than arbitrary.We believe the Sabbath, the one day out of seven, is the result of this all-embracing knowledge.

We cannot, of course, enter upon the very many direct arguments drawn from the Old Testament, to prove the Sabbath to have been an institution intended for all mankind and to be of universal obli

gation. We think it is impossible for an unsophisticated person to read even the passages of Genesis, in which the first mention of it is made, without answering the question in the affirmative, or without feeling that Paley's interpretation of them is merely intended for the nonce. We think, moreover, that the weekly division of time, a custom so prevalent amongst almost all nations, and only to be explained by the traditionary accounts of the Sabbath; the allusions (obscure, we admit) to the observance of some such day, which lie scattered through the patriarchal history references to the sabbatic institution, and injunctions to observe it, before the promulgation of the law-the very terms in which the fourth commandment is couched, implying, as they do, the previous institution-the language in which our Saviour alludes to the dayall these we cannot help regarding as strongly confirmatory of the proposition that the Sabbath was not intended for the Jews only, but for "men"-for the species. These various arguments are stated in

Dr. Wardlaw's admirable Lectures upon this subject, with that peculiar force and perspicuity for which that writer is so justly celebrated.

"1. In the first place, the plain and simple language of the passage itself. I need not read it again. Only bear in mind, that it is the continuation of a narrative. You have no business with its being the beginning of a chapter. It should be read as if there were no inter

ruption. In the preceding part of the narrative, you find the record of the transactions of each in succession of the six days of creation; and here, in the very same simple historical style, you have the account of the seventh, completing the narrative of the first week:-and, per haps, the second chapter might have be gun, with greater propriety, at the fourth verse, 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, in the day when they were created,' &c. What the historian says of the seventh day, he relates as done at the time, with the same simplicity with which he relates the transactions of each of the preceding days, as done at the time. So far as the mere it is of these alone we now speak,) there terms of the record are concerned, (and is just as much reason for considering the creation itself, as narrated by anticipa tion, and as not having taken place till 2,500 years afterwards, as there is for conceiving this to have been the case in regard to the institution of the day for its commemoration. The resting of Jehovah on that day, and the blessing and sanctify. ing of that day, are alike related as having then taken place: there being no hint, and no change of construction, indicative, in the remotest degree, of its being a mere allusion to what had no existence till five and twenty centuries had passed away, and then only in one nation, and for a limited time, as one of the institutes of a temporary ceremonial. If it be so, I am at a loss to know on what principle historical language is to be interpreted.

"2. I would argue, secondly, from the nature of the thing. It admitted that the object of the Sabbath, whensoever instituted, was the commemorating God's work of creation. If so, is it not reasonable to conclude, that the commemoration commenced from the time that the work to be commemorated was completed? Is not this of a piece with other recorded instances, such as the Passover, and the Lord's Supper, in which the commemorative ordinance begins to be celebrated from the date of the event, and in this way becomes a proof and a memorial both of fact and of time? If the day was to be sacred to the memory of creation, and to the worship of the almighty, all-wise, and all-bountiful Creator, is it not a strange supposition, that the memorial and the worship should not have been instituted till two millenniums and a half after the event? And is it not hardly less strange, that an event, (if an event that may be called which, as far as our own world is concerned, was the origin of all events, being the preparation of their theatre, and the date of their commence

ment)--that an event, which was alike interesting to mankind at large, and bore the same relation to the whole race, should have been restricted in the commemoration of it to one people, and to one age? The utmost, surely, that can be said for the supposition is, that it is not impossible. This much we shall grant; but we cannot grant it to be, even in the very lowest degree, either natural or probable.

"I cannot but consider my argument here as receiving very decided countenance and support from the words of our Lord, when (in a passage which we shall have occasion to quote more particularly on the subject of the observance of the day) he says to the Jews, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' To me it appears indisputable, that MAN' must here be understood generically,--that is, of the human race. The words naturally and irresistibly, lead our minds to the time of his being made,'-the time of creation. The Sabbath was not first created, and man created to observe it: but man was first created, and the Sabbath was instituted for his benefit. Even if the first part of the antithesis had stood alone-- The Sabbath was made for man,' the inference would have been natural, that man did not mean the Jews merely, but mankind; when then the other part is added-'Not man for the Sabbath,' it becomes unavoidable :-the association is clearly established, by the authority of Christ himself, of the institation of the Sabbath with the creation of man; and the Sabbath itself is thus ascertained to have been an ordinance appointed for the first progenitors of our race, and for all their progeny....

"4. I argue the same thing, in the fourth place, from the admitted origin of the division of time into weeks of seven days. It is difficult, if not impossible, to trace this division to any other origin. The phases of the moon, indeed, or her four quarters, as we are accustomed to term them, have been plausibly alleged as affording a sufficiently natural account of it; but a lunar month does not correspond with four times seven days-exceeding the four weeks by a full day and and a half. Yet this hebdomadal division of time has existed among all nations, in north, south, east, and west, from the earliest periods to which history and tradition reach; and it is a curious fact, that, amidst all the forgetfulness of God, and the fearful degeneracy and corruption of mankind and of divine institutions, in this our world, hints of the sacredness of the seventh day occur in very ancient heathen poets, and remnants of the prac

tice of its observance are found to have all along existed amongst the different tribes of the human family.....

"5. The same thing is apparent, fifthly, from the very terms in which the first mention is made of the Sabbatlı by the historian of the Exodus,-- terms which, according to Dr. Paley, record its first institution. Look to the passage--Exod. xvi. 16-30. The historian is speaking of the Manna; and having described its appearance, and the inquisitive surprise of the people on seeing it, he thus proceeds :-This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents. And the children of Israel did so, and gathered some more, some less. And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack: they gathered every man according to his eating. And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning. Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank: and Moses was wrath with them. And they gathered it every morning every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted. 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 Sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, 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, 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 day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, 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. So the people rested on the seventh day."

"Having read the passage, I would put the question to any man of ordinary understanding and candid simplicity, whether he can imagine this to be the manner in which a religious observance, entirely new, quite unknown before, would have been first legally instituted? Whether is it likeliest the formality of legislation, or the incidental mention of an institution previously known?....

"6. In the sixth place, the terms of that law itself. You will find them, Exod. xx. 8-11. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 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, thy man-servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath-day, and hallowed it.' It will not be disputed, that the language, Remember the sab bath-day, to keep it holy,' is language which assumes, or presupposes its existence. I grant, that if by any one who hears me the original institution of the Sabbath can be considered as contained in the sixteenth chapter of the same Book, on which we have been commenting, then this style may be consistently enough explained. But if the words in that passage 'To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord,' cannot on any natural principle, be interpreted as the first enactment of the law of the Sabbath

then the terms of the fourth command

ment must refer to a more ancient time of institution: and there is no other to which it can refer but the time of crea

tion—the time in our text. That it has this reference, and can have no other, is rendered most strikingly manifest by the terms of the reason assigned in this commandment for its observance ;-for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.”pp. 7-20.

The great circumstance, however, which convinces us that the Sabbath is of universal obligation, is the place assigned it in the Jewish code; amongst those ten commands which are founded on no temporary covenants, and which, though necessarily forming a part of every dispensation, and there

fore of the Jewish, are peculiar to none. They are evidently the sum and substance of all moral truth, and are of eternal obligation-the comprehensive principles on which all religion is based. That unusual importance was to be at

We

tached to these commandments is apparent, not only from their nature, but equally so from the form into which they are thrown-the place they occupy-the insulation by which they are separated, as it were, from the rest of the law-the circumstances under which they were uttered by the supreme Legislator. The usual argument by which it is met is, that the law of the ten commands, as part of the Mosaic dispensation, is abrogated. verily believe that the dispute upon this subject is, with the exception of a few desperate Antinomians, a mere piece of logomachy; inasmuch as those who assert this abrogation, do not mean to deny that every one of the laws in question is substantially binding upon us. We are not more at liberty to covet our neighbour's goods, or dishonour our parents, or blaspheme the name of Jehovah, than the Jews were. Nay, it is admitted, that it is quite the reverse; that the requirements of the Gospel are more spiritual, and therefore more extensive. Now if nine of the aforesaid commands are binding on Christians-for if their meaning is retained, it matters not how it is expressed-why should not this be the case with the fourth as well as the rest? The whole of these objections, drawn from the change of dispensation, are triumphantly met by Dr. W. in his second lecture, from which we make the following ex

tracts:

"The evidence being so unsatisfactinction between these commandments tory, of the accidental nature of the disand others, there is, of course, equally

little ground for the further allegation, that the sole reason of these Commandments being committed to the tables of stone, was the fact of their having been thus accidentally distinguished; this fact alone being supposed to have given them their peculiar eminence, as a select specimen of the precepts of the God of Israel; and the honour of being recorded in stone having been added, in consequence of the previous accidental honour of having been exclusively uttered by the Divine voice. It appears to me sufficiently clear, that they were both uttered from heaven, and inscribed on stone, as being precepts of primary and comprehensive importance, containing the great essential articles of the people's obedience; and that, on this account, they are denominated so repeatedly the covenant,' and the tables containing them, the 'tables of the covenant.'

"Yet on these grounds, and others to which the discussion will immediately lead, it has been argued, that the Decalogue is no more of permanent and universal obligation, than any other parts of the Mosaic institutes; that its obligation was limited to the Jews, and came to a close with the Old Testament dispensation; and that it forms no part of the law of Christian duty.....

"I would farther ask what is a law? Is it the mere form of words, in which a duty is enjoined, or a sin prohibited? Is it not, rather, the injunction of the duty, and the prohibition of the sin, under whatever form of words they are conveyed? The same duties may be commanded, and the same sins forbidden, in different terms, and yet the law itself remain unchanged. A question, therefore, naturally suggests itself, namely, Does the law of Christ, as given in the New Testament, correspond in its requirements to the law of the two tables? If it does; then, even on the supposition of the terms being different in which the requirements are expressed,-to say that the precepts of the latter are abrogated, and are no longer binding on Christians, will be to say no more than that the form of words is set aside, while the law itself continues the same. It is the matter of duty, and not the expression, that constitutes the law. We can readily conceive the legal codes of two nations to be very different in their forms of expression, and yet substantially, and even to the minutest item, to contain the same enactments. Should we not, in such a case, say of the two countries, that they were governed by the same laws?

"The same sentiment, namely, that it is the essential elements of duty, and not

any forms of words in which these elements may be embodied, that constitute the law, may be further confirmed and illustrated, by considering what was the state of things before the giving of the law to Israel. Sin is scripturally defined 'the transgression of law;' and, while it is the maxim both of inspiration and of common sense, that 'where no law is, there is no transgression,' it is not less clear, that where there is no transgression, there can be no punitive infliction. On these principles, as we formerly saw, the apostle Paul argues, that since there was death before the giving of the law, there must have been sin: and that, consequently, there must have been a law before that given by Moses, of which sin was the transgression;-- a law which was the common rule of obligation to the human race, and of which men universally, Gentiles and Jews alike, were the violators, and, as such, under a common damnatory sentence. The moral obligations of Jews and Gentiles, considered as fellow-members of the human family, must ever have been the same; and the apostle's argument with the Jews requires us to believe, that the moral law, as given by Moses, was substantially (that is in all its essential principles and requirements) the same with what had existed from the beginning, of which sin was the transgression, and death the sanction. deed, in the moral government of God over his creature, we cannot imagine the existence of two laws. The relations of God to men, and of men to God, have always been the same; and the same obligations on the part of the creature have arisen out of them...

....

In

"It has, to my mind, much the appearance of quirk and evasion to allege, and yet it has been alleged with all seriousness by men of sound judgment and acute discrimination,--that it is not as given to the Jews that the precepts of the Mosaic law are binding upon Christians. This is very true; but is a mere truism; it has the sound of an argument, but no more. For, to what does it amount? Only to this; that it is not as given to one man, that a command is binding upon another. The law of God is not obligatory upon you, when considered as enjoined upon me. As given to the Jews, it was, of course, binding upon the Jews only. This is too self-evident to be worthy of formal statement. The sole question ought to be, whether the ten commandments, uttered from Sinai by the voice of God, and by his finger written on the tables of stone, do, or do not, contain a summary of the leading articles of moral duty. If they do, they were binding be

fore, they have been binding since, and they must be binding to the end. They have never been binding, however, either before or since, because they were given to the Jews; but they were given to the Jews, because they were the principles, universally and perpetually obligatory, of moral rectitude.

"The idea of the ten commandments containing such a summary, has been treated by the writer formerly adverted to, and by some others, with a sarcastic ridicule, which might, perhaps, have been as wisely spared. We have already seen how flimsy the foundation is, for the theory of that writer, by which the pre. eminence of these precepts above others is resolved into a mere contingency. Had the principle of that theory been correct, it would have followed, that any other ten of the precepts of the Mosaic law, did we only suppose them to have been uttered first-that is, to have preceded the alleged interruption of the divine voice by the fears of the people,-would have answered the same end, and would have suited equally well for being committed to the tables of stone, and denominated, the words of the covenant.' But we are instantly and strongly sensible that this is as far as possible from being the case. In point of fact, these ten commandments have been almost universally allowed to contain a comprehensive syllabus of principles; of the great articles of religious and moral duty; duty to God, and duty to men. And not, I am satisfied, without more plausible reason. Let us glance at them for a moment. The former of the two tables (as we are ac. customed to divide them) contains four precepts, which regulate our duty to God, Of these, the first enjoins the exclusive appropriation of religious veneration, homage, and service, to the one God: the second prescribes the spirituality of the divine worship, assuming the spirituality of its object, as incapable of being represented by any external similitude; the third commands the sacredness of the name of Jehovah, and of every thing with which that name is associated; and the fourth ordains the constancy and regularity of God's worship, and of the solemn commemoration of the doings of his hands. Now these precepts are unquestionably most comprehensive. If we worship and serve the one God only; if we worship and serve him according to his spiritual nature; if we hold in habitual and practical reverence his name and character; and if we bear in constant devout remembrance and comme

moration the wonders of his wisdom, power, and goodness, there will be lit

tle deficient in either our outward feelings, or our outward duties, to our Maker.-And the second table is hardly less comprehensive in its arrangement and general principles, as a manual of our duties to one another. It begins with the first of earthly relations, and the obligations arising out of it, as the foundation and origin of all the rest, and the germ and pattern of the duties belonging respectively to them then follow, consecutively, the ordained sacredness of life, of chastity, of property, of reputation, and of every thing pertaining to our neighbour; the last commandment, at the same time, intimating, as a kind of key to the rest, that they were all to be interpreted as the laws of him who searches the reins and hearts,' and as regulating the thoughts and desires, as well as the words and actions. Now, surely, if we are duly regardful, in thought, in word, and in deed, of our neighbour's life, of his purity, of his property, of his character, and of every thing that pertains to him, never wishing him evil, never grudging him good ;-he will have little cause to complain of any thing wanting, either in the frame of our mind, or in the course of our conduct. The tables of stone, with the law of the ten commandments graven upon them, were, by divine direction, to be deposited in the ark, or little chest of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold, ordered to be made for its reception; and the ark, thus containing the 'testimony,' and thence called the ark of the testimony,' was to be the resting-place of the mercy-seat, between the cherubim, from which Jehovah was graciously to commune with his people, through their priestly representative. The mercyseat was a beautiful type of Christ, through whom it is that Jehovah is propitious to sinners; and the circumstance of the mercy-seat being placed upon the ark of the testimony, was strikingly significant of the consistency of the grace of the gospel with the claims of the law,--of the exercise of mercy through the blood of the covenant with the unabated demands of legal righteousness. And this view of the typical arrangement of the Holy of Holies, may itself serve as an additional proof of the comprehensiveness of the law of the two tables."--pp. 36--47.

Of those peculiarities about the Jewish Sabbath, which were truly national, and of the ease with which they admitted of being modifed, or altogether detached, without affecting the substance of the