tion, humanity, morality, and religion: therefore the Lord, &c.' Or thus:-'for the Lord Jesus Christ, having died for our sins, rose from the dead on the first day: therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.'

Whether the commandment would remain the same in substance with either of these alterations-whether the apostles have sanctioned either-or whether a real Christian can, without such a sanction, adopt either of them, must be left to every one's own conscience to determine.

At all events the Sabbatarian possesses this important advantage, that when he is present at church, and hears the solemn recital of the Fourth Commandment as now binding upon Christians, he can with the utmost sincerity toward God and man unite with the congregation in praying, 'Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!'

153

CHAPTER VII.

Differences of Opinion concerning the Claim of the First Day to be the Weekly Sabbath by Divine Authority.

THE title of this Chapter will, I suppose, excite no small surprise in many, (should many ever hear of this little Work,) since Christians at large know not that any who bear that name. think otherwise than that the first day is the weekly sabbath according to the New Testament. I imagine, however, that this surprise will be moderated in a degree, upon recollecting some of the observations that were made in the first Chapter relative to the difference of opinion concerning the nature of a weekly sabbath, among those who profess to keep the first day. It was there shown, that if all those who in theory as well as in practice withhold from the sabbath. no small portion of the time and of the religious exercises-particularly those of a domestic, private, or mental nature, which, according to the sentiments of the pious in general, (in the British dominions at least, whether Churchmen or Dissenters,) are its due, were excepted from the number of those who are said to sanctify the first day, the ranks of those who account it to be

the weekly sabbath would be materially thinned. But it will be better for me not to notice, at present, the opinions of many among the professed observers of the first day themselves on its right to consecration, together with the extent and mode of sanctification to which that right entitles, or is thought to entitle it. I shall, therefore, consider none except the Sabbatarians as denying its scriptural authority: a denial which can excite no wonder, after what has been stated concerning their denying the repeal of the seventh day sabbath, and their reasons for so doing.

Before I enter upon the subject I wish to observe, that the non-repeal of the seventh day sabbath would not be disproved by the proof of the first day's claim to sanctification, were it ever so satisfactory. It would only follow that there were two weekly sabbaths; and the improbability of this no more weakens the argument for the non-repeal, than it does that for the new institution.

That there is no formal appointment of the first day for a weekly sabbath by Christ or his apostles, is, I believe, almost universally admitted. But it is insisted that the want of direct evidence in support of its divine authority (were it wholly wanting) is amply supplied by circumstantial evidence. I am not unwilling to examine the nature, extent, and force, of the evi

dence referred to. But before I do so, I cannot but express my doubts beforehand, whether any thing short of direct evidence will suffice in a case of this nature. In my opinion, no events happening on a certain day, however supernatural or beneficial, can render or prove that day sacred, without a divine command to that effect. They only render the day of the month, and its annual return, perhaps, remarkable. Neither would the performance of religious acts on it, though the most solemn, convert it into a sacred day, without the notice aforesaid. The acts themselves are indeed suitable to a sabbath, but by no means prove that the day in question is one, since they may be and often are performed on a common day-most of them, perhaps, weekly. The persons, too, who performed or enjoined them on the day, though inspired, do not make or prove the day a sabbath, except they tell us that they did it on that account: for they might have done the same for reasons that were merely personal, local, or temporary; and the acts themselves are no more than others have or might have done, though uninspired. In fine, a day attended with all the circumstances that have been mentioned, could have no right to an appellation given by Scripture to a day, without naming it, and apparently implying a sacred character, when there was another day to claim

it, which Scripture never stated otherwise than as sacred-especially as the title itself was not altogether free from ambiguity.

I know that the seventh day was appointed at the close of the Creation to be a weekly sabbath, because God is expressly said to have 'sanctified' it-that is, set it apart for holy purposes. But without this declaration, neither God's resting on it after his great and good work, nor any religious act recorded to have been performed on it, even weekly, by the Patriarchs, could have proved that they acted in obedience to the divine authority, and much less that others were obliged to do so, because they did. The case of sacrifices shall be considered presently.

I must observe, further, that were it possible to prove the divine institution of a sabbath without direct evidence, the want of that evidence in such a case would be an unique. There is no divine institution among all the institutions upon sacred record, before or since the flood, under the Patriarchal, Jewish, or Christian dispensation, like that of the first day sabbath, if it be one. case of sacrifices is not similar to it. Abraham, Jacob, and Job, were ordered by the Divine Being to offer sacrifices. [See Genesis, chapters 15, 22, and 35. and Job, ch. 42.] The divine institution of sacrifices among the Jews is manifest. As to the Patriarchs before the time of Abraham,

The