institution was first to be considered.

The

former opinion precludes all debate about the extent of the obligation; the latter admits, and, primâ facie, induces, a belief that the sabbath ought to be considered as part of the peculiar law of the Jewish policy.

Which belief receives great confirmation from the following arguments:

The sabbath is described as a sign between God and the people of Israel :-" Wherefore "the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, "to observe the sabbath throughout their

66

66

generations for a perpetual covenant; it is

à sign between me and the children of "Israel for ever." Exodus xxxi. 16, 17. Again: "And I gave them my statutes, and "showed them my judgements, which if a 66 man do he shall even live in them; more

66

over also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a 66 sign between me and them, that they might "know that I am the Lord that sanctify "them." Ezek. xx. 12.-Now it does not seem easy to understand how the sabbath could be a sign between God and the people of Israel, unless the observance of it was pe culiar to that people, and designed to be so.

The distinction of the sabbath is, in its nature, as much a positive ceremonial insti

tution, as that of many other seasons which were appointed by the Levitical law to be kept holy, and to be observed by a strict rest; as the first and seventh days of unleavened bread; the feast of Pentecost; the feast of Tabernacles: and in the twentythird chapter of Exodus, the sabbath and these are recited together.

If the command by which the sabbath was instituted, be binding upon Christians, it must be binding as to the day, the duties, and the penalty; in none of which it is received.

The observance of the sabbath was not one of the articles enjoined by the Apostles, in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, upon them "which, from among the Gentiles, were 66 turned unto God."

St. Paul evidently appears to have considered the sabbath as part of the Jewish ritual, and not obligatory upon Christians as such:"Let no man therefore judge you in "meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath

66

પ

days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." Col. ii. 16, 17.

I am aware of only two objections which

can be opposed to the force of these argu ments: one is, that the reason assigned in the fourth commandment for hallowing the seventh day, namely, "because God rested

on the seventh day from the work of the "creation," is a reason which pertains to all mankind; the other, that the command which enjoins the observance of the sabbath is inserted in the Decalogue, of which all the other precepts and prohibitions are of moral and universal obligation.

Upon the first objection it may be remarked, that although in Exodus the commandment is founded upon God's rest from the creation, in Deuteronomy the commandment is repeated with a reference to a different event:" Six days shalt thou labour, and do "all thy work; but the seventh day is the "sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou "shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant,

nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor "thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor the

stranger that is within thy gates; 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

66

by a stretched-out arm; therefore the "Lord thy God commanded thee to keep "the sabbath-day." It is farther observable, that God's rest from the creation is proposed as the reason of the institution, even where the institution itself is spoken of as peculiar to the Jews:-" Wherefore the "children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, "to observe the sabbath throughout their "generations, for a perpetual covenant: it is 66 a sign between me and the children of Is"rael for ever: for in six days the Lord "made heaven and earth, and on the seventh "day he rested and was refreshed." The truth is, these different reasons were assigned, to account for different circumstances in the command. If a Jew inquired, why the seventh day was sanctified rather than the sixth or eighth, his law told him, because God rested on the seventh day from the creation. If he asked, why was the same rest indulged to slaves? his law bade him remember, that he also was a slave in the land of Egypt, and "that the Lord his God brought him out "thence." In this view, the two reasons are perfectly compatible with each other, and with a third end of the institution, its being

a sign between God and the people of Israel; but in this view they determine nothing concerning the extent of the obligation. If the reason by its proper energy had constituted a natural obligation, or if it had been mentioned with a view to the extent of the obligation, we should submit to the conclusion that all were comprehended by the command who are concerned in the reason. But the sabbatic rest being a duty which results from the ordination and authority of a positive law, the reason can be alleged no farther than as it explains the design of the legislator and if it appear to be recited with an intentional application to one part of the law, it explains his design upon no other; if it be mentioned merely to account for the choice of the day, it does not explain his design as to the extent of the obligation.

With respect to the second objection, that inasmuch as the other nine commandments are confessedly of moral and universal obligation, it may reasonably be presumed that this is of the same; we answer, that this argument will have less weight, when it is considered that the distinction between positive and natural duties, like other distinctions of modern ethics, was unknown to the