents, we may aijjfue tliat, be- 
 cause miracles have suspended and dis|)enscd witli the laws of 
 nature, which govern the imiverse, therefore tliey are no hiws of 
 nature ! 
 
THE SABBATH. 195 
 
 SECTION XXXI. 
 
 WHETHER THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT BE A MORAL OR 
 A POSITIVE PRECEPT. 
 
 Attempts have fi-equentl}^ been made by the opponents of 
 the sabbath, down to the Archbishop of DubUn, to make a 
 distinction between the moral and positive laws of God. It 
 becomes necessary for us, therefore, in order to remove their 
 objections, to consider this distinction, whether real or sup- 
 posed. 
 
 In this question, the expression " Moral laws," is 
 taken as meaning the laws of nature in Bramhall's 
 first sense, as regards the end ; laws being called moral 
 which regulate (mores) the manners of men ; and our op- 
 ponents condemn the sabbath, on the plea that it is otily 
 a positive command of God. They suppose the moral laws 
 to be of their own nature beneficial to mankind ; but the 
 positive laws to have been enacted without any such view^, 
 or, indeed, without any decided use or object. And they 
 think human reason competent to decide, ^ — what laws are 
 to be considered positive, — how long they are to be ob- 
 served, — and when to be laid aside as obsolete. They 
 think that there is every motive and every sanction for 
 observing the moral law ; but that the obligation of the 
 positive law depends solely upon the arbitrary command of 
 the lawgiver. And the conclusion they draw from this dis- 
 tinction is worse than the distinction itself; for they look 
 upon it as an established rule, that to prove, or even pro- 
 nounce, or assert a law to be positive, divests it at once of 
 all claim on conscience for its observance. 
 
 o 2 
 
196 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Bramhall says that, ' Supposing the observance of the 
 sabbath to have been commanded at the creation, it was 
 only a positive law, and might be dispensed with, and is no 
 part of the law of nature.' Now we doubt very much, 
 whether there be any one of those, which he calls the laws 
 of nature, which may not be dispensed with by the supreme 
 Lawgiver and Governor of the world. We admit that 
 the law of the sabbath may be dispensed with, or altogether 
 abrogated, by the express command of God. But granting 
 this, we say that a law ought to be repealed or abolished 
 with equal formalities to those by which it was enacted. It 
 proves nothing to show that there was a power of repeal : 
 this no one doubts. The question is, whether that power 
 were exercised ; whether the law were repealed by the same 
 formalities, or repealed at all ? And 1 think we have seen 
 sufficient proofs that it has not been abrogated. 
 
 The Archbishop of Dublin, alluding to a former essay 
 of his, says, page 6, ' The o})inion, that Christians are 
 bound to the hallowing of the Lord's-day, in obedience to 
 the fourth commandment, goes to nullify all that I have 
 there urged, since it implies that there is a part at least of 
 the Mosaic law binding on Christians : I should say the 
 lohole ; for, since the fourth commandment is evidently not 
 a morale l)ut a positive precept, (it being in itself indifferent, 
 antecedent to any command, whether a seventh day, or a 
 sixth, or an eighth be observed,) I cannot conceive how the 
 consequence can be avoided that " we are debtors to keep 
 the whole law," ceremonial as well as moral. Tlie dogma 
 of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster — (in their 
 Confession of Faith) — that the observance of the sabbath 
 is part of the moral law, is, to me, utterly unintelligible. 
 Yet, unless we assent to this, adopting some such sense of 
 the term " moral," as it is difficult even to imagine, I do 
 not see on what principle we can consistently admit the 
 
THE SABBATH. 197 
 
 authority of the fourth commandment, and yet claim ex- 
 emption from the prohibition of certain meats, and of blood, 
 — the rite of circumcision, — or, indeed, any part of the 
 Levitical law.' 
 
 This quotation consists entirely of assertions, most of 
 which I have already disproved. I now confine myself to 
 the conclusion here supposed, that the fourth command- 
 ment cannot be a moral law, because it is a positive law. 
 To make anything of an argument out of this, his Grace 
 ought in the first place to have told us what he means 
 by a positive law. Secondly, what he means by a moral 
 law, and to have given definitions of both. Thirdly, he 
 ought to have proved that the fourth commandment is a 
 positive law. And fourthly, that a positive law could not 
 be a moral law. But his Grace has done nothing of this. 
 He cannot well take ' moral ' in this place to mean a law of 
 nature. He must take it in that first sense, mentioned by 
 Bramhall, as a law to regulate human manners ; because he 
 takes it in opposition to positive laws. 
 
 Now, it seems to me that, of all the laws of the deca- 
 logue, or of the Mosaic code, there is not one, which better 
 deserves the title of ^ moral,' than the fourth command- 
 ment. The sabbath was to be to the Israelites a sign 
 that the Lord sanctified them. How could the keeping of 
 the sabbath be a sign that they were sanctified, if it were 
 not also the means and the instrument of their sancti- 
 fication, or of their being made holy ? And is not sanctifi- 
 cation and holiness morality ? and is not the sign — the proof 
 and the effective cause of holiness — morality? 
 
 Is not the first commandment moral ? And is not the 
 sabbath the instrument and means by Avhich men not only 
 know God, but, knowing him, arc led to delight in him. 
 And are not the knowledge of God and delight in God — ■ 
 moral ? 
 
198 SCRIPTUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 I have shown, in the eighteenth section, on the fourth 
 commandment and sabhath, how intimately, they are con- 
 nected with all the commandments; and need not here 
 repeat all I have said there. But if I should be obliged to 
 do so, in a certain degree, I beg the kind indulgence of 
 my readers. 
 
 The fourth is the guardian of the first commandment, as 
 appears strongly from the following passage of Lev. xxvi. 
 1,2: " I am the Lord your God. Ye shall keep my sab- 
 baths and reverence my sanctuary : I am the Lord." And 
 in the same manner, in Ezek. xx. 19, 20 : "I am the Lord 
 j'our God : walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, 
 and do them ; and hallow my sabbaths ; and they shall be a 
 sign between me and you, tJiat ye may know that I am the 
 Lord your God^ 
 
 Is not the idolatry which is forbidden in the second com- 
 mandment highly immoral, and the fruitful source of the 
 grossest immoralities ? What is the cause of all idolatry, 
 but the dislike of the restraints imposed upon the corrupt 
 passions of our fallen nature by a pure and holy God, and a 
 vain wish to hide him from our eyes, and adopt the worship 
 of deities, who are supposed not only to be more indulgent 
 to human frailties, but actual patrons of human vices ? 
 This is the origin and the history of all idolatry. The father 
 of lies, who blinds the eyes of men, and leads them to a cor- 
 rupt form of religion, (if idolatry may be called religion,) 
 takes care that it shall be such a form as will best do his 
 work. How comes it, that the polished Greeks and 
 Romans, with eminent talents and refined taste, embraced 
 such monstrous and debasing absurdities in their worship 
 as would have disgusted them on any other subject, except 
 because those rites pandered to their depraved passions ? 
 Why were their poets so lavish in the praises of Bacchus 
 and Venus? Why luul e\ cry corrupt abomination its su- 
 
THE SABBATH. " 199 
 
 perintendent deity ? It is well known, that in every nation 
 idolatry led to corrupt depravity; and of this we have 
 frequent instances in the history of the Israelites, when 
 they fell into idolatry : the transition was rapid to every 
 corrupt gratification. See Num. xxv. And what is the 
 grand remedy held up against idolatry and its abominations ? 
 The sabbath. In the same breath almost in which idolatry 
 is forbidden, the sabbath is enforced, manifestly, as the 
 great preventive. Lev. xxvi. 1 : " Ye shall make you no 
 idols, nor graven images, neither rear ye up a standing 
 image; neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your 
 land to bow down unto it; for I am the Lord your God. 
 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: 
 I am the Lord." 
 
 The quotation I have given above from Ezek. xx. is 
 immediately preceded by, (18,) "I said unto their chil- 
 dren in the wilderness. Walk ye not in the statutes of your 
 fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile your- 
 selves with their idols." Verse 20 : " Hallow my sab- 
 baths." It appears fi-om the same chapter of Ezekiel how 
 immediately idolatry, as well as the transgression of every 
 other commandment, followed the infraction and neglect of 
 the sabbath. Verses 1 1, 12, 13 : "I gave them my statutes, 
 and showed them my judgments, which, if a man do, he 
 shall even live in them. Moreover, also, I gave them my 
 sabbaths. But the house of Israel rebelled against me in 
 the wilderness ; they walked not in ray statutes, and they 
 despised my judgments, which, if a man do, he shall even 
 live in them ; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted." 
 16 : " They despised my judgments, and walked not in my 
 statutes, but polluted my sabbaths ; for their heart went 
 after their idols." Therefore the fourth commandment is 
 the guardian of the second. In like manner, it is the guar- 
 dian of the tliird ; for it is evident, that sanctifying and 
 
200 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 hallowing the sabbath, by keeping it in a holy manner, and 
 dedicating it to the worship of the Most High, is the best 
 preventive against taking his name in vain, and blaspheming 
 it And the following quotation shows that the neglect of 
 the sabbath leads to the profaning of his holy name. Ezek. 
 xxii. 26 : " Her priests have violated my law, and have 
 profaned mine holy things ; they have put no difference 
 between the holy and profane ; neither have they showed 
 difference between the unclean and the clean : and have 
 hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among 
 them ;" and also in Lev. xix. 12, 30. 
 
 Thus we find that the fourth commandment is placed at 
 the end of the first table, as the tenth is at the end of the 
 second, as the safeguard of all the rest. Nay more, — the 
 fourth is placed between the two tables, — of our duty to our 
 God and our duty to our neighbour, — as the great founda- 
 tion corner-stone to bind both together, for what would be 
 the commandments of the second, if not enforced by the 
 sanctions to be derived from the first ? ITierefore the sab- 
 bath, which teaches the knowledge, and fear, and love of 
 God — which keeps alive and in activity the commandments 
 of the first table, confirms the second by the influence of the 
 first — illuminates the second with the light and glories of 
 the first, and establishes the love of our neighbour on the 
 love of our God. 
 
 But not only the commandments of the first table, but 
 also those of the second are, in the Scriptures, connected 
 with it, and founded on it, and their infraction attributed to 
 its neglect. Thus, the fifth, Lev. xix. 3: " Ye shall fear 
 every man his mother and his father, and keep my sab- 
 baths : I am the Lord your God." And the sixth, seventh, 
 eighth, and ninth, arc recited in the same chapter, in verses 
 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 29; and, as the enumera- 
 tion had begun with '' keep my sabbaths," so does the state- 
 
THE SABBATH. 201 
 
 ment of the particulars of the several commandments 
 close, in verse 20, with " Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and 
 reverence my sanctuary : I am the Lord." In Ezek. xxii. 
 8, when the Lord says, " Thou hast despised mine holy 
 things, and profaned my sabbaths," he immediately enu- 
 merates, as the natural consequences, the abominations of 
 transgression of the sixth, seventh, and eighth command- 
 ments, of which they had been guilty, in verses 9 — 12. 
 And in verses 26, 27, when he had stated that they had " hid 
 their eyes from his sabbaths," he immediately subjoins the 
 breaches of the sixth and eighth commandments : " Her 
 princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the 
 prey, to shed blood, to destroy the souls, to get dishonest 
 gain." 29 : " The people of the Lord have used oppres- 
 sion, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and 
 needy, yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully." 
 Amos viii. 5, states their wish to get rid of the sabbath, 
 that they might break the eighth commandment : " When 
 will the sabbath be gone, that we may set forth wheat, 
 making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying 
 the balances by deceit." 
 
 In this enumeration, the tenth commandment is not men- 
 tioned, because it was itself only a hedge and fence around 
 those of the second table. 
 
 But besides these particular proofs as to the respective 
 commandments of the second table, — how should the duties 
 arising from them be known, — how should the duties of 
 the various relations of life be taught, — how should the life- 
 blood of the social system circulate, if it were not for the 
 sabbath ? Therefore, the first and great commandment, 
 " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
 all thy might, and all thy soul." And the second, which is 
 like unto it, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," 
 rest — like two pillars — on the foundation of the fourth. 
 
202 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 The sabbath is in the middle of the decalogue, like the 
 heart in the human body, circulating the principles of life 
 through every part ; and if the heart cease to beat, the 
 body dies : and if the sabbath cease to act, the soul perishes. 
 And is it not, then, a moral commandment ? 
 
 But supposing it to be (what I strenuously deny) a 
 positive, and not a moral commandment ; or, speaking more 
 properly, that it so appeared to us, — then comes the ques- 
 tion, Are we at liberty to disobey a positive command, or 
 are we at liberty to decide how long a positive command 
 is to be in force ? What difference is proved to exist be- 
 tween a moral and a positive law, as to their sanction or 
 obligation ? None whatever. The only valid obligation of 
 one or the other, is the will and command of God. God 
 commands, let man obey. The only difference between 
 them is, that we see the reason of one, and not oi the 
 other. And are we shortsighted mortals to pretend to 
 know, and to claim to know^, the reasons of every command 
 of God, and to penetrate, with our dim eyes, to the end 
 of that vast chain of consequences which may hang 
 upon it? 
 
 Take an instance : — We have much better reason to 
 judge (if we have any right to judge at all) that the com- 
 mand in Paradise to abstain from the forbidden fruit was 
 a positive commandment, than we have to come to such 
 a conclusion on the fourth commandment. If the tempter 
 could have made Eve to understand the difference between 
 the two, with what advantage might he not have assailed 
 her with such arguments as these : — ' Tliis is not a moral 
 law — it is a mere positive prece})t; it is not founded in the 
 law of nature — it is not agreeable to right reason or ex- 
 pediency, or the eternal fitness of things.' O that he had ! 
 for she would have thought him mad, and have fled from 
 him. But, alas ! he always uses the very best arguments 
 
THE SABIJATII. 203 
 
 the case will admit of; he always strikes a string which he 
 knows to be in unison with a sympathetic chord in the 
 heart of his victim. Eve understood but one kind of law, 
 but one kind of sai^ction. Who can show a priori, from its 
 own nature, that that law was moral and not positive ? But 
 who can doubt it a jwsteriori from a consideration of the 
 consequences ? 
 
 God made the world in six days, and " saw everything 
 which he had made, and, behold, it was very good." And was 
 not that law moral the infraction of which filled everything 
 that was good with everything that was evil ? God made 
 man upright: he breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
 life — of eternal life. Man was his last and best work. 
 Was not that law moral the transgression of which stript 
 him of his crown of glory and robe of innocence ? — which 
 filled the creation of God with lamentation and mourning 
 and woe ? — which changed immortality into death ? Con- 
 sider, also, the difference between the creation of a world, 
 in which everything was very good, and the redemption of 
 a world in which everything was only evil continually. In 
 six days God created the heavens and the earth, and all the 
 host of them. He commanded from the throne of his glory, 
 and it was done ; and the sons of God — the hosts of heaven 
 — shouted before his throne for joy. But, to redeem a 
 world fallen and condemned, he must descend fi-om his 
 throne, put off his glory, leave the bright mansions of eter- 
 nal light, be made in the likeness of sinful man, — take 
 upon him the form of a servant, — become a man of sorrows 
 and acquainted with grief!,— not have a place in his own 
 world where to lay his head, — come unto his own, who re- 
 ceived him not, — but be despised and rejected of men, — 
 close a life of humiliation and persecution for four-and- 
 thirty years by a crucifixion of agony, and torment, and 
 bitter mental suffering, before he could say with his ex- 
 
204 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 piring breath, — It is finished. And shall we say that the 
 law — the breaking of which led to this accumulation of 
 woe of the Son of God, the Creator of the universe — which 
 filled the heavens with astonishment, eclipsed the bright 
 luminaries, threw inanimate nature into convulsions, while 
 man, depraved by that one transgression, looked on with 
 unconcern, or exulted in the horrors of his transcendent 
 guilt, — and shall we deny that law to have been moral ? 
 
 SECTION XXXII. 
 
 CHANGE OF THE SABBATH. 
 
 And now, my kind and patient reader, — patient to have 
 borne with me, and accompanied me thus far, — perhaps 
 you are ready to say, ' It is enough ; we are satisfied with 
 the proof of the permanence and morality of the law of the 
 sabbath, and of its obligation on the consciences of Chris- 
 tians as a divine command : you may have done.' But not 
 so would his Grace pronounce. He will tell you that I 
 have proved nothing ; that all I have said is nothing to the 
 purpose ; that his grand argument is not yet touched ; his 
 fort and his citadel are still secure. Therefore we are com- 
 pelled to go forward ; but faint not, and be not weary : this 
 dissertation, though long, will be the last. 
 
 We come now to his stronghold, of which he confidently 
 speaks as irresistible and impregnable. But let us walk 
 round its walls, bearing the ark with us, and see whetlier, 
 as Mede says, from Joshua vi. 5, these lofty walls shall not 
 immediately '/«// dotcnjfat' before it. But lest I should 
 seem to misrepresent his argument, I will give it in his 
 own words. 
 
THE SABBATH. 205 
 
 ' There is no mention of the LordVday in the Mosaic 
 law. In saying that there is no mention of the Lord's-day 
 in the Mosaic law, I mean that there is not only no men- 
 tion of that specific festival which Christians ohserve on the 
 jirst day of the week, in memory of our Lord's resurrection 
 on the morning following the Jewish sabbath, but there is 
 not (as has been sometimes incautiously stated) any injunc- 
 tion to sanctify one day in seven. Throughout the whole 
 of the Old Testament, we never hear of keeping some one 
 day in seven, — but the seventh day, as the day on which 
 God rested from all his work. The difiference, accordingly, 
 between the Jews and the Christians, is not a difterence of 
 reckoning, which would be a matter of no importance. 
 Our computation is the same as theirs. They, as well as 
 we, reckon Saturday as the seventh day of the week, and 
 they keep it holy as the seventh day, in memory of God's 
 resting from the work of creation. We keep holy \h^ first 
 day of the week as the first, in memory of our Master's 
 rising fi'om the dead on the day after the sabbath.' 
 
 ' Now, surely it is presumptuous to say that we are 
 at liberty to alter a divine command, whose authority we 
 admit to be binding on us, on the ground that it mat- 
 ters not whether this day or that be set apart as a 
 sabbath, provided we obey the divine injunction to observe 
 a sabbath.' 
 
 Before entering upon the discussion of this argument, I 
 must take notice of an assertion in it, viz. that ' the differ- 
 ence of reckoning would be a matter of no importance.' 
 Now, I consider this to be the only matter of importance in 
 the question. God has thought fit that there should be 
 only six days of interval between our days of worship : this 
 is the true spirit and intent of the ordinance ; but whether 
 we call that day the first of the seven, or the last of the 
 seven, or, as it really is, an insulated day between each 
 
206 SCRlPTUriK ACCOUNT OF 
 
 period of six days, is a childish distinction fit only for the 
 subtle mind of the casuist or schoolman, and of no import- 
 ance whatever. 
 
 I thus condense the above reasoning of his Grace, and 
 much more to the same purport, into the following nut- 
 shell. ' The Jews Avere ordered to keep the seventh as the 
 sabbiith : they did keep the seventh. We keep the Lord's- 
 day on ihe first. It is, therefore, a totally different festival : 
 therefore we do not keep the sabbath. And it is idle 
 to contend for the sabbath which we do not keep.' 
 
 Now, in opposition to this reasoning, I hope to prove that 
 both the letter and the spirit of the law are to keep a 
 seventh, and not the seventh ; and therefore that, by keep- 
 ing the Lord's-day on a seventh, we do on that day keep a 
 sabbath, and comply with the commandment. 
 
 First, as to its spirit. Our Lord, in all his discourses 
 on the subject, instructs us that we are to endeavour to 
 collect from the Mosaic law the true spirit and intention of 
 the commandment, and thereto to shape our observance. 
 I cannot too often remind my readers that our Lord made 
 no change in the sabbath. He corrected the false opinions 
 of men ; he remitted the severe sanctions which had been 
 added subsequently to the giving of the fourth command- 
 ment on account of transgression. Some other command- 
 ments he spiritualized. He found the sabbath already 
 spiritual ; and he merely restored its spirit, — its true end, 
 aim, and object, — and prevented its being crippled and per- 
 verted by a preference of the letter of the law to its spirit. 
 Our Maker, who best knows our frame, knows at what 
 recurring period it is necessary to brighten, pohsh, and 
 revivify our spiritual feelings, after having been blunted, 
 hardened, and deadened, by worldly occupations. And he 
 has determined that period to be one day after six days 
 given to the world and our necessary business of hfe. It is 
 
THE SABBATH. '207 
 
 quite trifling and frivolous to say, that it can make any dif- 
 ference whether we call that day the first or the seventh, 
 provided we comply with the real spirit and intention of the 
 law, by giving six days to labour and earthly cares, and one 
 insulated day to divine worship and spiritual employment, 
 as a day of renovation and restoration — as a clear stage 
 provided for those noble, holy, delightful and honourable 
 employments and enjoyments, by a day of rest from earthly, 
 carnal, and bodily concerns. Anatomists tell us that the 
 blood, in its course through the human body, loses its 
 oxygen and vital principle, and must be renewed before it 
 take another circuit ; and therefore, instead of being pro- 
 pelled by the heart through the same arterial and venal 
 course it is turned aside into the lungs, where it meets the 
 air we breathe for that purpose, from which it recovers its 
 vital principle, and becomes fit for a new circuit and the 
 functions of life : from thence it returns to the heart, and is 
 again propelled through the arteries. 
 
 There is no mark put upon the day in the course of 
 nature. This would have defeated its end. The mark 
 must be made by the recollection and practice of man, and 
 then it becomes really useful. The command is, to keep 
 one day out of seven, according to the different modes of 
 various nations of beginning and ending their day. It is 
 immaterial whether the day begin at noon or at midnight ; 
 at sunrise or at sunset. 
 
 Bramhall and Heylyn, both good and learned men, — con- 
 scientious and honest opponents of the sabbath, — while 
 they object to it on the ground of its being impossible 
 to strictly adhere to the law, by keeping the exact same time 
 all over the world, unwittingly show the impossibility of ob- 
 serving the letter of the law, and, at the same time, show 
 the necessity of keeping its spirit. Bramhall says, that 
 it is ' impossible to keep it at the same time in different 
 
208 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 longitudes ; for that some people will be keeping it in the 
 day, and others in the night. Let us follow this argument 
 a little further. Let us take New Zealand as being nearly 
 our antipodes. The inhabitants keep the sabbath from 
 midnight to midnight of their own time ; but of our time, from 
 mid-day on Saturday to mid-day on Sunday. But, sup- 
 posing that the persons, who carried the sabbath thither, 
 instead of going by the east had gone by the west, they 
 would, as to our time, be keeping it from mid-day on Sun- 
 day to mid-day on Monday — entirely a different day; and, 
 in either case, would have conformed to the sjiirit of the 
 law. But let us take a still stronger instance. I fix on 
 the island of St. Helena, as being nearly in the same lon- 
 gitude with us, but with greater facihty of travelhng round 
 the world — its being in a different hemisphere and a dif- 
 ferent latitude not affecting the question. Suppose one 
 ship to sail from thence round the world to the east, by the 
 Cape of Good Hope, and to return ; and another, in like 
 manner, to the west, by Cape Horn, and return. The 
 eastern navigators would anticipate, and the western lose, a 
 day. The former would be keeping Saturdaj', as to St. 
 Helena time ; and the latter Monday, and the inhabitants 
 Sunday. Does not this show the absurdity of supposing 
 the strict adherence to a particular day as necessary, — 
 or of supposing any particular day to be endued with a 
 peculiar sanctity ? 
 
 Now for Heylyn's arguments. He first quotes Joshua x. 
 
 13 : When " the sun stood still and the moon stayed, so 
 
 that the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted 
 not to go down about a whole day." He also quotes the 
 ease of Hezekiah, Isai. xxxviii. 8, and 2 Kings xx. 9 — 11, 
 when the sun went backward ten degrees. On which he 
 remarks : — ' In each of these cases, there was a signal 
 alteration in the course of nature, and the succession of 
 
THE SABBATH. 209 
 
 time, so notable, that it were very difficult to find out the 
 seventh day precisely from the world's creation, as to pro- 
 ceed in that account since the late giving of the law ; so 
 that, in this respect, the Jews must needs be at a loss in 
 the calculation ; and although they might hereafter set 
 apart one day in seven for rest and meditation, yet that this 
 day, so set apart, could be precisely the seventh day from 
 the first creation, is not so easy to be proved.' We are 
 under great obligation to Heylyn for this valuable argument 
 in favour of our vieiv of the question. Here he shows, 
 that even the strictness and particularity of Jewish practice 
 was satisfied with keeping a seventh, and not the seventh. 
 This argument will be of great use to me in a subsequent 
 part of this discussion. The spirit, therefore, of the com- 
 mandment to be observed, is the keeping of a seventh day, 
 — of one day of seven, — of an insulated day between six 
 days of labour, and six days of labour. 
 
 We see clearly, from what I have above quoted from his 
 Grace's pamphlet, that his whole argument turns on the 
 difference between 'a' and 'the.' The definite English 
 article is the pivot of his argument ; and the excellence of 
 a pivot depends on the smallness of the point upon which 
 it turns : this, then, is a perfect pivot, I knew a legal per- 
 son, who was also an excellent grammarian, endeavour to 
 solve the difficulties of a contested will by a critical dis- 
 sertation upon the possessive pronoun ' my.' And Dean 
 Swift proved the English language to be the most an- 
 cient, by showing that the names of the Grecian heroes 
 were derived from it; and here our author expounds the 
 most ancient language in the world by the meaning of the 
 most modern ; he kindly lends the English article to the 
 Hebrew language, because it has none of its own ; and 
 Sinai, in a labour of interpretation, brings forth the article 
 'The.' 
 
210 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 I have endeavoured to prove that ow observance of the 
 sabbath accords with the spirit of the commandment. And 
 I think also that the keeping of a seventh is as much 
 in conformity with its letter, as the keeping of the seventh. 
 And here I must request of his Grace, who dwells so much 
 upon the command, to keep the seventh day, to show what 
 there is in the Hebrew language to justify him in trans- 
 lating it the seventh, rather than a seventh. Unless he 
 can prove that his is beyond doubt the true translation, 
 he has been building his chief argument without a founda- 
 tion. 
 
 The Hebrew language has no article ; that is, it has no 
 separate word or part of speech, as an article, such as the 
 Greek and English languages afford. It has, however, an 
 emphatic letter, which is prefixed to words, to give them a 
 peculiar force or meaning. It is sometimes used like an 
 article; but never with the peculiar force, precision, and 
 limitation of the English definite article. It is frequently 
 applied for other purposes, to which an English article 
 could not apply. It is prefixed to words to which par- 
 ticular attention is directed, of which no notice is taken in 
 our translation : such as proper names of men and places 
 — as to Adam and Ramah— and also to patronymics; in 
 none of which cases could an English article be used. It 
 is in Scripture sometimes added to nouns, where an article 
 in English would make nonsense. Thus, in Deut. viii. 3, 
 in the sentence " Man shall not live by bread alone," it is 
 prefixed to the Hebrew word for man, where it is obvious 
 that we cannot place the English definite article. And, 
 accordingly, in the Greek of St. Matthew's Gospel, (iv. 4,) 
 it is simply dyOpoTroi:, without an article. It is also used as 
 a sign of the vocative case. Thus, in " Hear, O heavens, 
 and give ear, O earth !" it is prefixed to the words sig- 
 nifying heavens and earth. It is also added to words, to 
 
THE SABBATH. 21 1 
 
 show a question is asked. It is frequently used as a rela- 
 tive, and signifies who or which. Sometimes it is an 
 adverb. It is used also in forming tenses, conjugations, 
 and voices of verbs. Such are some of its varied uses. 
 But to enable it to support the weight of the Archbishop's 
 argument, it ought to have the precise and full meaning of 
 the English definite article, and to be incapable of being 
 either applied or understood in any other manner. I have 
 as good a right to assume that it is added in Gen. ii. and 
 Exod XX., for the purpose of directing particular attention, 
 and giving greater force, — like the cases above alluded to, 
 — as his Grace has to assume that it is used with the ex- 
 clusive meaning of the article ' the. ' And as we are at 
 liberty to translate the letter of the law one way or other, 
 we are bound to take that translation which agrees with 
 the spirit, about which there can be no doubt. 
 
 His Grace endeavours to prove that the sabbath, esta- 
 blished by divine command, is abolished ; and that a new 
 festival, " the Lord's-day," is established in its place, by the 
 authority of the church. I have endeavoured to prove 
 that we are still bound to keep a sabbath, one day in 
 seven, by divine command. And I now proceed to prove 
 that the Lord's-day, instead of having been set up as a 
 rival to the sabbath, has been incorporated with it, — so 
 that, on the same day, we may celebrate the rest of Je- 
 hovah, after the finished work of creation, and the resur- 
 rection and rest of the same Jehovah, after the finished 
 work of redemption. 
 
 The following are his Grace's remarks on the change of 
 the sabbath, page 10: — 'There is not even any tradition 
 to the purpose. It is not merely that the apostle left us 
 no command perpetuating the observance of the sabbath, 
 and transferring the day from the seventh to the first : such 
 a change certainly would have been authorized by their 
 
 p 2 
 
212 SCIUPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 express injunction, and by nothing short of that ; since an 
 express divine command can be abrogated or altered only 
 by the same power and the same distinct revelation by 
 which it was delivered. But not only is there no such 
 apostolic injunction, than which nothing less would be suf- 
 ficient; there is not even any tradition of their having 
 made such a change ; nay, more, it is even abundantly 
 plain that they made no such change. There are indeed 
 suflSciently plain marks of the early Christians having ob- 
 served the Lord's-day as a religious festival, even from the 
 very resurrection. (John xx. 19 — 26. Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor. 
 xvi. '2. Rev. i. 10.) But so far were they from substituting 
 this for the Jewish sabbath, that all of them who were 
 Jews, actually continued themselves to observe not only 
 the INIosaic sabbath, but the whole of the Levitical law."" 
 
 And in a note, page 12; — 'The recurrence of the 
 Christian festival every seven days (rather than once in a 
 decade, or in a month, &c.,) that is, the adoption h\ Chris- 
 tians of the division of time into iveeks, may easily be traced 
 to the circumstance of their having derived their religion 
 from the Jews, who used this mode of reckoning time.' 
 
 And once more, page 22 ; — ' The Church has not power 
 to ordain anything contrary to God's word : so that, if the 
 precepts relative to the ancient sabbath are acknowledged 
 to remain in force, then the observance of the first day of 
 the week instead of the seventh, becomes an unwarrantable 
 presumption. This, therefore, is a case in which (unless 
 we will consecrate tivo sabbath-days in each week) we 
 must absolutely make our choice between the law and the 
 gospel.' 
 
 On these quotations I shall have many remarks to make : 
 but in the first place must notice the inconsistency of the 
 words lust (juotedjwhen compared with the oilier (juotations. 
 ' We must absolutely make our clioice between the law 
 
THE SABBATH. 
 
 213 
 
 and the gospel.' This can have no other meaning than 
 that we are to make choice between the sabbath established 
 by the law, and the Lord's-day established by the gospel. 
 Therefore, by this sentence he acknowledges the Lord's- 
 day to have been established by the gospel equally as the 
 sabbath was established by the law, which in the other 
 quotations he strenuously denies : for he denies that the 
 Lord's-day was established either by our Lord or his apos- 
 tles. This shows the carelessness and want of due con- 
 sideration with which his Grace has endeavoured to over- 
 turn the sabbath, which most Christians consider a main 
 support of the Christian religion. 
 
 His Grace, in the above quotations, leaves the sabbath no 
 support whatever, and the Lord's-day none but the weak 
 support of the church. But what support has the Lord's- 
 day from the church ? If we suppose the sabbath abro- 
 gated, we must suppose also that the division of time into 
 weeks is abrogated also. And as his Grace well observes, 
 the church might as well have fixed the observance of the 
 resurrection once in every decade, or in every month, as in 
 every week. And I may also add, that if his Grace's prin- 
 ciples be correct, (which I deny,) the church may do so 
 still. 
 
 In answer to the apostles not having left any injunction 
 as to the change of the day, I have first to observe, that 
 if the observance had been, by any command, invariably 
 fixed to that very day, upon which the Jews observed it, 
 then we might have expected an express injunction. But 
 I have already proved that there was no such command ; 
 but, that not only the spirit, but even the letter of the law, 
 allowed of the observance of a seventh, and did not bind to 
 the observance of the seventh : therefore, such an injunc- 
 tion was unnecessary. And now, having shown that it was 
 unnecessary, I proceed in a few words to say that it would 
 
214 SCRIPl'URE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 have been highly imprudent. While the Jewish state and 
 religion lasted, it was the duty of the apostles and disciples 
 to make use of every opportunity of preaching to the Jews. 
 Instead of giving up those opportunities which their religion 
 afforded, they were to endeavour to make new oppor- 
 tunities, and preach both iti season and out of season. 
 Now if they had immediately proclaimed, that the Lord's- 
 day, on the first day of the week, had superseded the sab- 
 bath, and that Christians were to consider the latter abro- 
 gated, then the opportunity of meeting the Jews at the time 
 of divine worship, and of preaching to them, would have 
 been altogether lost : and, as it was not necessary that they 
 should do so, they did not adopt a course which would have 
 been highly imprudent, and very absurd : which would not 
 only have lost the best opportunity, but would have so 
 offended the prejudices of the Jews, (may I be pardoned 
 the expression when I say,) their best prejudices, and have 
 prevented them from listening on any other occasion ; and 
 would thus have closed the door against their conversion. 
 Surely if it were ever allowable to be " all things to all 
 men, that by all means they might gain some," the attend- 
 ing the synagogues on the sabbath-days stood pre-eminently 
 forward in the list of such allowed occasions. It was, there- 
 fore, necessary that the transfer of the sabbath should be 
 gradually introduced among Christians after their conver- 
 sion without any public injunction or proclamation; and 
 that the Jewish sabbath should be allowed to continue so 
 long as the Jewish state and polity continued: and, indeed, 
 so long as these did continue, any attempt to oj)posp, what 
 was considered so essential a part of that polity, would have 
 been an idle attempt, would have produced much evil, and 
 no good : would even have had a bad effect upon Christians, 
 and have led [them to suppose that the sabbath was to 
 have been abrogated altogether. IJut as it was also to make 
 
THE SARBATH. 215 
 
 an essential part of Christianity, and the particular day of 
 observance being (with all due deference to our English 
 article) a matter of secondary consideration, the complete 
 and open transfer was deferred until all means should have 
 been tried for the conversion of the Jews, — until after 
 the destruction of their city, and the dispersion of the in- 
 corrigible should have been accomplished. The conduct 
 of the apostles in this, and in all their proceedings, was 
 marked by consummate prudence and sound strong sense, 
 holding the sober and even tenor of its way, equally re- 
 moved from fanaticism and enthusiasm on the one side, 
 or ceremonial formalism on the other. Such conduct can 
 be better interpreted and appreciated when viewed by the 
 clear sight of men possessed of sound common sense and 
 prudence like themselves, than when seen through the 
 magnifying glass of the enthusiast, or the diminishing lens 
 of the near-sighted, philosophic formalist. The reasons of 
 the apostles for making the change gradually are well illus- 
 trated by the following facts with which Heylyn has fur- 
 nished me. 'During the early period of Christianity in 
 the East, on account of the number of the converted Jews 
 of the dispersion, the Jewish sabbath also continued to be 
 observed : but in the Western church, where there were no 
 Jews, the Lord's-day soon superseded the sabbath.' From 
 the various circumstances he mentions, it appears clearly 
 that the observance of one day in seven continued in un- 
 broken succession, gradually gliding from the seventh to 
 the first, when its incorporation with the Lord's-day be- 
 came complete. 
 
 1 must here say a few words on part of the above quota- 
 tion from his Grace''s pamphlet. ' Such a change would 
 certainly have been authorized by their express injunction, 
 and by nothing short of that ; since an express divine com- 
 mand can be abrogated or altered only by the same power, 
 
216 scKiPTi hi: account of 
 
 and by the same distinct revelation by which it was dis- 
 livered.' In writing this passage, his Grace did not suffi- 
 ciently consider the great difference between the two dispen- 
 sations, their laws, their promulgations, and their sanctions. 
 Heb.xii.18 — 24; — "We are not come unto the mount that 
 might be touched,* and that burned with fire, nor unto black- 
 ness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, 
 and the voice of words, which voice they that heard en- 
 treated that the word should not be spoken to them any 
 more. (For they could not endure that which was com- 
 manded : and if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it 
 shall be stoned or thrust through with a dart : and so ter- 
 rible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and 
 quake :) but we are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the 
 city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an 
 innumerable company of angels, and to the general assem- 
 bly and church of the first-born, f which are written in 
 heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of 
 just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of the 
 
 * There seems to be a contradiction in this passage, which says 
 that the mount might be touched, whereas below, as well as in Ex- 
 odus, strict injunctions were given that it should not be touched 
 by man or beast ; but the Greek words both translated touch in 
 the 18th and '20th verses, are totally different; that in veise 20 
 means " touched by God, or smoking," as in Psalm civ. 32. " He 
 toucheth the mountains, and they smoke." 
 
 t ^pa^^oT({/cos literally signifies " first-born," but in Greek, in le- 
 gal or precise language it signifies, " heir," because the first-born 
 was heir. The sense here, and in some other passages in tiie New 
 Testament, is injured by the literal^ translation, most particularly 
 Colos. i. 15, irpwrrovoKos jrcurr.s Kriafws is translated "first-born of 
 every creature." It ougiit to be " heir of every created thing," 
 for it is immediately added, " through him were created all things, 
 in heaven, and oui earth, visible and invisible." Our translation 
 would make ("hrist the first-born of his own creation, which is 
 absurd. 
 
THE SABBATH. 217 
 
 new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh 
 better things than that of AbeL"* 
 
 The two dispensations are essentially different. The 
 former was in many respects a national code under a theo- 
 cracy, so framed as to govern a stubborn, rebellious, unwill- 
 ing people by strict laws and temporal sanctions ; and that 
 in an age, when all the rest of the world had lapsed into 
 idolatry, and in a country where they were surrounded by, 
 and even intermingled with, idolaters, who under the insti- 
 gation of the great patron, and inventor, and teacher of 
 idolatry, used every enticing means to seduce them from 
 their rectitude and allegiance : so that, although a revela- 
 tion was entrusted to them for the Gentile world as well as 
 for themselves, to be communicated at a fitting time ; yet 
 for the present they were prohibited from having any com- 
 munication with them. We see in Numbers xxv. how im- 
 mediately any intercourse with the surrounding nations led 
 to idolatry, and how that idolatry was both the cause and 
 the consequence of all manner of sinful indulgence, and 
 punished with the most awful and devastating visitations. 
 
 Compare the above description of St. Paul of the giving 
 out of the law on Sinai, with the sermon on the mount, and 
 we see the difference between the two dispensations. The 
 former to rule and curb a stiff-necked and revolting people, 
 by specific national laws, in a great measure applied to 
 outward actions, so openly promulgated as to be liable to 
 no mistake, and admit of no excuse, and enforced by im- 
 mediate and temporal sanctions. The latter, after having 
 provided an atonement for sin, and held out a spirit of re- 
 conciliation, and opened a fountain for sanctification, be- 
 
 * " The blood of Abel," means " sacrifice of Abel," and the 
 meaning is that the sacrifice of Christ under the new dispensation, 
 speaketh'better things than the sacrifices under tlie old dispensa- 
 tion. 
 
218 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT Ol- 
 
 ginning at the heart, and cleansing the source from whence, 
 in its natural state, proceed evil thoughts and all manner 
 of uncleanness, — first cleansing, and then captivating, —mak- 
 ing a willing people anxious to know, and delighting to 
 obey, his will, — and then, instead of writing his laws on ta- 
 bles of stone, impressing them upon the softened and sym- 
 pathizing tables of their hearts, until perfect love should 
 cast out fear, and love be the fulfilling of the commandment. 
 It is manifest that a different mode of promulgation of law 
 would be adopted in the latter case : and any mode of com- 
 munication, to faithful children, of their Father's will would 
 be a sufficient promulgation. But the difference between 
 the two dispensations is a fruitful subject, and would re- 
 quire a treatise. Enough has been said for our present 
 purpose to show, that we are not to expect the same mode 
 of promulgation under the Christian, as under the Jewish 
 dispensation. 
 
 We come now to the last question or argument with 
 which I intend to trouble his Grace or my readers, but it 
 is a fruitful topic. His Grace denies that there is even any 
 tradition of the apostles having made a change of the day 
 of the sabbath, but thinks it abundantly plain that they 
 made no such change. But he acknowledges, that there 
 are sufficiently plain marks of the apostles and early Chris- 
 tians having observed the Lord's-day, even from the resur- 
 rection. 
 
 Now this argument still turns on his Grace's finely-pointed 
 pivot of the English definite article, — that the Jews were 
 bound to keep the seventh, and that a festival established on 
 the first never could coalesce witli that established on the se- 
 venth. Now in opposition to this, I have endeavoured to prove, 
 that we are bound by the commandment to keep a seventh, 
 and not the seventh. 1 have also proved that Christians 
 are bound to kee]) the decalogue, and particularly the 
 
THE SABBATH. 219 
 
 fourth commandment, and therefore bound to keep a sab- 
 bath, as a perpetual ordinance resting upon the authority of 
 God; and this I proved, not only from the Old Testament, 
 but also from the New. And the arguments I used, fur- 
 nished entirely by the Bible, are so powerful and conclu- 
 sive, that I am convinced that this was the opinion of the 
 apostles and the early Christians, and that they considered 
 a new promulgation of the sabbath unnecessary, and a spe- 
 cific law for the change of the day as not required. I con- 
 sider it decided that the observance of a sabbath must make 
 a part of the Christian religion wherever planted, and that 
 it must have continued a part of the system from its very 
 first establishment. Where, then, are we to look for it in 
 the Christian system as handed down to us, if not in that 
 day called the Lord's-day ? I have, I think, given very 
 good reasons why the change was not publicly made before 
 the final dissolution of the Jewish state. And I have the 
 strongest proof from Heylyn, the chief of the anti-sab- 
 batarians, that a change might be made — nay, was made — 
 silently, and without command, as in the cases of Joshua and 
 Hezekiah. We have, also, abundant proofs, as all our ad- 
 versaries admit, that the Lord's-day was established by the 
 apostles ; and we have abundant tradition of its having 
 been constantly and continuously observed as a religious 
 festival from that day to this. That establishment, and that 
 tradition, I shall endeavour to prove from the Scriptures, 
 and from testimonies quoted from our adversaries them- 
 selves. I think we shall also find proof of the apostles having 
 connected the sabbath and the Lord's-day together. In fact, 
 it would have been impossible for them to have added the 
 observance of a weekly festival in memory of the finished 
 work of redemption, to that in remembrance of the finished 
 work of creation, without changing the day. Thus as Job 
 says of the day of his birth, " Let the day perish wherein I 
 
220 SCRIPTUUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 was born: let it not be joined unto the days of the year; 
 let it not come into the number of the months." So this 
 change has blotted out the day upon which the Saviour lay 
 in the grave from the books of everlasting remembrance, 
 and brought the sabbath to unite with our Lord's-day, and 
 the day of the resurrection. 
 
 I must here mention a very extraordinary fact, which I 
 have not before seen noticed by any writer. We know that 
 the grand promulgation of the gospel was made on the day 
 of Pentecost, — the very day kept in remembrance of the 
 delivery of the law on Mount Sinai. We know that this 
 fTand promulgation, made in presence of people of all na- 
 tions, (Acts ii.,) was made on the day of the week of our 
 Lord's resurrection ; and we know that this is considered 
 by all Christians as a strong proof of divine authority for 
 the establishment of the Lord's-day on the first day of the 
 week. But we do not, perhaps, consider, that this very day 
 was also a Jewish sabbath. The day of Pentecost, on what- 
 ever day of the week it fell, was a sabbath. (Lev. xxiii. 21.) 
 So here, on the very day of the commemoration of the pro- 
 mulgation of the old law, we have also the promulgation of 
 the new, which we may consider as the virtual repeal of the 
 temporary part of the old, — as the substitution of the new 
 for the old dispensation, — here, on this very day, we have the 
 Lord's-day and the sabbath combined together : — the Lord's- 
 day and the sabbath riveted together become the connecting 
 bond of the two dispensations. 
 
 A sabbath on the first day of a period of seven days was 
 familiar to the Jews. The feast of unleavened bread con- 
 sisted of seven days ; the first was a sabbath, the day of the 
 passover, the day of the feast of the paschal lamb, the type 
 of our Saviour ; and the seventh was a sabbath : no servile* 
 work was to be done in them. 
 
 • It is remarkable, that ficqucntly, in Scripture, wlieii work is 
 
THE SABBATH. 221 
 
 The day of Pentecost was, as I have observed, a sabbath. 
 On this day the first-fruits of the wheat harvest were offered ; 
 and, as I have before observed, the first-fruits in this case 
 were to be offered perfect and complete in the form of 
 loams ; whereas the first-fruits of the barley-harvest, offered 
 at the time of the passover, were presented in an imperfect 
 form, in sheaves. The former, offered on the day of Pente- 
 cost, were typical of the perfect form and promulgation of 
 Christianity on this day, the first upon which converts were 
 made, when three thousand joined them, as the first-fruits 
 of the numbers who were afterwards converted. 
 
 The first day of the seventh month was the memorial of 
 the blowing of trumpets, and was a sabbath : the tenth was 
 the day of atonement, and a sabbath ; and on the fifteenth 
 commenced the feast of tabernacles, of which the first day 
 was a sabbath, and the eighth day was a sabbath. And this 
 eighth day, in John vii. 37, is called the last and great day 
 of the feast. This was the day on which "Jesus stood and 
 cried, saying. If any man thirst, let him come unto me and 
 drink." Therefore a sabbath on an eighth day was no un- 
 usual occurrence ; neither was a sabbath on a first day un- 
 usual. Adam and Eve were created in the end of the sixth 
 day. The next day was the sabbath ; therefore they kept 
 the first day of their first week, commencing the very even- 
 ing of the day of their creation, and so on continually every 
 week after ; — or, most probably, as they understood it and 
 were taught it, — they kept an insulated day between the 
 periods of six days each. 
 
 prohibited on the sabbath, the word " servile " is added, as if to 
 mark that the work prohibited is such as consists in ordinary 
 weekly occupations. This word alone is a sufficient answer to 
 many of the archbishop's arguments about " making clay of spit- 
 tle," carrying a bed, &c., and tends to show the real spirit of the 
 commandment. 
 
222 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 The first day of the week has been continually marked 
 since the day of the resurrection. Our Lord appeared to 
 his disciples on two of those days, and the disciples seem to 
 have fallen into a regular habit of meeting on that day ; for 
 so early as the feast of Pentecost it is said, " They were all 
 together with one accord in one place." They were not 
 summoned or collected together ; but the day of meeting 
 having then been fully established, as well as the time and 
 place, every man came of his own accord, and not one was 
 wanting. There must have been a very large number, for 
 the report of the miracle quickly spread through all Jeru- 
 salem. It is remarkable, in St. Peter's discourse on that 
 occasion, how often he alludes to the resurrection. On that 
 day three thousand souls were added to their number ; and 
 these persevered afterwards in the constant practice of what 
 they had learned that day in the religious observance of the 
 first day of the week in honour of the resurrection: "and 
 they continued stedfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fel- 
 lowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers :" — break- 
 ing of bread signifies the celebration of the eucharist. 
 
 I give the following excellent remarks from the learned 
 Bramhall, interposing some remarks of my own. My 
 readers will please to bear in mind, that while he was 
 writing them, he considered the sabbath as abolished ; and 
 yet I conceive, that some of his arguments, proceeding on 
 that very supposition, prove directly the reverse. 
 
 Notwithstanding that I consider that I have abundantly 
 proved the permanency and continued existence of the sab- 
 bath and its union with the Lord's-day, yet I am still 
 obliged, for the sake of ])erspicuity, to use both expressions, 
 and particularly in considering the quotations from Bram- 
 hall and Heylyn, from whose opinions I dissent. 
 
 Bramhall, folio edition, ])age 91.5. 'All ])arties do ac- 
 knowledge the change to be an apostolical tradition. I find 
 
THE SABBATH. 223 
 
 no cause to doubt that the change was made by the autho- 
 rity of Christ. It is true, that we find no express precept 
 recorded in holy scripture, for the setting apart the first day 
 of the week for the service of God : neither is it necessary 
 that there should be an express precept for it found in holy 
 scripture to prove it to be of divine right. The perpetual 
 and universal practice of the catholic church, including all 
 the apostles themselves, is a sufficient proof of the divine 
 right of it ; that at least it was an apostolical institution 
 and ordinance, — not temporary for an age or two, — not 
 local for a place or two, — but universal. I say, at the leasts 
 an apostolical institution, — for the resurrection of Christ 
 upon this day, and his divers apparitions to his apostles on 
 this day ; and all this at such a time as they were assembled 
 together in their usual place of prayer, and in all probability 
 whilst they were performing the duty of the day, — did at least 
 evidently point out to them this day for his public worship, 
 and ratify their assembling upon this day to do him service.' 
 
 ' Athanasius saith, " Anciently the sabbath (or Saturday) 
 was in high esteem, which solemnity the Lord translated 
 to the Lord's-day :" and Epiphanius, in his Sermon on 
 Christ's resurrection, preached upon the day of his resur- 
 rection, says, " This is the day which God blessed and 
 sanctified, because in it he ceased from all his labour, when 
 he had perfectly accomplished the salvation both of those in 
 the earth, and those under the earth." And Augustine 
 saith that " the Lord's-day was consecrated by the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ." ' 
 
 From the above quotations from Athanasius and Epi- 
 phanius, it appears that they considered the sabbath as 
 transferred to the Lord's-day, —and, most probably, if we 
 could look through the writings of all the early fathers, we 
 should find many testimonies to the same effect. 
 
 ' But it is not at all material to me,' continues IJramhall, 
 
224 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 ' or to the divine right of the LordVday, whether it was 
 consecrated by Christ himself, or by his apostles, directed 
 by his Spirit. That it is an apostolical tradition, no man 
 can well deny ; and that it was no temporary nor local con- 
 stitution, which is mutable, but perpetual and universal, 
 both of the duty which is required,— that is, the worship of 
 Christ, — and the ground whereupon it is required, — that is, 
 the resurrection of Christ, — the uniform practice of the 
 catholic church doth prove sufficiently. Whensoever, 
 wheresoever the Christian faith was propagated, the ob- 
 servation of the Lord's-day was propagated with it. Joseph 
 of Arimathsea taught them the observance of the Lord's- 
 day in Britain, in the very reign of Tiberius Caesar ; St. Mat- 
 thew, or the Eunuch, read them the same lecture in 
 Ethiopia; and St. Thomas, in India; and, although many 
 of their converts have had little or no communion with the 
 rest of Christians until of late years, yet, from their con- 
 version until now, they have observed the Lord's-day re- 
 ligiously. From whence we may safely infer, that if it was 
 not instituted by Christ himself, which is much more probable, 
 it was an apostolical constitution, and not a free custom 
 intruded into the church in long tract of time ; nor yet a 
 constitution of one single apostle, but of all the apostles, or 
 the apostolical college, — and that, speedily after the resur- 
 rection of Christ.' 
 
 ' It is St. Augustine's rule, " that whatsoever the universal 
 church doth hold, — which was not instituted by councils, 
 but always retained, — is most rightly believed not to have 
 been delivered but by apostolical authority. Such an uni- 
 versal tradition is the Lord's-day." The same father speak- 
 eth yet more expressly as to the day itself. " The apostles 
 and apostolical men decreed {sanxerunt) that the LordV 
 day should be observed with religious solemnity."" By 
 iipimtolical ntni, in St. Augustine, we ougiit to understand, 
 
THE SABBATH. 
 
 O^/i 
 
 not ordinary pastors, endued with apostolical qualities, but 
 such persons who, though they were not of the number of 
 the twelve apostles, yet were employed by Christ as apos- 
 tles, in the planting of churches, and in the governing of 
 them. I'hese twelve prime apostles, and the secondary 
 apostles, whoVere their cotemporaries, whom he calleth apos- 
 tolic men, this is the apostolical college, and these, according 
 either as they had been directed by Christ, after his resur- 
 rection, but before his ascension, or were inspired by the 
 Holy Ghost, were those who decreed the religious so- 
 lemnisation of the first day of the week, or the Lord's-day. 
 Tiierefore, with good reason, doth Basil reckon this an 
 apostolical tradition that, " upon the first day of the week, 
 they made their prayers, standing upright." Here are 
 two apostoRc traditions twisted together: first, for the 
 time of their holy assemblies — upon the first day of the 
 iveek ; secondly, for the gesture, — that was standing, — and 
 both in memory of the resurrection of Christ. Neither 
 was this the tradition of one single apostle, but a tradition 
 of the whole apostolical college. This appcareth by the 
 uniform observation of the Lord's-day in all churches. 
 Neither was it a new, upstart tradition ; because no apos- 
 tolical church doth take any notice of any new or later 
 introduction of the Lord's-day among them, but derive it 
 from their first conversion.' 
 
 ' To this,' he says, < it is objected that there is no pre - 
 cept of Christ or his apostles for the abrogation of Saturday, 
 and solemnisation of Sunday, recorded in Holy Scriptnre."' 
 He finds it very difficult to answer this objection, and is at 
 length driven to the argument that ' the establishment of 
 the Lord's-day is a virtual abrogation of the Saturday- 
 sabbath.' But he has not given us any reason why the 
 establishment of an entirely new festival, which he contends 
 was totally diflbrent from the sabbath, should be a virtual 
 
226 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 abrogation of that with which it had nothing to do. The 
 above admission is most important. He finds it very easy 
 to estabhsh the apostoMcal institution of the solemnisation 
 of the first day of the week ; but cannot find any tradition 
 or trace whatsoever of the abrogation of the Saturday- 
 sabbath. And why does he find this so difficult — so im- 
 possible ? In truth, because it was not abolished, but in- 
 tended to continue under the Christian dispensation, 
 although not on the same day, but by uniting it with the 
 Lord's-day. I have proved that the letter and the spirit of 
 the command were the observance of a seventh, and not of the 
 seventh. And as the command was not for a particular 
 day, so neither was a direct command necessary for the 
 change : but that the apostles, who certainly had the power, 
 did change it, he himself has satisfactorily proved. So 
 that his difficulty and embarrassment on this objection, 
 which he freely and frankly owns, do really prove the very 
 point for which we have been contending, and put the 
 finishing hand to the rectifying of the error into which 
 this eminent and good man had unfortunately fallen. 
 
 He further endeavours to obviate this objection, by show- 
 ing that the moral duties of the sabbath were transferred to 
 the Lord's-day, such as the command for the collection, on 
 that day, for the saints, both in the churches of Galatia and 
 Corinth, lliis he considers as a proof that the sabbath 
 was abolished ! But what think you, my intelligent friend ? 
 Methinks I hear you promptly answer, that you consider 
 this, also, a strong proof of the contrary : not that it proves 
 that the duties were transferred from the siiiking ttohhathy 
 but as an additional proof that the sabbath itself, and along 
 with it its moral duties, wore so transferred. I have else- 
 where given reasons why the apostles transferred the day 
 only by degrees; and why it was both prudent and neces- 
 sary, so long as the Jewish polity continued, to observe the 
 
THE SABBATH. 227' 
 
 Saturday-sabbath and attend the Jewish places of wor- 
 ship. 
 
 To the question, ' When did Sunday begin to be ob- 
 served as the weekly festival of Christians ?' he answers : — 
 ' First, it was kept holy by all Christians throughout the 
 universal church immediately after the age of the apostles ; 
 — for which we have almost as many witnesses as there 
 are writers of those times ; — whereof some are cotemporaries, 
 some successors of the apostles, — St. Clement, St. Ignatius, 
 Melito, who wrote a book on the Lord's-day, Dionysius of 
 Corinth, Justin Martyr, TertuUian, Origen, &c. This 
 truth is undeniable, and so generally confessed, that I for- 
 bear to set down any testimonies about it. This was one 
 of the grounds of that great mistake and calumny, which 
 the heathens cast upon the primitive Christians, that they 
 adored the sun, because they prayed towards the east, and 
 kept Sunday as a weekly festival.' 
 
 ' Secondly, from the practice of the apostles. Acts xx. 6 : 
 " And we sailed away fi'om Philippi, after the days of un- 
 leavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in jfive days, 
 where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the 
 week, when the apostles came together to break bread, 
 Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, 
 and continued his speech until midnight." And 1 Cor. xvi. 
 1 : " Now, concerning the collection for the saints, as I 
 have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 
 Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by 
 him in store, as God hath prospered him." So that it 
 appears from the latter, that one branch of the duty of the 
 Lord's-day was performed, — viz. weekly collection for the 
 saints ; — and by the former, we have religious assemblies, 
 communicating and preaching on the first day. On that 
 day Christ rose from the dead ; he twice appeared on that 
 day; and he sent down the Holy Ghost. In <dl tliese 
 
228 scniPTURF. account of 
 
 places, the first day is emphatically expressed.* He who 
 would persuade us that all this happened by chance, which 
 happened so often, let him show us as much or anything, for 
 the second day, or the third day, or any other day of the 
 week, so emphatically expressed without any apparent rea- 
 son, or expressed at all.' 
 
 ' This expression, " When the disciples came together to 
 break bread," shows that it was their common custom, and 
 that the ordinary religious assemblies of the primitive 
 Christians were upon the first day of the week. " Break- 
 ing of bread," it is true, in the Scriptures, sometimes means 
 temporal refection ; but in this place, and in sundry others, 
 it signifieth evidently the distribution of the holy sacra- 
 ment ; and the context will not bear any other sense ; — as, 
 1 Cor. X. 16; " The bread which we break, is it not the 
 communion of the body of Christ ?" And Acts ii. 42 ; 
 
 * What was the expression? The reader will here please to 
 keep in mind, that in every case in which the first day of the week 
 is mentioned in the Greek, it is called by the name of " Sabbath." 
 This is an important consideration, and shows the facility with 
 which the change conld be efTected, and the Jewish sabbath incor- 
 porated with the Christian, without even a change of name. The 
 expression which, in English, is translated, " The first day of the 
 week," occurs eight times in the New Testament. In Mark xvi. 9, 
 in the Greek, it is irpwrrj ffafi$aT», literally " first of the sabbath." 
 And also Matt, xxviii. 1, Mark xvi. 2, Luke xxiv. 1, John xx. 1 and 
 19, Acts XX. 7, 1 Cor. xvi. 2,— in all of which, the Greek is /xia 
 rwv ffafi^a-Twv, — literally " one of the sabbaths." In the two last 
 quotations, where it really means "the Lord's-day," the word 
 used is still <TaP$aTwv, — literally " sabbaths." It is the word used 
 also in the very cases in which Branihall states the transfer of the 
 duties and worship of the sabbath to the Lord'.s-day, as proof that 
 the sabbath was abolished. This shows at least how easy the 
 transfer of the sabbath could bo made to the Lord's-day. We 
 do not meet the expression " the Lord's-day," until we come to 
 
 Hi v. i. 10. 
 
THE SABBATH. 229 
 
 " They continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and 
 fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," where 
 prayer and doctrine are joined with breaking of bread, 
 which can be understood only of the holy eucharist.' 
 
 ' To draw nearer to the spring's head, or the source of 
 the Lord's-day, in Acts ii. the descent of the Holy Ghost is 
 thus described : " And when the day of Pentecost was fully 
 come, they were all with one accord in one place." That 
 the day of Pentecost fell that year upon a Sunday is unde- 
 niable, because the resurrection of Christ was upon a Sun- 
 day, and Pentecost was the fiftieth day from the resur- 
 rection. The paschal lamb was slain, the passover was 
 celebrated, and fifty days after, the law was given written by 
 the finger of God. The true Paschal Lamb was slain, the true 
 passover was celebrated, and fifty days after, the tloly 
 Ghost was given, which was the " finger of God." " They 
 ivere ally — what all ? — all the apostles? — No; but all the 
 disciples, — all those hundred-and-twenty, whereof we read, 
 Acts i. 15. This appears from the address of Peter, quoting 
 the prophecy of Joel, referring to sons and daughter s^ 
 servants and handmaids^ 
 
 Here we take leave of Bramhall. 
 
 Heylyn says that Justin Martyr (anno 166) gives a par- 
 ticular account of the way in which Sunday {jrtv rov ijXiov 
 I'l^tefKir) was observed, — which was very similar to our ser- 
 vice. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (anno 175) gives a 
 similar account to the Bishop of Rome. And Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, in the same century, (190,) TertuUian, also, 
 in the third century, who calls it dies solis, or Sunday. He 
 and Justin Martyr use this name, because they addressed 
 heathens, and used the name familiar to them, rather than 
 " the Lord's-day." And in their apologies to the heathens, 
 they detailed tlie particulars of their worship on that day, 
 to show that they were not worshippers of the sun, as 
 
*230 SCRIPl'URE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 some thought. Tertullian calls it simply tJie eighth day, 
 but more frequently dies dominiciis, or the Lord's-day. On 
 these days, lieylyn says that they always received the sa- 
 crament, but that they did not abstain from their labours on 
 that day, except during the time of service, nor until 
 Christianity was established by the emperors, who com- 
 manded by their edicts, that men should observe it in that 
 manner. As its observance then became established by 
 law, it is unnecessary to follow it any further. But it may 
 not be amiss to explain why the early Christians did not 
 always rest on that day. 
 
 At all times " rest " was only a secondary part of the 
 observance of the sabbath, — only a mean for the real end, 
 which was the worship of God. Constantine was the first 
 Christian emperor who established it by law. Before his 
 time, in the early ages of Christianity, when Christians were 
 liable to bitter persecutions, none adopted its profession 
 except from strong and sincere motives of religion. Such 
 men would devotedly observe the commandment to pay 
 religious worship to the Deity on one day of the seven, 
 without being reminded by a general cessation from labour, 
 which, in this age, when Christianity is established by law, 
 is necessary to remind the thoughtless, and give leisure to 
 over-anxious and \vorldly persons. Besides, during the 
 reign of the heathen emperors, Christians, by prohibiting 
 work on that day, would have acted in opposition to the 
 laws, and have become obnoxious to the civil authorities. 
 Thus, it was impossible for the Israelites, when slaves in 
 l'^gyi)t, to have rested on the sabbath. It is very remark- 
 able that in every connnand to keep the sabbath, the order 
 to keep it holy stands prominently forward, except on ^he 
 first mention of it to the Israelites, after leaving Egypt, 
 where it is simply announced that the next day is the sab- 
 bath ; and the only order given, is to abstain from work, 
 
THE SABBATH. '23 1 
 
 because they had been disused to that part of the com- 
 mandment during the period of their rigorous slavery under 
 their task-masters. In the early ages of Christianity, 
 the abstaining from labour by a great number of persons 
 would have materially interfered with the concerns of the 
 temporal governors ; and therefore in those ages Christians 
 were left to themselves, to be guided by their own peculiar 
 circumstances. 
 
 It is very remarkable that, in the early ages of Chris- 
 tianity, and long before it, the division of time into weeks 
 prevailed among the Romans. We cannot believe that they 
 took this division from the Jews, whom they hated, despised, 
 and ridiculed ; and of whom they knew little or nothing 
 when the custom first prevailed, whensoever that was. 
 This division, as I have before remarked, must have been 
 preserved by tradition amongst heathen nations from the 
 earliest times, most probably from the era of the confusion 
 of tongues, and consequent dispersion ; and was preserved 
 by Providence, as an instrument for promoting the esta- 
 blishment of Christianity, for which the circumstances of 
 the world in general, at that period, and of the Roman 
 empire in particular, were providentially favourable, viz. 
 one government extending over all the known world, and 
 causing a frequent and uninterrupted communication 
 through the whole ; a universal peace, still more facilitating 
 the general intercourse, and allowing the minds of men to 
 be turned, without distraction, to the one important object ; 
 one general language pervading all parts of the empire ; 
 and the circulation of the sacred Scriptures in that language 
 through all parts of the known world, carried by the Jews 
 through every city and province : and lastly, the division of 
 time into weeks, with names affixed by the Romans to 
 the several days of the seven. As to the. last, the early 
 Apologists, in their addresses to the emperors, or provincial 
 
23*2 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 governors, were able to refer to their own names, dies soils, 
 &c. We, in our language, retain two of the Roman names, 
 and, in our law and parliamentary proceedings, all, except 
 Saturday, for which, in those proceedings, I lament that we 
 absurdly continue the name of sabbath, {dies sabbati,) which 
 we ought to consider united to, and absorbed by, the Lord's- 
 day. But it is not more absurd to call that day from 
 the Jewish sabbath than the Lord's-day by a heathen 
 name. 
 
 Heylyn, who is recommended by his Grace the Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin, as the surest and safest guide on the 
 subject of the sabbath, gives the following exposition or in- 
 terpretation of the prayer after the commandments, to which 
 I earnestly entreat his Grace's attention. ' Their intent 
 and meaning was to teach the people to pray unto the Lord 
 to incline their hearts to keep that law, so far as it con- 
 tained the law of nature, and had been etitertained in 
 the Christian church.'' Here is a mental reservation, which 
 would have done credit to the Church of Rome herself. If 
 we admit this, we cannot find fault with our Roman Catholic 
 members of parliament, if they should add to their oaths a 
 mental reservation to this effect : — ' So far as it is con- 
 sistent with the decrees of popes and councils, and the 
 laws of Rome.' According to this rule of Heylyn, our con- 
 gregations cannot venture to commit themselves to obey the 
 divine law, until they shall, in the first place, have made 
 themselves masters of the law of nature; and, secondly, 
 shall have ascertained how far that law of nature shall have 
 been entertained in tlic Christian church; and, thirdly, 
 shall have subjected the divine law to be proved and ap- 
 proved by this supreme Judge. The law of nature ! — Where 
 are we to find it?- where to look for it? Shall we go to 
 Cicero, and his Ttisculan Questions, and search for the 
 truth amongst the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Peripatetics, 
 
THE SABBATH. "233 
 
 and the Academics.* Shall we go to our own modern 
 philosophers, — Hume or Gibbon, — and examine their sys- 
 tems, which they purloined from revelation, disguising the 
 stolen maxims and morals to make them their own, — 
 divesting them of their motives, and their sanctions, — 
 throwing off the chords of love, which bind them to the 
 heart ? And shall we judge of the pure gold of the sanc- 
 tuary by comparison with a base adulterated counterfeit ? 
 And yet, according to Heylyn, no man in our congregations, 
 until he shall have so learned the law of nature, can safely 
 use these prayers. 
 
 Such being the opinion of Heylyn, whom his Grace 
 recommends as our guide, and whose book upon the sab- 
 bath, except for that recommendation, I should probably 
 never have read, I consider myself entitled to call upon 
 his Grace, not for my own sake, but for the sake of my 
 readers, or others, who may have read Heylyn on his sug- 
 gestion, to ask whether his Grace approve of this mental 
 reservation ; — whether he would advise church attendants 
 in this solemn manner to acknowledge the command- 
 ments as laws. And I request his Grace to advise those 
 who may adopt his Grace's opinions on the fourth com- 
 mandment, as to the way in which they shall use that 
 prayer. 
 
 P.S. TO SECTION XXXII. 
 
 As I write this after the foregoing was in tyjie, I must be 
 brief. I request the reader to compare the nine last chap- 
 ters of Ezekicl, xl. — xlviii. with the two last of Revelation, 
 xxi., xxii. They describe the New Jerusalem, as shown 
 
 * What an eloquent barrister, now a learned judge, once uii- 
 
 j\istly applied, is peculiarly applicable here, inter sylvas aca- 
 
 demi quccrcrc verum, is to search for a needle in a bundle of hay. 
 
234 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 both to Ezekiel and St. John in visions. Both visions ex- 
 hibit the same object; and as that shown to St. John is 
 manifestly a description of the Redeemer's kingdom, so 
 must the vision of Ezekiel be prophetic of the same ; and 
 therefore, the sacrifices and ceremonies mentioned by the 
 latter, must be types of the particulars of the kingdom of 
 Christ. These, having been fulfilled, are omitted in St. 
 John's vision. Now, among these prophetic descriptions of 
 Ezekiel there is one which cannot apply to anything in the 
 Christian dispensation except to the change of the sabbath, 
 and day of public worship from the seventh to the eighth 
 day, or first day of the following week ; — xliii. '25 — 27. 
 " Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin- 
 offering : they shall also prepare a young bullock, aud a 
 ram out of the flock, without blemish. Seven days shall 
 they purge the altar and purify it, and they shall conse- 
 crate themselves. And when these days are expired, it 
 shall be that upon the eighth day and so forward, the 
 priests shall make your burnt-offerings upon the altar, and 
 your peace-(fferinffs, and I will accept you, saith the Lord 
 God." 
 
 The seven days mean the " one week," in Dan. ix. 27, 
 during which the Messish was to confirm the covenant, and 
 in the midst of which he was to make the sacrifice and obla- 
 tion to cease by the sacrifice of himself. 
 
 It is remarkable that these two descriptions of the New 
 Jerusalem close the respective prophecies of Ezekiel and 
 St. John. The latter was shown after the city had been 
 destroyed, and the Jewish polity ended. 
 
THE SABBATH. 235 
 
 SECTION XXXIII. 
 
 TALEY AND JEREMY TAYLOR. 
 
 I MUST here confess that in the progress of the foregoing- 
 inquiry, whatever credit an indulgent reader may give me 
 for dihgence, I have been guilty of great negligence in in- 
 vestigating the objections of the learned to the permanence 
 of the sabbath ; for I did not examine the opinions and ar- 
 guments of Paley until after I had put my manuscript into 
 the hands of the printer. And then I read his observations in 
 his Moral Philosophy, book iv. chap 7, ' On the Scripture 
 account of Sabbatical Institutions,' with great fear and 
 trembling, expecting at every step to find some powerful 
 arguments, which I had omitted to notice or answer. But 
 I was pleased to find that there was not one single argu- 
 ment which I had not already considered, and, I think, an- 
 swered. There were, however, several valuable admissions, 
 which would have been very useful, as being the testimony of 
 a witness summoned by the Archbishop at the other side of the 
 question. I request of my readers to examine his chapter for 
 themselves, and to try it by such proofs as I have adduced, 
 so far as they may assent to my conclusions ; and I leave 
 to them the decision upon his state of the case, without 
 thinking it necessary to use any further arguments. I con- 
 sider his statement, examined after the conclusion of my own, 
 as his reply or rejoinder to my arguments, and he has not 
 been able to shake any of them, (and if he could not, who 
 could ?) therefore I consider them as all established. 
 
 I have also examined all the arguments advanced on the 
 same side of the question by that excellent man, and emi- 
 nent divine, Jeremy Taylor. They occur in his Ductor 
 
236 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Dubitantium, book ii. chap. 2, section 43—64, pp. 271 — 
 279, folio 1696. He considers the question much more 
 briefly than some of the other authors, whose works I have 
 reviewed. I cannot find any new argument which I have 
 not already endeavoured to answer. But he affirms more 
 strongly than the others, in speaking of the particular day 
 observed as a sabbath by the Israelites, that the rest was in 
 remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt ; ' and there- 
 fore they kept their first sabbatic rest upon the very day 
 in which their redemption was completed, that is, as soon 
 as ever Pharaoh and his host were overthrown in the Red 
 Sea.' 
 
 These are his words. I have looked in vain for some 
 proof of this assertion, but can find none ; certainly there is 
 none in the Scripture account. The day of the passage of 
 the Red Sea is never in Moses' narrative considered as 
 the day of departure out of Egypt I have proved that the 
 day of their leaving Rameses (the 15th of the first month) 
 is always considered by the sacred historian as the day of 
 their coming out. I have proved, moreover, that it is im- 
 possible to determine on what day they passed the Red 
 Sea. It most probably was some day between the 19th of 
 the first month, and the 8th of the second month, a period 
 of about eighteen days ; but on what precise day within 
 that range, it aj)pears to me to be impossible to determine, 
 and of course, imj)Ossible for any person to prove that the 
 Israelites observed that day as their sabbath. 
 
THE SABBATH. 237 
 
 SECTION XXXIV. 
 
 WAIIBURTON. DIVINE LEGATION OF MOSES, 
 
 After that the preceding sections had gone to press, my 
 attention was directed to Warburton's arguments on the 
 sabbath, by a person whom I highly respect ; and there- 
 fore, I wish to give them a separate consideration, although 
 I presume that I have already answered such of them as 
 have any weight. 
 
 They occur in his fourth book, section 6, in notes on two 
 passages in his book, the first of which is as follows. 
 ' Thus, though Mosos enjoined circumcision, he hath been 
 careful to record the patriarchal institution of it with all its 
 circumstances ; " Moses gave you circumcision, (not be- 
 cause it is of Moses, but of the fathers,") says Jesus.' 
 
 His note ; — ' John vii. •22. The parenthesis seems odd 
 enough. It may not, therefore, be unseasonable to explain 
 the admirable reasoning of our divine Master on this occa- 
 sion. Jesus being charged by the Jews with a transgression 
 of the law of Moses, for having cured a man on the sab- 
 bath-day, thus expostulates with his accusers ; " Moses, 
 therefore, gave unto you circumcision, (not because it is of 
 Moses, but of the fathers,) and ye on the sabbath-day cir- 
 cumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath-day receive cir- 
 cumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken, are yc 
 angry at me because I have made a man every whit whole 
 on the sabbath-day ? "" That is, " Moses enjoined you to ob- 
 serve the rite of circumcision, and to perform it on the 
 eighth day ; but if this day happen to be on the sabbath, you 
 interrupt its holy rest by performing the. rite on this day, 
 because you will not break the law of Moses, which marked 
 out a day certain for this work of charity. Arc you there- 
 
238 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 fore angry with me for performing a work of equal charity 
 on the sabbath-day? But you will ask, Why was it so or- 
 dered by the law, that either the precept for circumcision, 
 or that for sabbatical rest, must needs be frequently trans- 
 gressed ? 1 answer, that though Moses, as I said, gave you 
 circumcision, yet the rite was not originally of Moses, but 
 of the fathers. Now, the fathers enjoined it to be performed 
 on the eighth day : Moses enjoined the seventh day should 
 be a day of rest ; consequently the day of rest and the day 
 of circumcision must needs frequently fall together. Moses 
 found circumcision instituted by a previous covenant, 
 which his law could not disannul. (Gal. iii. 17.) But 
 had he originally instituted both, 'tis probable he would 
 have contrived that the two laws should not have inter- 
 fered." This I take to be the sense of this very important 
 parenthesis.' 
 
 And is it the author of the Divine Legation of Moses 
 who attributes such language to our blessed Lord ? Wliat 
 would he have said of an Arian or Socinian, who should have 
 made our Lord Jesus Christ attribute the institution of the rite 
 of circumcision to the fathers, and of the law to Moses, and 
 should have represented him as expressing his conjectures 
 as to the contrivances Moses would have made to prevent 
 contradictory laws clashing ? Did he forget that Jesus of 
 whom he spake, is " God over all, blessed for ever," — the 
 Creator of the world, — the Author of the sacred rest of the 
 seventh day, and of the primeval command to keep it holy, 
 — the Jehovah who instituted the rite of circumcision, — the 
 Angel of the covenant, — the God who gave the command- 
 ments on Sinai, and prescribed to Moses every law, which 
 through him was given to the Israelites, — who sees with 
 one glance, not only through all time, but through all eter- 
 nity, and can make all liis laws harmonise from the be- 
 irinuinjj: to the end of the world ? 
 
 I cannot agree with him that the interpretiition he has 
 
THE SABBATH. 239 
 
 given, is the true sense of that * very important parenthe- 
 sis.' On the contrary, I think that it altogether neu- 
 tralises it, and destroys the force of our Lord's argument. 
 For if the only reason for performing circumcision on the 
 sabbath, was because it could not he helped on account of a 
 preceding law which Moses could not change, what excuse 
 was that for our Lord curing a man on the sabbath-day, 
 which conld have been helped, which could have been done 
 on any other day, and for which there was no stubborn law 
 which could not be interfered with ? Our Saviour mani- 
 festly represents the cases as parallel and similar; War- 
 burton destroys their parallelism, and makes them wholly 
 dissimilar. 
 
 To give just force to our Lord's argument, and to make 
 the cases parallel and similar, we must understand him as 
 follows ; — " The performance of the rite of circumcision on 
 the sabbath-day, although it be a work, is perfectly con- 
 sistent, not only with the nature of that holy day, but with 
 the spirit of your own law. And if it be lawful to perform 
 a work on the sabbath-day, by which an infant is put to 
 pain, it is lawful for me on the sabbath to work a miracle 
 by which a person is relieved from pain aiid disease, and 
 rendered perfectly whole." That this was our Lord's mean- 
 ing, I have shown in another place. 
 
 Our author has fallen into some errors very like those of 
 the Jews which he condemns. He argues as if the rest of 
 the sabbath were its end and object, instead of being only 
 the mean for the attainment of the end. The end and ob- 
 ject is the worship of God, and consequent sanctification 
 and good of man. In general, rest is the nttest mean, and 
 most conducive to the end : but, if at any time, instead of 
 being promotive, it should be obstructive of the object, and 
 labour or work become the most conducive mean, then 
 labour, and not rest, becomes a duty. And this, as I have 
 
240 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 elsewhere remarked, our Lord impresses as the true spirit 
 even of the law of Moses. 
 
 He seems also to have mistaken the meaning of the pa- 
 renthesis as much as that of the passage itself. Its obvious 
 meaning seems to be this; — " Moses enjoined you the rite of 
 circumcision, and the authority of the command rests upon 
 his law, although the inditution itself was of much earlier 
 date, and derived /ro/« the fathers, (eV- tQv irareptov,) and not 
 /rom Moses, (e/:rovMo<rewc-)" Thus we, in this country, 
 would say of any part of the common law when enacted by 
 statute, ' The authority of this law now rests upon the sta- 
 tute, although the law itself was much more ancient, and 
 derived from our forefathers.' That such was our Lord's 
 meaning, appears from his saying that they performed the 
 ceremony on the eighth daj', that the law of Moses be not 
 broken, not the law of the fathers. 
 
 But our author gives us to suppose, that if Moses had 
 been the author of both laws, he would have made some in- 
 genious contrivance to have prevented the clashing of the 
 two interrupting the sacred rest of the sabbath, if the in- 
 superable obstacle of an antecedent law had not prevented 
 him. But unfortunately, the following fact overturns the 
 great discovery. INIoses instituted tlie laborious works of 
 the priests on the sabbath-day, after he had received and 
 delivered the fourth commandment for the observance of 
 the sabbath ; and instead of making ingenious contrivances 
 to prevent their interference, he commanded and enjoined 
 it This is decisive against his explanation. The reader 
 knows that our Lord quoted these works of the priests on 
 the sabbath, as parallel to his argument from circumcision. 
 
 We now come to his second line of argument, contained 
 in a note on the following passage in his text; — ' So again 
 \\hen he institutes the Jewish sabbath of rest, he records 
 the patriarchal observance of it in these words, " In six days 
 
THE SABBATH. 241 
 
 the Lord made heaven and earth, &c., and rested the sab- 
 bath-day, and hallowed it." ' 
 
 Before I give his argument in his own words, I give its 
 substance thus : ' Circumcision and the sabbath are both 
 laws of the same kind, both signs of a covenant; and as 
 circumcision is not a natural duty but a positive command, 
 so is the sabbath; and therefore, only temporary.' 
 
 His note; — 'No one ever yet mistook circumcision for a 
 natural duty ; while it has been considered a kind of im- 
 piety to deny the sabbath to be in that number. There 
 are two circumstances attending the latter institution, which 
 have misled the Sabbatarians in judging of its nature. 
 
 ' 1. The first is that, which this positive institution, and 
 a natural duty hath in common, namely, the setting apart a 
 certain portion of our time for the service of religion. Na- 
 tural reason tells us that that Being who gave us all, re- 
 quires a constant expression of our gratitude for the bless- 
 ings he has bestowed, which cannot be paid without some 
 expense of time, and this time must first be set apart 
 before it can be used.* But things of very different na- 
 tures may hold some things in common. 
 
 '•2. The second circumstance is this, that Moses, the 
 better to impress upon the minds of the people the ob- 
 servance of the sabbath, acquaints them with the early 
 institution of it, that it was enjoined by God himself on his 
 finishing the work of creation. But these Sabbatarians do 
 not consider that it is not the time when a commandment 
 was given, nor even the author who gave it, that discover 
 
 * It is to be wished that he had given us some instances of this 
 lesson having been taught by ' Natural Reason/ to those who never 
 heard of a revelation. I doubt the possibility of his having done 
 so. But our moral philosophers of the two last centuries, were 
 much in the habit of attributing to natural reason, what they them- 
 selves had learned from revelation, a7id nowhere clir. 
 
24'2 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 the class to which it belongs, but its nature as discoverable 
 by human reason. And the sabbath is as much a positive 
 law when given by God to Adam and his posterity, as when 
 given by Moses, the messenger of God, to the Israelites 
 and their posterity. To judge otherwise, is reducing all 
 God's commands to one and the same species.' 
 
 I refer my reader to what I have already said of sub- 
 mitting the laws of God, their obligation and duration, to 
 the tribunal of human reason, of the laws of nature, of the 
 " wisdom which is not fi-om above." But as our author 
 does not give the above two circumstances as arguments, 
 but merely to clear the ground for the erection of his argu- 
 ment, we may pass them by, and proceed to examine the 
 building itself. He proceeds thus : — 
 * ' Having thus far cleared the way, I proceed to show 
 that the Jewish sabbath is a mere positive institution, — 
 
 ' 1. From the account the prophet Ezekiel gives of it. 
 " Moreover also I gave them my sabbath to be a sign be- 
 tween me and them." A sign of what ? A sign of a cove- 
 nant. And so was circumcision called by God himself ; 
 "And it shall be a toketi (or sign) of the covenant between 
 me and you," ' 
 
 This is his foundation: and let us, like wise master- 
 builders, first examine the foundation before we proceed to 
 examine the superstructure. There is a great defect in it ; 
 and that defect is, — that there is no foundation at all. 
 
 Both he, and the Archbishop, quote the book of Ezekiel 
 without reading it. And in quoting it in this passage, 
 they do not seem to be aware that the text in Ezekiel is 
 only repetition of what originally occurs in Exodus. War- 
 burton gives Ezekiel as his authority for calling the sab- 
 bath a sign of a covenant, and yet there is not one word of 
 the kind in Ezekiel, nor a word that can be tortured into 
 such a sense ; nor is the sabbath any where in the Bible 
 
THE SABBATH. 243 
 
 called a sign of a covenant. It is, indeed, once said in 
 Exodus, that the sabbath shall be itself a perpetual cove- 
 nant, that is, part of the everlasting covenant. But this T 
 have shown to be an argument against the opponents of the 
 sabbath, and not for them. Nor can this be supposed to 
 mean that it is a sign even of the perpetual covenant, be- 
 cause in the very same passage it is stated what the sab- 
 bath is a sign of. 
 
 It is, indeed, both in Exodus and Ezekiel, called a sign, 
 but we are expressly told of what it is a sign. It was to be 
 a sign of three things. 1. The institution itself was to be 
 a sign that they worshipped the true God, the Maker of 
 heaven and earth. 2. The keeping of it was to be a sign 
 that God sanctified them; — and 3. The hallowing of it, or 
 keeping it holy, was to be a sign by which they should 
 know and feel that he actually did sanctify them. (See 
 Exod. xxxi. 13, 17. Ezek. xx. 12, 20.) 
 
 These things happened for some time to be peculiar to 
 the Jews by the apostasy of the rest of the world ; but I 
 have already proved that they were not intended to have 
 been exclusively appropriated to them. I need here only 
 say, that every stranger who joined in the worship of the 
 true God, and wished to become a partaker of the same 
 sanctification, was to adopt the same sign, and observe the 
 sabbath. (Exod. xx. 10. Isa. Ivi. 6.) And if a nation of 
 strangers, or ten nations of strangers, had adopted the wor- 
 ship of the true God, they were all to keep the sabbath, — 
 all to adopt the same sign, the same colours, the same flag, 
 the same royal standard of the same Almighty King of 
 kings to whom they professed allegiance. 
 
 The following is our author's superstructure in his own 
 words; — ' Now, nothing but a rite by institution of a, posi- 
 tive law could serve for a sign or token of a covenant be- 
 tween God and a particular selected people ; for besides its 
 
 R 2 
 
244 SCRIPTlfRE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 use for a remembrance of the covenant) it was to serve them 
 for a. partition wall to separate them from other nations, and 
 this a rite by positive institution might well do, though used 
 before by some other people. But a natural duty has no 
 capacity of being thus employed, because a practice observed 
 by all nations would obliterate ?iny tract or token of a 
 covenant made with 07ie.' 
 
 This argument, as I before said, so far as the sabbath is 
 concerned, is built upon that supposed declaration of Eze- 
 kiel, which he never made ; and the foundation being taken 
 away, the building falls to the ground. But so far as cir- 
 cumcision is concerned, let us examine the partition ivall, 
 which I have shown that the sabbath cannot be. As to 
 cii'cumcision, which he represents as a partition wall, to 
 ' separate the particular selected people,' of the Israelites, 
 from all other nations, he falls into an error, common 
 among authors, in supposing circumcision either to have 
 been, or intended to be, peculiar to the Israelites. 
 
 In Gen. xvii., Abraham is told that he shall be a fcither 
 of many nations : and the right of circumcision is enjoined 
 on all his seed. It was given at the time of God's pro- 
 mising temporal blessings, and it was extended to all his 
 descendants to whom temporal blessings were promised, -r— to 
 Ishmael and Esau, to whom promises were made. Abra- 
 ham had also other children, whom he sent towards the 
 east, on whom also the rite was enjoined. So that the 
 Arabians, Edomites, Idumeans, and other neighbouring 
 nations, practised it. And I know what would be said in 
 Ireland of a man who should boast of a partition-wall, 
 which could not separate between his house and liis next- 
 door neighbour's. Thus the partition-wall is gone, with the 
 rest of the baseless fabric. After the rite of circumcision 
 had been prescribed to all Abraham's descendants, and 
 some years before Isaac was born, he is told that the cove- 
 
THE SABBATH. 245 
 
 nant, the everlasting covenant, (Gen. xvii. 19,) should be 
 made with Isaac alone : therefore circumcision could not 
 be the sign or token of that covenant which was made with 
 Isaac ; and, consequently, not peculiar to the Israelites. 
 
 But Ave have some more arguments fi'om Warburton, 
 equally powerful with the preceding ; — as follows. 
 
 ' 2. But, secondly, if the Jewish prophet cannot convince 
 our Sabbatarians that the Mosaic day of rest was a positive 
 institution, yet methinks the express words of Jesus might, 
 who told the Sabbatarians at that time, the Pharisees, that 
 • " the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the 
 sabbath." Now, were the observation of the sabbath a 
 natural duty, it is certain that man was made for the sab- 
 bath, the end of his creation being for the observance of 
 the moral law, the worship of the Deity, temperance, and 
 justice. Nor can we, by natural light, conceive any other 
 end. On the contrary, all positive institutions were made 
 for man, for the better direction of his conduct in certain 
 situations in life, the observance of which is therefore to be 
 regulated on the end for which they were instituted ; for, con- 
 trary to the nature of moral duties, the observance of them 
 may in some instances become hurtful to man, for whose 
 benefit they were instituted ; and whenever this is the case, 
 God and nature grant a dispensation.' 
 
 Here he falls into the same kind of error, which he attri- 
 butes to the Sabbatarians of that time. They supposed 
 the sabbath to be the object of primary concern, to which 
 everything else must give way, as it they were made for it. 
 And yet Warburton supposes that man was made for the 
 moral law. 
 
 • The following is a brief abstract of this argument. ' Our 
 Lord says that " man was not made for the sabbath ;" but 
 the light of nature says that he was made for the moral 
 law ; therefore the sabbath is no part of the moral law ; — 
 
24G SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 therefore it is a positive institution, but a positive insti- 
 tution is only temporary, and may be abrogated.' 
 
 The reader will see at once that the maxim given here 
 by our Lord lends no assistance whatever to our author's 
 argument, until he brings in the hght of nature to his 
 assistance. And I believe the generality of my readers will 
 be rather startled at the discovery which he makes by that 
 light, viz. that the sole end of man's creation was the ob- 
 servance of the moral law ; that man, an immortal soul, was 
 made for no other purpose whatever, than to observe the 
 laws resulting from his bodily state and earthly connexion . 
 with his fellow men in this transitory scene and perishable 
 world. And yet this strange assertion is the groundwork 
 of the whole argument. And, after all, it is nothing but 
 assertion. Out of Scripture, he could not attempt to prove 
 it ; and he prudently refrains from looking for proof from 
 the light of nature. Indeed, he might much better assert 
 that the sun, moon, planets, and heavenly bodies, are of no 
 use whatever, or intended for any other end than that of 
 observing the laws, by which they are retained in their 
 orbits, and their motions regulated. These bodies are 
 coeval with those laws, — but not so man with the laws pre- 
 scribed to him in this world. I think that I may with 
 greater appearance of truth assert, that the moral law, 
 which arises out of the nature of man^^s constitution and 
 social relations, was made for man. 
 
 I have, in a former section, considered the moral law, the 
 law of nature, and the light of nature, and need not here re- 
 peat what I have there said. The Scripture considers those 
 who are left to that light, as " sitting in darkness, and in the 
 region of the shadow of death." In an argument, however, 
 it has great advantages over revelation ; for, little as it 
 knows, it will, like the oracles of old, say anything that it is 
 bid. Nay, it will also make Scripture say anything that is 
 convenient. 
 
THE SABBATH. 247 
 
 The truth is, that the Sabbatarians of that day had not a 
 more exalted veneration for the sabbatical law, than some 
 of our philosophical divines of the two last centuries had 
 for the moral law, or law of nature. It was the idol they 
 set up in the place of the infallible interpreter of the 
 Church of Rome, and exalted as the expounder and judge 
 of the laws of God. But it is out of fashion, it is obsolete, 
 it has lost its influence ; and thanks be to " The True 
 Light," we now acknowledge no law superior to God's 
 word, to admit or reject, sort or class, extend or limit, the 
 divine commands. 
 
 I have, in a former section, endeavoured to give the true 
 meaning of the above sentence spoken by our Lord, by 
 which he explained the true nature of the sabbath. 
 
 And now, having stated what Warburton has endea- 
 voured to prove on this subject, I wish to state some ne- 
 cessary steps, which neither he nor those who take the 
 same course of argument, have attempted to prove ; and, as 
 his Grace the Archbishop adopts the same opinions and 
 course of argumentation, I propose the deficient steps to his 
 Grace in the form of queries, humbly begging of him to 
 supply these desiderata, without which neither his nor 
 their argument can stand. 
 
 1. Where in Scripture is the distinction made between 
 positive and moral laws ? 2. What test or criterion is 
 given, by which to distinguish between them ? 3. Where 
 is any distinction made between the obligation and dura- 
 tion of these different kinds of laws ? 4. Where does he 
 find the moral law and law of nature in the writings of 
 those who knew not revelation ? 5. How does he prove 
 that such law is an adequate criterion for judging of the 
 laws of God ? 6. How does he prove that if ive cannot, by 
 the light of nature, discover any visible connexion between 
 a divine law and the moral conduct of man, therefore none 
 exists, or can exist? 
 
248 SCRIPIURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 VVarburton hints, in the above arguments, that a moral 
 law admits of no dispensation ; but that a positive law 
 does. But I could in this \vay prove many laws, confessedly 
 moral, to be positive. Thus, children were ordered to dis- 
 obey idolatrous parents, and parents to stone disobedient 
 or blasphemous children, — therefore the fifth commandment 
 may be dispensed with, — therefore it is not moral, but 
 ])ositive. Thus, also, the sixth was dispensed with, when 
 Abraham was ordered to put his son to death,— and did so, 
 as far as the intention went. It was also dispensed with 
 when the Israehtes were commanded to slay woman and 
 child, infant and suckling ; and the eighth, when the 
 Israelites were ordered to borrow from their neighbours, 
 and spoil the Eg}'ptians. 
 
 One more argument he adduces as follows. 
 
 ' 3. The primitive Christians, on the authority of this 
 plain declaration of their blessed Master, treated the sab- 
 bath as a positive law, by changing the day dedicated to 
 the service of religion from the seventh to the first, and 
 thus abolished one positive law, the sahhnth, instituted in 
 memory of the creation, and, by the authority of the church, 
 erected another, properly called the Lord's-day, in memory 
 of the redemption.' 
 
 I have already shown that the sabbath was not abolished 
 by the change. I have also sufficiently directed the reader's 
 attention to the question of positive laws. I have also 
 shown that the day was neither properly nor improperly 
 called ' the Lord's-day^ for a length of time after the change. 
 In the Greek, which was then the universal language, it 
 continued for a length of time to be called by a name, 
 which we translate " the first day of the week," l)ut which 
 literally signified ' the first of the sabbaths.' So that al- 
 though the day was changed, the name was not changed. 
 Once, and once only, in tlie New Testament, the name of 
 the I/ird's-dmj occurs. After the death of all the apostles. 
 
THE SABBATH. 249 
 
 and after the destruction of Jerusalem, probably sixty years 
 after our Saviour's death, St. John, in the Revelation, super- 
 adds the name of the Lord's-day. 
 
 SECTION XXXV. 
 
 P.S. ADDITIONS. 
 
 The question may be asked, whether our Lord sanctioned 
 and affirmed all the commandments of the decalogue to the 
 same extent as they existed under the Mosaic dispensation ? 
 And to this question I think we may return an affirmative 
 answer. 
 
 There were three occasions upon which our Lord gave 
 opinions on the. decalogue. 
 
 The Jirst was in answer to a question proposed by a 
 scribe or lawyer, (a person learned in the law of Moses, 
 and whose duty it was to instruct the people.) This is re- 
 corded in Matt. xxii. 35—40, and Mark xii. 28—33. In 
 this case our Lord answered the question himself. 
 
 The second is recorded in Luke x. 25 — 28, upon a ques- 
 tion proposed also by a lawyer, which our Lord makes the 
 proposer answer for himself. 
 
 The third occurs in Matt. xix. 16—22, Mark x. 17—22, 
 Luke xviii. 18 — 2.3, upon a question proposed by a rich 
 young man, a ruler of the Jews. The reader will be so 
 good as to look at the passages quoted, and then we will 
 consider each case separately. 
 
 The question proposed on the first occasion was, " Which 
 is the first commandment of all ?" (Mark;) or, " Which is 
 the great commandment in the law?" (Matthew.*) Our 
 
 * The reader will please to observe the dilT'erent modes ofex- 
 jircssion used by Mark, who wrote for the Gentiles, and by Mat- 
 liiew, who wrote for the Jews. 
 
'250 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 Lord, as a direct answer to the question, gives the sub- 
 stance of the first table, and says, " This is the first and 
 great commandment." He also gives the substance of the 
 second table, about which no inquiry was made, and adds, 
 " There is none other commandment greater than these." 
 And although the scribe had called his attention to the law 
 alone, he tells his hearers that " on these two command- 
 ments hang all the law arid the prophets." 
 
 And on the second occasion, when the lawyer, tempting 
 him, asked him, " What he should do to inherit eternal 
 life ? " he makes him, as a learned scribe, answer the ques- 
 tion himself ; and the scribe gives the very same summary 
 which our Lord himself had given on the other occasion. 
 
 Now these two summaries, as given by our Lord and the 
 scribe, perfectly agree not only with one another, but also 
 with that given by Moses. It appears also from Mark xii. 
 3'2, &c., that the scribe perfectly approved of our Lord's 
 summary, and that our Lord also approved of the scribe's 
 comment on the same. Our Lord also approves of the 
 summar}^ given by the lawyer in Luke x. '25, &c., saying, 
 that he had " answered right." Therefore as the question 
 was about the commandments, and they all agreed as to 
 the summary and substance ; and, as it is certain that 
 Moses and the scribes in their summaries referred to the 
 whole decalogue, it follows that our Lord, by adopting the 
 same summary and substance, must be supposed to have 
 adopted the same commandments, which he knew to be in- 
 tended both by the scribes with whom he conversed, and 
 Moses from whom he quoted. 
 
 Our Lord gives these commandments the preference 
 beyond all others ; " There is none other commandment 
 greater than these." But lie does not stop here. Lest 
 any person might suppose that he spoke only of the INIosaic 
 dispensation, he takes particular care to show that he in- 
 
THE SABBATH. 251 
 
 eluded also the Christian dispensation. The scribe had 
 asked, " Which is the great commandment in the law ? " 
 Our Lord gives him both commandments, that is, sum- 
 maries of both tables ; and adds these most important 
 words, " On these two commandments hang all the law 
 and the prophets.'"' The meaning of which cannot be other 
 than this : " On these two commandments, or summaries 
 of the two tables, upon which we are all agreed, depend 
 not only the law, or Mosaic dispensation about which you 
 inquire, but also the prophets, or that dispensation which 
 is to come, which is the subject of their prophecies." 
 
 Our Lord says in another place, (Matt. v. 17,) "Think 
 not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets ; I 
 am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."" If then the law and 
 the prophets, in their incomplete and unfulfilled state, de- 
 pended upon these commandments, how much more in 
 their complete, and finished, and fulfilled state ? For we 
 must recollect, that it was after he had established that 
 principle, — that he came not to destroy the law and the pro- 
 phets, but to fulfil them, — that he affirmed that both law and 
 prophets hung upon the commandments. 
 
 In connexion with this subject, I earnestly recommend to 
 the attention, and conscientious consideration of the oppo- 
 nents of the sabbath and the fourth commandment, the 
 words of our Lord immediately following the last cited quo- 
 tation. " Wherefore, whosoever shall break the least one 
 of these commandments, and shall teach men so ; he shall 
 be called least in the kingdom of heaven : But whosoever 
 shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in 
 the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 The third occasion was when a certain rich young man, 
 who was also a ruler, asked him, " what good thing he 
 should do that he might have eternal life?" 
 
 As his question regarded the obedience by which he 
 
232 SCUIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 might obtain eternal life, — what shall I do, — by what works 
 shall I deserve eternal life ? — our Lord first examines him 
 as to the second table, and obedience by works. But we 
 are not to suppose that this was the whole of the examina- 
 tion, or the entire of his trial by the commandments ; nor 
 was he himself satisfied with it, for he asked, " What lack 
 I yet?" 
 
 Our Lord then tries him by another test as to the first 
 table. This young .man proposed his question from dif- 
 ferent motives from those which actuated the others. He was 
 sincere ; the others insidiously tempted our Lord. This 
 young man came running with eager anxiety, and knelt 
 down to worship him, evidently impressed with a strong 
 sense of his power and character as the author and giver of 
 that eternal life which he sought. This appears by our 
 Lord's words, when addressed by the title of " Good Mas- 
 ter." " Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but 
 one, that is God." And then, on the supposition that he 
 had acknowledged him as God, and after he himself had 
 ol)liquely assented to that acknowledgment, he proposes a 
 test to try him by the first table, whether he " loved the 
 Lord his God with all his heart, and all his mind, and all 
 his soul, and all his strength." When the Son of God, 
 " God manifest in the flesh," appeared in his state of hu- 
 miliation, it was impossible for his disciples to acknowledge 
 him, and adhere to him, without a renunciation of all earthly 
 possessions, and a steady determination to follow him 
 through poverty and persecutions. And to this test he sub- 
 jected those who acknowledged his divinity, and became his 
 disciples. (Matt. xvi. 16,24. Mark viii. 29,34. Matt.xix.27 — 
 30. ISIark x. 28—30.) And by this test he also tries this 
 young man. " If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that 
 thou hast, and give to the poor, and tliou shalt have trea- 
 sure in heaven ; and come and take up thy cross, and lol- 
 
THE SABBATH. 253 
 
 low me.'" On this occasion hs alludes to the two tables in 
 a particular manner, and for a particular purpose, and so 
 far only as the occasion required, and not so explicitly as 
 when directly questioned on the commandments them- 
 selves. 
 
 Thus far we have considered his sanction of the deca- 
 logue as a whole ; let us now consider each table separately. 
 As to the second there cannot be any doubt, because he 
 not only gives the summary, but in the case of the young 
 man on the third occasion above-mentioned, he enumerates 
 each particular commandment, and gives the summary be- 
 sides, as does SL Paul in his epistle to the Romans, xiii. 9. 
 
 As to the first, the summary is, that we are to love the 
 Lord our God with all our hearts, and all our minds, and 
 all our souls, and all our strength; that is, with all the 
 affections and powers both of soul and body. Now, I have 
 proved in a former section, that all the commandments of 
 the first table depend upon the fourth, and cannot exist 
 without it. Our Lord tells us that the prophets hang upon 
 this summary. And perhaps from the prophets we may 
 learn whether the fourth commandment have any place in 
 that summary : and I think, we may gather from him, who 
 is emphatically called the evangelical prophet, the prophet 
 of the gospel, that the chief thing in this summary depends 
 upon the sabbath. " To love the Lord our God with all 
 our heart" is always put foremost in the summary; and 
 unquestionably the heart is the principal ingredient and 
 agent in love. And how is this love with the heart to be 
 obtained in that dispensation of which the prophets fore- 
 told ? Isaiah will answer that question. " Call the sab- 
 bath a delight, holy of the Lord, and honourable ; then 
 shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord." If we were to ask 
 Ezekiel, he would answer the question in the same way ; 
 he has answered it already in the quotations I have given 
 
254 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 in another place to show that the fourth commandment is 
 the guardian of the second, in which it is said, that God 
 " shews mercy unto thousands of them that love him, and 
 keep his commandments." Therefore, the chief thing in 
 our Lord's summary, according to the prophets, who hang 
 upon the commandments, depends upon the sabbath ; and 
 that part also, which brings forth most fruit, for " with the 
 heart men believe unto righteousness." 
 
 The scribe in Mark xii. very properly prefers these com- 
 mandments to all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices. And 
 our Lord considered him to answer discreetly ; for certainly 
 it is better to keep the commandments, than first to break 
 them, and then to atone for the breach by propitiatory 
 sacrifices. 
 
 I must here anticipate an objection that may be made to 
 an argument which I have used in an early stage. 
 
 To show that the non -mention of the observance of the 
 sabbath by the patriarchs is no proof of its non-existence 
 I have stated that no mention of it occurs in the Psalms, 
 Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, written in a period during which 
 we know that it was observed. Now, I may be told that 
 " The Sabbath," is prefixed as a title or argument to the 
 ninety-second Psalm. To this I answer, that those titles, 
 are not considered as genuine ; they depend upon tradition. 
 Now the same tradition says, that the ninety-second Psalm 
 was composed by Adam in praise of the sabbath. If, there- 
 fore, tradition is not to stand, my former argument is good ; 
 but if tradition be to stand, I will very willingly exchange 
 my former negative argument for this positive proof of the 
 observance of the sabbath in Adam's time ; for if he com- 
 posed a psalm in its praise, who will deny its existence ? 
 
 Baxter quotes Heb. ix. 19, to prove that even/ precept 
 
THE SABBATH. 255 
 
 spoken by Moses was according to the law, and conse- 
 quently to be abolished with the law, which he takes for 
 granted is to be abolished ; and if every precepU then also 
 the commandments."' This, I think, is the substance of his 
 argument ; but I speak from memory, not having his works 
 within my reach while I write this. The verse is as 
 follows : — " For when Moses had spoken every precept to 
 all the people according to the law, he took the blood of 
 calves and of goats, with scarlet wool, and hyssop, and 
 sprinkled both the book and all the people." 
 
 Now, it is sufficient here to remark, that the command- 
 ments were distinct from this book of the law. The former 
 were written on tables of stone, and closed up in the ark, 
 into which it was not lawful for any of the priests, or even 
 for the high priest, to look : and the ark was kept in the 
 holy of holies, into which none but the high priest was 
 allowed to enter, and that only once in a year, and then not 
 to look on the ark ; but the law was written in a book, 
 (Deut. xxxi. 9, 24 — 26,) and delivered by Moses to the 
 levites and elders to keep, and to be put in the side of the 
 ark when it was carried, not in the ark, but in its coverings. 
 The hook only is spoken of in the above quotation from 
 Hebrews, and the book only is spoken of as sprinkled with 
 blood. And it is a curious fact, which will appear from 
 Lev. xvi., that the ark and the commandments were the o)ily 
 things which were not sprinkled with blood, and therefore 
 could not have been alluded to in the above verse. From 
 whence it follows, that whatever conclusion Baxter may be 
 able to draw from that passage does not apply to the com- 
 mandments. 
 
 Note. I wish to acknowledge before closing this book, 
 that the substance of the notes marked H. S. were furnished 
 
•25G SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 by the Reverend Thomas Dee, now second master of the 
 Clonmell school, an accompHshed Hebrew scholar, and au- 
 thor of " The English Translation of Bythner's Lyre of the 
 Psalms of David ;" than which, no more useful book on the 
 Hebrew language has been published in our days, or more 
 valuable to the learners of that sacred language. 
 
THE SABBATH. 257 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I HAVE now closed the scripture view of my subject, which 
 I have kept open so long as I could find any additional 
 authority, or any new argument on the opposite side. 
 
 I can say with truth, that I have not passed over, or 
 suppressed, any argument, or any text, which I could find 
 advanced by any author at the other side, which seemed to 
 me to have the least weight ; but that it has been my en- 
 deavour, throughout my review of the question, to state 
 the case of my opponents as fully and as strongly as if it 
 were my own. Any person who will take the trouble of 
 comparing the number and weight of the arguments and 
 texts which I have given on the Archbishop's side, with 
 those which he himself has put forward, must confess that 
 I have stated his case much more strongly than he has 
 done himself; and will give me credit for fairness and can- 
 dour in my review of both sides of the question. 
 
 When my readers, who are not extensively read in di- 
 vinity, hear of so many able and learned divines contending 
 against the sabbath, they may, perhaps, at first be shaken 
 by such high authorities ; but when they find the argu- 
 ments of these giants of literature so weak, their deduc- 
 tions so inconclusive, their quotations so irrelevant, they 
 will be persuaded that the talents and learning of these 
 great men were contending against the truth ; and this per- 
 suasion will be still more strengthened by observing the 
 failure of all such attempts. Those authors made no con- 
 verts to their opinions. Their works were confined to the 
 learned, who were capable of justly appreciating their ar- 
 guments, and by whom they were " weighed, and found 
 wanting." At the present day very few, if any, of our or- 
 
 ii 
 
258 SCRIPTURE ACCOITNT OF 
 
 thoclox divines incline to their opinions. The sabbath, 
 based upon divine authority, has maintained its ground, 
 and lives in the hearts and affections of Christians. 
 
 And now, lest any of my readers, who have not an exten- 
 sive knowledge of the works of our divines, might still be in- 
 fluenced by the supposed weight of human authority at 
 the other side, on account of my having quoted so many 
 authors against the sabbath, and none for it, I think it 
 necessary to caution them against a supposition which 
 the perusal of these pages might seem to countenance, 
 that the majority is against us. I have not brought for- 
 ward any human authority in support of the sabbath, 
 because my sole object was to try those adverse opinions 
 by the test of scripture alone. But notwithstanding my 
 not having made a parade of human authors, I may say 
 with Elisha, (2 Kings vi. 16,) "Fear not, for they that be 
 with us are more than they that be with them." The op- 
 ponents of the sabbath are a very small minority of our 
 divines ; and if the question were a matter to be decided by 
 the weight of human authority, we should have a vast pre- 
 ponderance in favour of a sabbath. 
 
 The Archbishop of Dublin's little pamphlet, of small 
 size, light weight, and cheap price, is calculated to make 
 more converts than the massy and ponderous folios of his 
 predecessors. He has invented no new argument. He 
 has hastily plucked a few — shall I call them flowers or 
 weeds ? — which grew by the way-side, as he ran through 
 the works of his masters ; he has thrown them into a popu- 
 lar form, and scattered them wide amongst those, to whom 
 they seemed new, many of whom were incapable of esti- 
 mating their value, and ready to rely on the authority of an 
 Archbishop of our churcii. And because ho has not 
 brought forward anything new or learned, our professors 
 and divines did not think it necessarv to answer him, and 
 
THK SABBATH. 259 
 
 perhaps expected little honour amongst the learned from 
 the contest. But of what use is their learning, if thej^ do 
 not protect the unlearned from error, and shield the faith 
 of the babes of the flock ? 
 
 When Paine collected the oft-refuted objections against 
 revelation, moulded them into a popular form, accommo- 
 dated them to the revolutionary mania of the day, and 
 scattered wide the poison, which had not hitherto found a 
 congenial soil of ignorance and vulgar depravity, did the 
 learned men of that time look on with apathy and neglect ? 
 Far from it. His arguments, although exploded and obso- 
 lete among the learned, but new to those for whom they 
 were intended, were powerfully met in language level to the 
 capacities of those whom they were likely to injure, and 
 were triumphantly refuted, and soon forgotten. But why 
 have not the arguments against the sabbath, the divinely 
 appointed bulwark and safeguard of revealed religion, met 
 the same speedy and decisive refutation ? 
 
 One topic still remains to be considered, which makes a 
 prominent feature in the writings of the opponents of the 
 sabbath, upon which it is necessary that I should say a few 
 words : I mean the opinion and decision of the church upon 
 this question. 
 
 His Grace, as well as those authors from whom he has 
 borrowed his remarks, would have us to believe that, the 
 sabbath being abrogated, the church has in its stead, and 
 without reference to it, established a new festival resting 
 solely upon her own authority. 
 
 To examine this question with reference to the opinion 
 and decision of the catholic church at large, if I were capa- 
 ble of it, would require an interminable dissertation. But 
 as otir church has done this already, I appeal to her testi- 
 mony and authority. She has adopted the forms and cere- 
 
 s2 
 
260 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 monies, the decisions and doctrines, of the pure and primi- 
 tive ages, of sound, scriptural, and apostolical churches. 
 
 His Grace, all through his pamphlet, has fallen into the 
 same error, of which we took notice in considering the 
 opinions of Warburton :— that the church had estabhshed a 
 new festival called "the Lord's-day," in commemoration of 
 our Lord's resurrection, without any reference to the sab- 
 bath ; and accordingly he always calls the day by that 
 exclusive name, and would give us to understand that he is 
 speaking the language of the church. 
 
 The same precipitancy and want of consideration, or ex- 
 amination, which we have had to lament in the view he has 
 taken on this question with respect to the scriptures, are 
 manifest here also in the view he has taken of the opinions 
 and decisions of the church. 
 
 In considering the scripture account of the sabbath, I 
 have twice had occasion to remark that the day was never 
 called by the name of the Lord's-day in the gospels, the 
 Acts of the Apostles, or the epistles. We find it first, and 
 once only, so called upwards of sixty years after our Lord's 
 resurrection, by St. John, in his Revelation. The name by 
 which it was called in those other inspired writings was, 
 literally translated, "The first of the sabbaths." But our 
 business now lies with the church ; with regard to which, I 
 cannot better expose his Grace's errors, than by laying 
 them alongside the liturgies, the calendars, the rubrics, and 
 the articles of our pure and primitive church, as being the 
 most faithful witness, the soundest, and most judicious ex- 
 positor of the opinions of the universal churcli of Clirisl. 
 
 His Grace, as I have said, always calls the festival " the 
 Ivord's-day," and wishes to leave the impression upon the 
 minds of his readers, that the church does the same. Un- 
 willing as I am to separate, even in contemplation, those 
 
THE SABBATH. 261 
 
 whom God hath joined together, yet I am obhged, dis- 
 tinctly and severally to consider, the respect and regard 
 which our church pays to each. 
 
 First, then, as to the Lord's-day. How often does that 
 appellation occur in our calendar, lists of festivals, tables, 
 rules, orders, ceremonies, services, rubrics, liturgy, and 
 articles ? Not once. The only remote reference is in call- 
 ing the sunday-letfer the ^Dominical-letter.' It occurs 
 once in the canons, (6th Irish, 18th English,) and in this 
 case we may judge from the context, that the authors of 
 the canons intended to include the sabbath under the ap-" 
 pellation. And surely the day upon which the same Lord 
 rested from the works of creation, and blessed it, and sanc- 
 tified it, and commanded it to be kept holy, as well de- 
 serves to be called His day, as that upon which he arose 
 from the dead. It is remarkable that this very canon seems 
 to base the observance of that day on ' God's holy will and 
 pleasure,** and the observance of other holydays on ' the 
 orders of this church.'' But because the name does not 
 elsewhere occur, do I say that our church does not m.ean 
 in any way to dedicate that day to our Lord's resurrection ? 
 Far from it. I believe she is found fault with for not 
 adopting the appellation, and for using the popular, and 
 even heathen, name of the day of the week, Sunday, with- 
 out any reference in the name to the rehgious grounds of 
 its observance. But this was done prudently and advisedly. 
 If she had called it the sabbath, she would have seemed to 
 exclude the Lord's-day ; and if she had used the name of 
 the Lord's-day alone, she would have countenanced the 
 pernicious error of the abolition of the sabbath. But as 
 she wished that the two objects should be indissolubly 
 joined together, and as she could not call the day by both 
 names, she called it by neither. Being of opinion that it 
 is a matter of indifference, as to the true spirit of the sab- 
 
262 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 batical law, whether the seventh, or the first of the seven 
 days be observed, she has, in conformity with the institu- 
 tion and practice of the apostles, and the prophecy of 
 Ezekiel, fixed the sabbath upon that day upon which the 
 Creator of the world, and the author and finisher of our 
 faith, consummated our redemption by his resurrection. 
 But without a reference to a sabbath, there is no reason 
 why his resurrection should have been celebrated once in 
 seven days ; and of this difficulty his Grace seems well 
 aware, as I shall have occasion to show presently. The 
 change of day is the only proof the church gives of her 
 having determined upon a weekly commemoration of that 
 event. She even studiously avoids stating that Sunday is 
 to be observed in commemoration of the resurrection, lest 
 she might seem to exclude the sabbath ; although she has 
 expressly directed that every Friday in the year shall be 
 observed in memory of the crucifixion. She has appointed 
 one Sunday in the course of the year to be peculiarly dedi- 
 cated to the remembrance of the resurrection by name, — 
 the word easier signifying resurrect ioti. And it is very 
 remarkable that our forty-ninth canon calls Easter ' the 
 festivity of the resurrection,' a clear proof that the authors 
 of our canons did not consider Sunday, or the first day of 
 the week, e.rchiswely a festival of the resurrection, as his 
 Grace maintains it to be; for if it were, then the above 
 appellation in the canon would have applied to every Sun- 
 day, whereas it is manifest it is intended to apply to Easter- 
 sunday alone. 
 
 I cannot better elucidate the principles of the double 
 commemoration established by the apostles and church, 
 than by here taking notice of a strange inconsistency into 
 which our learned friends, the authors above (juoted, have 
 fallen in relation to this topic. 
 
 They say that tlie sabbath was instituted, for tlie first 
 
THI-: SABBATH 263 
 
 time, after the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt. 
 They acknowledge the institution to be in remembi-ance 
 of the creation in six days, and oi the rest on the seventh; 
 and that such remembrance was to be kept up by the divi- 
 sion of time into periods of seven days, one being selected 
 as a day of worship and of rest. But as to the precise day 
 of the seven to be so observed, they maintain that it had no 
 reference whatever to the actual day of rest after the crea- 
 tion ; but that it was so settled as to be commemorative of 
 a totally different event, the deliverance out of Egypt. I 
 have shown that both their facts are erroneous ; but they 
 have established the principle of the double commemora- 
 tion, viz. the creation and the rest, by the division into 
 seven days, and keeping one of them holy, and of the other 
 event by the particular day to be observed : and they con- 
 sider this principle to be interwoven with the very institu- 
 tion and estabhshment of the sabbath. And yet, O strange 
 inconsistency ! when precisely the same thing is really 
 done by the apostles and church, they cry out that it is an 
 abrogation of the sabbath ! The apostles and church pre- 
 serve the seven-days division, and the keeping one holy in 
 remembrance of the creation, and they settle the particular 
 day of religious observance on the precise day of the resur- 
 rection, in commemoration of our deliverance fi-ora the 
 bondage of sin, and from slavery to the devil, of which the 
 deliverance from Egypt is by every one considered as a 
 type. 
 
 And now as to the sabbath ; — The church, as before 
 observed, preserves that festival by adhering to the division 
 of time into weeks, and by the observance of one day of 
 each as a day of rest and of religious worship. I ndecd 
 without the sabbath, it is difficult to conceive how, or why, 
 the division into weeks could, or should, have been pre- 
 served. His Grace could not but see this difficuty ; he 
 
264 SCRIFl'UUE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 could not but notice it, and he slurs it over thus : page 1*2, 
 note ; — ' The recurrence of the christian festival every 
 seveti days (rather than once in a decade, or in a month, 
 &c.,) that is, the adoption by Christians of the division of 
 tune into weeks, may be easily traced to the circumstance 
 of their having derived their religion from the Jews, who 
 used this mode of reckoning time.' So that, according to 
 his Grace, the keeping of the festival once in seven days, 
 and the dedication of one day in seven to religious wor- 
 ship, is quite accidental, and derived from what he con- 
 siders an abohshed and obsolete custom of the Jews ! 
 But methinks his Grace is not very consistent in binding 
 Christians to the observance of those periods of seven days, 
 because they were observed by the Jews, and at the same 
 time so loudly protesting against their being bound to the 
 observance which can alone make the division, on the very 
 same grounds of its being a law of the Jews. It was the 
 sabbath, and the sabbath alone, which made the division, 
 and if the sabbath had been abrogated, the weeks would 
 also have been abolished. 
 
 The continuance of the division of time into weeks, and 
 the observance of one day in seven as a day of religious 
 worship, under the christian dispensation, rest upon much 
 higher authority than mere accident. They rest on the 
 practice and injunctions of the apostles, who, as they con- 
 tinued the division as a thing already established, must 
 have preserved the only thing which could have made the 
 division ; they must have preserved the cause and the com- 
 memoration which made that division, and which made it 
 necessary. I have before observed, that in the original 
 language, the words rest, sexien, sahhath, and week, are all 
 the same, with slight variations in their terminations. And 
 even in the Greek language, in which the apostles wrote, 
 the week, and everv dav of the week, were called hv the 
 
THE SABBATH. '265 
 
 name of sabbaths : and therefore, the apostles by con- 
 tinuing the division and the name, continued the sabbath. 
 And the universal church, and our church in particular, 
 by continuing that division, continue the sabbath. 
 
 But this is not all. Our church proclaims the command- 
 ment for the observance of the sabbath, during the time of 
 divine service, nearly one hundred times in every year: 
 and directs the members of her congregations, on every 
 such occasion, to pray to God to enable them to keep it 
 as his law : and, to give it the highest possible solemnity, 
 she connects it with the most sacred rite of the eucharist. 
 She orders it to be taught to the babes of her flock ; and 
 in confirmation, she examines them in the fourth along 
 with the other commandments, before she opens the door of 
 her fold, and sends them abroad to more extended pas- 
 tures. She proclaims it to her deacons and priests, when 
 they take upon themselves the solemn offices which con- 
 stitute them pastors to feed the sheep of the great Shep- 
 herd. She proclaims it again to her bishops, when in their 
 consecration they are appointed overseers of the pastors 
 and flocks. Bishops, priests, and deacons, on these so- 
 lemn occasions, receive it as the law of God, and pray to 
 him to incline their hearts to keep it as his law ; and they 
 ratify the acknowledgment, and the promise implied in that 
 prayer, by receiving the memorials of the death of their 
 Lord, who by that atonement, changed the observance of 
 all the commandments from a ministration of condemna- 
 tion into a ministration of reconciliation and of righteous- 
 ness ; and enabled them, while they confidently pray for 
 strength to keep those laws, at the same time, with well- 
 assured hope, to pray for mercy for having transgressed 
 them. 
 
 Let us now consider the office which our church imposes 
 upon those whom she appoints to make tliose reiterated 
 
266 SCllIPTUKE ACCOUNT OF 
 
 proclamations ; — the office and duty, which, in this respect, 
 she imposes upon her archbishops, bishops, and clergy. 
 
 "^rhe following is the rubric before the commandments. 
 ' Then shall the priest, turning to the people^ rehearse dis- 
 tinctly ALL THE TEN COMMANDMENTS : and the people, still 
 kneeling, shall, after every commandment, ask God mercy 
 for their transgression thereof for the time past, and grace 
 to keep the same for the time to come, as followeth.' 'lliere- 
 fore the minister who rehearses them, — whether he be 
 bishop, priest, or deacon, — proposes them to the people, 
 for the express purpose of calling upon them to receive 
 them with that prayer, — and in that prayer to acknowledge 
 each as the law of God. The minister then pauses, to give 
 them an opportunity of obeying that solemn call, which he 
 has thus made. And shall it be said that any minister 
 shall thus propose to the people, as the law of God, and 
 direct them to acknowledge as his law, and pray to be 
 enabled to keep as his law, — what the minister himself does 
 not beUeve to be God's law, and which he has previously 
 and publicly declared to the people not to be God's law, 
 and not to be binding on their consciences ? Awful incon- 
 sistency (to use a mild word) of the sacerdotal character 
 and office ! 
 
 The following are the opening words of his Grace's pam- 
 phlet. ' Some people, who do not really believe the Mosaic 
 law relative to the sabbath to be binding on Christians, yet 
 think it right to encourage, or tacitly connive at that belief 
 from views of expediency, for fear of unsettling the minds 
 of the common people.' 
 
 And again, in page 2.'3, sjjeaking of the duty of Cliristian 
 ministers in this respect, he says, ' They have no right, 
 even if they should think it expedient, to encourage, or 
 tacitly connive at, misconception on this subject. If I 
 should refer to the Mosaic law as the foundation of the 
 
THE SABBATH. 267 
 
 duty of observing the Lord's-day ; or so express myself as 
 to leave my hearers to suppose (as a great proportion of 
 them will, if the contrary be not stated) that I meant to 
 refer to that law as binding, I should be guilty of directly 
 fostering error.' 
 
 I request his Grace to show, that the first extract is not 
 his own opinion of, — and the second extract his own con- 
 demnation of, — his own conduct at the holy communion. 
 
 As one of those who have read his pamphlet — as a minis- 
 ter of that church of which he is a head, I solemnly call 
 upon him to reconci!e his own judgment with his own con- 
 duct at our most solemn ceremony. In the name of his 
 own clergy, whom he is bound to guide ; in the name of 
 their flocks, whom he is bound to instruct ; in the name of 
 both, to whom he is bound to be an example, — I call upon 
 him to reconcile his own conduct with truth, and to defend 
 himseK from the charge which he seems to have affixed 
 upon himself, of directly fostering, — what he conceives to 
 be, — error, from views, w'hich he avows to be, those of 
 expediency. 
 
 His Grace seems to think that the whole amount of evil, 
 which can arise from his public avowal of the opinion he 
 has adopted, is the ' fear of unsettling the minds of the 
 common people.' Hence he would lead us to suppose that 
 he is merely exposing popular errors. But the charge we 
 have to make against him is much more serious than this. 
 He is endeavouring to destroy the foundation of all re- 
 ligion. He proclaims as a law of God, what he does not 
 believe to be a law of God. He sets himself up in opposi- 
 tion to the church, whose doctrine and form of worship he 
 has promised to support and defend, «ind to whose liturgy 
 he has solemnly pledged himself to conform. 
 
 But his Grace may ask, ' Is a member of a church, or a 
 head of a church, to be prohibited from exposing the errors 
 
268 scRiPruRE account of \ 
 
 of the church to which he belongs?"' Certainly not, — pro- 
 vided he shall have first duly considered and examined the 
 grounds of his opinions, and with humble and fervent prayer 
 for divine assistance, shall have carefully and patiently 
 compared the points in doubt with the whole tenor of 
 scripture. If his doubts be not thus removed, he ought to 
 lay them before those who have the power of correcting 
 those errors, if errors they be. And if he fail in having 
 them corrected, he must choose between the alternative of 
 directly fostering error, by being obliged to teach as truth 
 what he does not believe, — or of secedmg from a church in 
 whose services he cannot conscientiously join. 
 
 But his Grace has not given this subject that deep in- 
 vestigation, or formed that mature judgment, which the case 
 required. He has hastily quoted a few arguments from 
 other authors. He has quoted texts from their books, or 
 from memory, without examining either the texts, or the 
 context, in the Bible. This charge is proved by his telling 
 us that we shall find everyivhere in Ezekiel, a text which 
 occurs only twice in one chapter, and only four times in 
 the whole Bible. It is proved that he did not attentively 
 read the miracles and discourses of our Lord to which he 
 refers, by his pronouncing actions as unlawful which our 
 Saviour maintained to be lawful ; and by his condemning 
 the disciples as guilty of violating the sabbath, whom our 
 Lord affirmed to be guiltless ; and by his having misun- 
 derstood and misrepresented our Lord's plain interpreta- 
 tions of the nature of the sabbath, and of the true spirit of 
 the Jewish law. But even if his Grace had submitted the 
 passages and arguments which lie borrowed from others to 
 the strictest and most* rigid scrutiny, still this would have 
 been a small part of the examination he should have given to 
 the question of the validity of a law confessedly divine, 
 adopted and enlbrced by the church, and generally received 
 
THE SABBATH. 269 
 
 and cherished by all Christians. He ought to have tried 
 and examined it by the whole tenor of scripture. This 
 he has not done. 
 
 But why do I make such charges against an elder of our 
 church ? Is it to depreciate his character, or that of his 
 high office ? God forbid. No one more ardently desires 
 to see that high office suitably maintained and generally 
 venerated. But 1 wish to protect both his character and 
 office from the injurious effects which must follow, and 
 have already followed, from his own publication against the 
 sabbath. And if I have used strong language condemning 
 his opinions and arguments on that subject, I have done so 
 to induce, to urge, nay, to constrain and compel, his Grace 
 to a review of the question. The most eminent judges 
 constantly re-consider their own decisions, and not unfre- 
 quently reverse them. Such revisions exalt and ennoble 
 men of high and lofty characters, who amidst the splendour 
 of their honours, which is only the reflection of the supe- 
 rior splendour of their talents and their virtues, remember 
 that they are but men, and that human nature, however ex- 
 alted by genius, or refined by virtue, is still liable to err. 
 Little minds having little to be admired, and conscious of 
 having nothing to spare, shrink from a confession of error. 
 
 His Grace has some peculiarities of an author, which 
 are dangerous to one in his high situation in the church ; 
 over these he should exercise a holy jealousy, and over 
 these I throw a veil. But I beheve him to have one pe- 
 culiarity of rather uncommon growth among authors, — an 
 amiable candour, which will induce him to give as patient 
 attention to strictures upon his opinions by any person 
 however humble, as he would to the most splendid advo- 
 cacy in their defence. To this amiable quality I appeal, 
 and descend from the language of opposition and reprehen- 
 sion to the softened tone of supplication, beseeching his 
 
270 SCRIPTURE ACCOUNT OF TIIF. SABHAI H. 
 
 Grace to re-consider his verdict and his sentence, and, re- 
 jecting all human authority, to take the Bible, the whole 
 Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as his unerring guide. 
 
 The reversal of his opinion founded on conscientious 
 conviction, would raise his character higher than it was 
 before the publication of his Thoughts on the Sabbath ; 
 would confer benefits on the cause of religion, greatly 
 counterbalancing the evils he has unintentionally caused ; 
 would heal the wounds he has unwittingly inflicted on ten- 
 der consciences, and be one great step towards his recover- 
 ing the confidence of the clergy of our church in general, 
 and of his own diocese in particular, and of the protes- 
 tant community at large. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 LONDON : 
 moTSON AND r.VLlMF.R, PIlINTEns, SAVOV-STRKET. STRAND 
 
NEW BOOKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 JOHN HATCHARD AND SON, 
 187, PICCADILLY. 
 
 I. 
 An EXPOSITION of the FOUR GOSPELS, by the late 
 
 Rev. Thomas Adam, Rector of Wintringham, Author of "Private 
 Thoughts;" together with a Life, written by the Rev. A. Westoey, A.M. in 
 2 vols. 8vo. 24s. 
 
 N. B. The Life, and Exposition of the three latter Gospels, were never 
 before published. 
 
 IL 
 SERMONS TO A COUNTRY CONGREGATION. By 
 
 Augustus William Hare, late Fellow of New College, and Rector of 
 Alton Barnes. In 2 vols. 12ino. 
 
 IIL 
 
 A PRACTICAL EXPOSITION OF ST. PAUL'S EPIS- 
 TLE TO THE ROMANS. With an Appendix. 12mo. By the Rev. 
 Robert Anderson, Perpetual Curate of Trinity Chapel, Brighton. Third 
 Edition, much Enlarged. 
 
 IV. 
 
 DISCOURSES ON THE BEATITUDES, By the Rev. 
 
 Robert Anderson, of Trinity Chapel, Brighton, Author of Discourses on 
 the " Communion Office," and on the " Romans." 12mo. boards. 
 
 V. 
 
 CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE. 
 
 1st. IN THE OBJECT OF LIFE. 
 2nd. IN THE KDLE OF LIKE. 
 
 3rd. IN HIS intercourse with 
 
 THE WORLD. 
 
 4th. IN HIS CONDITION OF LIFE. 
 ,'>th. IN HIS SORROWS. 
 6th. IN HIS JOYS. 
 7th. IN HIS DEATH. 
 
 I3v the Author of the " Listener," " Daily Readings," &c. Fifth Edition, 
 foolscap, 6s. cloth. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The INIINISTERIAL CHARACTER of CHRIST practi- 
 cally considered. By Charles R. Sumner, D. D. Bishop of Winchester. 
 8vo. Second Edition, enlarged. I2s. boards. 
 
Neio Books Published by Hutchard and Son, 1H7, Piccadilly. 
 
 VII. 
 A PRACTICAL EXPOSITION OF THE COSPELS 
 
 OF ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK ; in the form of Lectures, intended 
 to assist the practice of Domestic Instruction and l^'evotion. By Johv 
 Bino Sumner, D.D., Lord ISisIiop of Chester. A New Edition, in 2 vols 
 ]2mo. 9s. boiirds. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 By the same, a New Edition, 
 
 SERMONS ON THE PRINCIPAL FESTIVALS OF 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; to which are added. Three Sermons on 
 Good Friday. 8vo. 10s. 6d. boards, or 12mo. 6s. boards. 
 
 IX. 
 
 By the same, a New Edition, 
 
 A SERIES OF SERMONS on the CHRISTIAN FAITH 
 
 and CHARACTER, Eighth Edition, 8vo. 10s. 6d. boards, or l'2rao. 
 6s. boards. 
 
 X. 
 
 THE MUTUAL RECOGNITION and EXALTED FE- 
 LICITY of GLORIFIED SAINTS. By the Rev. Robert Meek, Rector 
 of Brixton Deverill, Wilts. Author of " Reasons for Attachment and 
 Conformity to the Churcli of England," &c. A new Edition, l!2mo.3s. boards. 
 
 XL 
 The POCKET EDITION of 
 The HON. MISS GRIMSTON'S PRAYER-BOOK and 
 
 LESSONS. Arranged in such a manner that one volume is complete for the 
 Morning Service and Lessons ; another for the Evening. In two vols, 
 royal 32mo. Price 16s. in calf; 21s. in morocco ; 24s. in morocco, elegant. 
 
 XIT. 
 
 PAROCHIAL SERMONS, By the Hon. and Rev, Samuel 
 
 Best, A. M., Rector of Abbots Ann, Hants. 12mo, 5s. 6d. boards. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN ARMED: A CATE- 
 CHISM for the .luvenile Branches of the Church of England by the Rkv. 
 TnEoriiiLus BinouM-ii, A. M., Minister of St. Matthew, Bristol," late Fellow* 
 of Corpus Christi College, O.xon. Second Edition, Is. cloth. 
 
 XIV. 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE liELIGIOUS WORKS of 
 
 THOMAS NEWTON, D. D., Late Bisl.op of Bristol. Author of" Disser- 
 tations on the Prophecies." With a Biographical Sketch. 12mo. 6s. cloth. 
 
i—^y^^ 
 
 1 1 
 
 012 01003 3241 
 
 ' ' 1-. ■; --:;-»:— -» 
 
 
 
 ■-p?.\?-ir?Si^|