Paul's actual separation followed long after they were borne, so the actual sanctification of the sabbath might follow long after the ground of God's decree for the sanctification of that day, and the destination of it to that use." Be it so; yet if God has set apart a particular day, without express limitation to a particular people, it is imperative upon every human being to observe it. The unlimited appropriation of it to religion by the Sovereign Lord, WHENEVER it took place, constitutes an universal obligation, not to be infringed, without heinous criminality in the creature. Should it, then, be conceded that the sanctification of the sabbath was only predetermined or destinated at the close of creation, as Archbishop Bramhall expresses it, while its actual sanctification followed long after, it will make no difference in the universality of the obligation, since it must ever be offensive in the sight of the Almighty, to reject the observance of a day which he has at any time unrestrictedly blessed and sanctified.

We know, from the infallible declaration of Scripture, that "the sabbath was made for man "," and as the Deity can derive no advantage from the sacred appropriation of the seventh day, it

Archbishop Bramhall, Discourse on the Sabbath, in Works, p. 912. See Jurieu, Histoire des Dogmes, P. i. cap. xvi. p. 119. Mark ii. 27.

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

render it binding upon all; for we are not called upon in this argument to make such a scrutiny. Whatever may be the precise meaning of the blessing and sanctification of the seventh day, it evidently implies some distinction, which, as it most unquestionably was not for the sake of the Deity himself, must be for the sake of man; and as it was the appointment of a benignant Creator, it must have been designed for the BENEFIT of man; but if such be the design of the institution, it is obligatory upon all in every place where the light of Revelation has been diffused.

It has also been frequently urged, that some portion of time is required by the law of nature to be allotted to the worship of the Deity, but, as this portion can only be determined by the Maker and Governor of the world, it cannot be thought that he would leave his creatures at any time without directions on a matter of such vast importance. As some particular day must be set apart for religious exercises, so religion requires some social duties as public prayer and worship; but such a union as the performance of these duties demands would be impossible, except the particular day were pointed out by the Almighty. Nor is it reasonable to suppose, that God would suffer his intelligent creatures to remain so many ages, as rolled on from the creation to the Exode, without an institution, from which not only many

1

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. Without 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: 'Therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and set it apart.' (That is the true import of the word hallowed it.') These words, you will observe, 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