Scriptures, peruse with pleasure. Yet are the imperfections of the external evidence no less strange, or difficult to be accounted for, than the defect of the other: but happily, the Old Testament does no more want the support of the one, than the institution of the seventh day sabbath at the end of the Creation, wants the other.

CHAPTER V.

Differences of Opinion concerning the Seventh Day observed by the Jews as the Weekly Sabbath.

No one, so far as I know, doubts that the day kept by the Jews in the Wilderness of Sin, (Exodus 16.) was the same with that, the weekly return of which was afterwards ordered to be kept by the Fourth Commandment. But it has been asked, What seventh day was this? Was it the same in rotation with the seventh day which was appointed in Paradise for the weekly sabbath, or was it a different day?-No one, I believe, ever questioned its being the same, prior to our Lord's ascension. There is no notice given in Exodus 16. of its being a different seventh day; and the reason assigned in the Fourth

Commandment for the divine institution of it being precisely the same as that which is stated in Genesis 2. 2, 3. naturally leads to the conclusion that both signify the same seventh day in succession. Moses, who wrote both, would, as a faithful historian, have provided against the danger of confounding them, had they not been the same, since in reading the latter, it is impossible not to advert to the former. Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, speaking of the institution in Genesis, states that as the cause of their observing that day of the week which they then kept and still keep as the sabbath. It is not to be thought that he would have done this, had he entertained any idea of a change in the days of the week before the Israelites entered into the Wilderness of Sin, or in the epoch whence the seventh days were computed. In a word, all who think that the passage in Genesis is only an anticipated account of what really did not take place till the Jews left Elim, of course consider the books of Genesis and Exodus as referring to the same seventh day in rotation.

The opinion just stated is, I believe, the prevailing one among the generality of Christians. But as some able writers have maintained a different sentiment, it will be proper to examine the grounds of it. It seems chiefly to rest upon the idea, that the seventh day preceding that on

which no manna fell, [see Exodus 16.] and which the Jews were both ordered to keep, and did keep, as a sabbath, was spent in travelling: and it is supposed that God would not have allowed, much less have directed, this, had it been a sabbath. I know not, however, why he should not direct them to travel from Elim to Sin on the sabbath, as well as direct them afterwards to travel round the walls of Jericho on the sabbath.

In the former Chapter of this Work, I mentioned that the children of Israel, when enslaved in Egypt, had it in their power to keep the sabbath mentally and in private conversation, if not in a public manner-provided they were so disposed. It does not, however, follow that, whatever some might do, the bulk of them were so disposed: the contrary is by far the most probable supposition. In that case, the general practice of the duty would be revived and restored at one time or at another; and this seems to have been done, on the occasion of the manna's descending. It is no more wonderful that the Divine Being should defer the renewal of the practice to this time, instead of calling for its revival the moment they set out on their march, than that he should defer the manifestation of his displeasure against Moses for not circumcising his sons, till he was on his return from Midian to Egypt, or his order for circumcising the new race

of male Israelites, till they had crossed the river Jordan.

The injunction for keeping the sabbath upon the occasion of the manna's falling is introduced too abruptly for a new institution, to which the Jews were strangers. It is spoken of to them as a thing known. The people expressed no surprise, when they were reminded that 'to-morrow' was 'the feast of the Lord.' When it is said, "The Lord has given you the sabbath,' there is no reason assigned for it, as it is natural to expect that there would have been, had it been given them for the first time, and as was actually the case when the sabbath was instituted in Paradise. Whatever, in fine, the statute and ordinance which God is said toward the close of Exodus 15. to have made for the Israelites at Marah might be, it is not represented to have been the sabbath.

Dr. Jennings, in his Jewish Antiquities, vol. 2. p. 150, conjectures, that at the first passover, the beginning of the week was changed, as well as the beginning of the year, and that its days were anticipated, the sixth becoming the seventh, and the original seventh day becoming now the first day of the week following. According to him, therefore, the Jews observe the sixth day of the week in order from the Creation; and the Christians, in keeping the first day, keep also the

return of the very day which God rested upon, and appointed to be the weekly sabbath-the day which he thinks, as well as I, was observed both by the Patriarchs and the Gentiles. But he produces no passage of Scripture in support of this conjecture, nor do I know of any writer that agrees with him in it. It has indeed too much the appearance of being founded on a wish to support the obligation to sanctify the first day, by the original obligation to sanctify the day before; a wish as unnecessary as vain, if the first day be really a sabbath appointed by the authority of the Apostles.

Nor is there better reason for doubting, with Dr. Wallis, whether the day which the Jews were ordered to keep was the same seventh day in rotation with that which was consecrated at the end of the Creation, on account of accidents that might change it, any more than on account of the supposed probability of its having been changed with design by the Deity. The learned Doctor does not venture to deny the possibility of the true reckoning having been preserved to the giving of the law he only thinks it incredible. He however assigns no reasons for this supposed incredibility. Perhaps they are, the long period of 2500 years that intervened between the Creation and that time-the want of means for keeping records among the ancients-and the