advantages are derived, but which seems absolutely necessary to the maintenance of religion in the world.-Such are the arguments which have been urged by writers on this subject, to which it has been replied, that it is not more necessary for the Deity to prescribe the portion of time for religious services, than the place, which he has not thought fit to do, either under the Patriarchal or Christian dispensations: that there seems no more reason for the Deity to point out the particular day than the particular place, since both these circumstances might be left to the determination of the Patriarchs, just as the mode of sanctifying the sabbath was to that of the Israelites: and that the alleged improbability of God's suffering his creatures to remain for many ages without the benefits of a sabbath, is to decide upon what is fit and expedient in the divine proceedings, of which the human understanding is incompetent to judge.

Of these arguments different minds will entertain different opinions, nor is it easy, after duly weighing them, to say on which side they preponderate. To argue upon what is expedient or inexpedient in the divine operations is a mode of reasoning extremely fallacious, as it requires a knowledge of the whole of the case, which is impossible to the limited faculties of man. With out an insight into the divine counsels it is in vain

to decide on such points, for that which appears to us improper, may be, and no doubt is, right and expedient, could we know the deep things of the divine administration. This is clearly demonstrated by Bishop Butler in his Analogy; and if the arguments above stated assume such a power of deciding upon the fitness of the divine proceedings, they are so far built on fallacious ground. I am inclined to consider them in this light, and would not, therefore, lay much stress upon them. At all events they may be dispensed with, as, without them, abundance of positive reasons evince the permanent obligation of the sabbatical appointment from the Pentateuchal record of it".

It has been often argued that the sabbath must have been prior to Moses, as the fourth commandment begins with referring to the prior observation of it, "Remember the sabbath-day to keep it holy," as the proper rendering is, and not as in E. T. "Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath-day." (Dr. Kennicott, Two Dissertations, p. 136.) From the same commandment Bishop Horsley argues that " the terms in which the reason of the ordinance [of the sabbath] is assigned plainly describe it as an institution of an earlier age: blessed the seventh day, and set it apart.' port of the word hallowed it.') These serve, express a past time. It is not said, Therefore the Lord now blesses the seventh day, and sets it apart; but therefore he did bless it, and set it apart in time past; and he now requires that you his chosen people should be observant of that ancient institution.'” (Sermon xxii. vol. ii. p. 198.) A learned

Therefore the Lord (That is the true im. words, you will ob

In the conclusion, therefore, that the sabbath was instituted at the close of the creation, and enjoined upon all the posterity of the protoplastic pair, established as it is by evidence so satisfactory, the devout believers in Revelation are bound to acquiesce. No cavils, which profane

foreigner also observes, "Nullibi dicitur, quæ hac die ommittenda, et quæ agenda sint, quod arguit, hæc consuetudine nota fuisse." Jahn, Archæologia Biblica, § 346.

But to all these arguments, it may be replied, that the promulgation of the Decalogue from Mount Sinai was subsequent to the giving of manna for the sustenance of the Israelites in the wilderness, when the sabbath was commanded to be observed; (Exod. xvi.) and the phraseology of the fourth commandment may have reference to that transaction. When indeed it is proved that the sabbath was not instituted in the wilderness, the reference, if any, must be to its primæval institution: but still such reference in the fourth commandment to a prior observation of the sabbath, cannot, in itself, prove the antiquity and universality of the original institution. Supposing this established, the reference no doubt may be to it; but allowing the fact of such reference, it would be unfair to conclude that it must be to the institution of the sabbath in Genesis, as it may be to a subsequent institution in the wilderness.

To Bishop Horsley's reasoning it may also be objected, that the Hebrew preterite tense is too indefinite to be a safe ground for his conclusion; and to the observation of Jahn, that the omission he speaks of may have been owing to some other cause than the one assigned. If the "quæ ommittenda et agenda" were not specified for some other reason, as is certainly very possible, it will not follow that they were previously customary and well known.

ingenuity may delight to invent, should be allowed for a moment to shake a conviction resting upon the sound interpretation of the sacred Scriptures. Having discovered that the primæval sanctification of the sabbath is declared in the very commencement of the volume of inspiration, it is our duty to retain, in the confidence of humble piety, a truth which, like every other revealed in the book of life, is of vast importance. Highly interesting must it be to those who, bursting the shackles which enchain them to the world, are awakened to a deep sense of religion, to be assured of the divine origin of an institution so adapted to promote the happiness and spiritual good of man. At the origination of the present order of things, while the human race were yet in their pristine purity, and in the enjoyment of newly-bestowed existence, the sabbath was enjoined; it was to be observed in perpetual generations as the memorial of the celestial wisdom and benignity in creation; and the command will be gratefully obeyed by all who consult the sacred repose of their souls, till they attain the beatified rest in heaven, of which the sabbath on earth is a typical representation.

Though the sanctity of the sabbath remounts to the very infancy of the world, the inquiry remains, whether any alteration has been made in it by divine authority in the successive revelations

H

must clearly have been intended for the benefit of his rational creatures; but this benefit could only partially accrue, except it were appointed an ordinance for ever. The sabbath, as appears from the very terms of the record in Genesis, was intended to commemorate the origination of the universe in six days, to preserve a sense of the power, wisdom, and goodness of God displayed in it, to afford a stated season of rest from worldly toil, and to form a regularly returning festival hallowed with religious services. In these respects it must be for ever equally useful, not more so to the Jew, than the Gentile, to the bond than the free, nor in one age more than another, but will continue of the same high interest and importance in each successive generation of men. When can the celebration of it, therefore, be supposed to have commenced, but at the time immediately succeeding the transaction to be commemorated? And can it be reconcileable with infinite goodness and mercy, to limit it to the peculiar polity of the Hebrew race? A divinely appointed institution, the benefits of which are coextensive with mankind, one may well suppose, must, in the boundless beneficence of heaven, be designed for universal reception. It is idle to reply, that we are incompetent to determine how far the advantages of an institution may extend, or whether its effects are so beneficial to all as to