FOR THE HOPKINSIAN MAGAZINE. REPLY TO MIKROS ON THE SABBATH. Mr. Editor, The essays of Moralis on the Sabbath, I have read with peculiar interest. In his third number Moralis attempts to show when the Sabbath begins. He makes it appear that the Sabbath begins, Saturday evening, at sun-set. In your number for October, Mikros undertakes to show, that the Sabbath begins at midnight. As I am unable to see either the force of his objections against the arguments of Moralis, or the validity of his arguments in favour of beginning the Sabbath at midnight, I have taken the liberty to send you the following. Mikros says, "he lately heard a complaint against a minister, who observes Saturday evening, that he would go on Sabbath evening into the houses of his parishioners, who keep that evening as holy time, and introduce conversation on secular business." He thinks, it is very desirable, therefore, that Christians should be agreed on this important point.' I presume it is not often the case, that ministers, who really keep as holy time, either Saturday evening, or Sabbath evening, give their parishioners occasion to make complaints of this nature. I do think it is very desirable, however, that it should be known at what hour the Sabbath begins; not so much because they, who keep either evening as holy time, are liable to be interrupted while keeping it as such, as because God has sanctified one evening, and one only, as belonging to the Sabbath. If Saturday evening does not belong to the Sabbath, it ought not to be kept as holy time: and if Sabbath evening does not belong to the Sabbath, it ought not to be kept as holy time. But they, who do not keep the evening which God has sanctified, whether it be convenient or inconvenient to keep it as holy time, are guilty of breaking the fourth commandment. Before Mikros proceeds to take notice of the arguments usually adduced in favour of keeping Saturday evening, as belonging to the Sabbath, he says, "here I would premise, that in determining which evening belongs to the Christian Sabbath, we ought to look particularly to the New Testament, and to the practice of the apostles." What was the use of premising this? Was it to weaken the force of those arguments, which were drawn by Moralis from the Old Testament? If so, it ought to be considered as weakening the force of the argument, which Mikros founds upon a passage contained in the book of Nehemiah. If there is any thing in the New Testament, which shows, that the hour at which the Sabbath begins, was changed from one part of twentyfour hours to another, when the Sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week; I admit that we ought to look particularly to the New Testament and to the practice of the Apostles," in order to determine at what hour the Christian Sabbath begins. But if we have no reason to believe, that such a change has taken place in respect to the hour at which the Christian Sabbath begins; then it is certainly more proper to give the Old Testament a particular examination upon this subject, than to give the New Testament such an examination. Now Mikros believes, and attempts to prove, that no such change has taken place. He supposes, and attempts to make it appear, that not only the Christian Sabbath, but the Jewish Sabbath, was to commence at midnight, and end at midnight. Why, then, should he direct our attention particularly to the New | prises the whole of the time in 66 With respect to Gen. i. 5, "The evening and the morning were the first day," Mikros tells us, that "in this same verse, the day is mentioned before the night. And therefore we might infer, that the day began in the morning, and included the following night." which the darkness continues; and that the morning comprises the whole of the time in which the light continues. By a figure of speech, a part is often put for the whole. Thus, sails are sometimes put for ships: as when we say, a fleet of twenty sail. But no one supposes, that sails constitute In this verse, it is indeed said, ships, notwithstanding the phrase, "God called the light day, and a fleet of twenty sail, means, a fleet the darkness he called night." of twenty ships. So, by the same But it is acknowledged on all figure of speech, the evening, sides, that the darkness which was which is only a part of the night, called night, existed before the might, in the first chapter of Genlight, which was called day. The esis, be put for the whole of the darkness is mentioned in this chap- night; and still not literally signiter, before the light is mentioned. fy the whole of the night, nor inWhen it is said; "The evening deed, but a small part of the night. and the morning were the first So also, the morning, which is a day," the word day is to be under-part of the day, might be put for stood in a different sense, from the whole of the day, and still litthat in which it is to be under-erally signify, but a small part of stood, when it is said; "He called the light day." In the one case, it is to be understood as including twenty-four hours. In the other, it is to be understood as including the time only, which elapsed between the appearance and disappearance of the light. Mikros says, "The evening and morning here, include twentyfour hours. Consequently, if the evening began at the time when the sun set, it must have extended to sun-rise; and the morning, from sun-rise to sun-set. But it is contrary to Scripture, and universal practice, to call the time from midnight to sun-rise, evening, and from noon to sun-set, morning. The time before sun-rise, is often called morning. See Gen. xix. 5-23; Ex. xiv. 24, &c. &c. But if the evening begins the day, and extends to sun-rise, then the time before sun-rise, is not morning, but evening." I answer, the phrase "The evening and the morning were the first day," does not imply, that the evening com it. It does not follow, therefore, that if the evening begins at sunset, it must extend to sun-rise, or even till break of day. I might have said, it does not follow, that it continues longer than the light of day continues. The passage is literally rendered thus: The evening was, and the morning was the first day. That is, if we supply the ellipsis, "The evening was the first day, and the morning was the first day." Or thus; the evening was on the first day; and the morning was on the first day. The next evening was on the second day, and the next morning was on the second day. Thus, with respect to the resurrection of Christ, it would be natural to ask; What day, was the morning, on which Christ rose from the dead? It would be equally natural to reply; that morning was the first day of the week. Here the meaning is not, that the morning constituted the first day of the week; but that the morning was on that day, or was a part of it. As the Arst evening and the first morning belonged to the first day; and the second evening and second morning belonged to the second day; we are undoubtedly to understand the morning and evening, as representing twenty-four hours, not literally, but by a figure of speech. For if the evening (as properly rendered) was the first day, and the morning was the first day, literally; then the evening and morning are one and the same: both denote twenty-four hours. Accordingly, FLEURY, in his account of the manners and customs of the ancient Israelites.has the following remarkable passages: "Some begin the day at noon, others at midnight; some at sun-rising; others at sun-set. The Hebrews follow this last method; that is to say, with them the day begins at sun-set, and ends the next lay at the same time. Whence it is, that we read in the Gospels; that the sick were not brought out to Jesus Christ till after sun-set""And it was likewise customary with the Hebrews, to express a whole day by the terms, the evening and the morning; or by these; the night and the day: which the Greeks express by nucthemeron, and which as well signifies any particular part of the day, or night, as the whole of it. And this is the reason, why a thing that has lasted two nights and one whole day, and a part of the preceding and following days, is said by the Hebrews to have lasted three days and three nights." Mikros has quoted a number of passages, to show, that the time from midnight to sun-rise is called morning. But he has not referred as to a single passage, which shows, that the time, preceding the breaking of the day, is ever called morning, in the Sacred Scriptures. It is, indeed, said, in the first chapter of Mark, that "Jesus rose in the morning, a great while before day." But the last clause of this passage, rendered literally is, very early in the morning. By rising as soon as the light appeared, he rose a great while, before the sun had ushered in the perfect day. This was probably the reason, why the translators rendered it "a great while before day." If, then, the morning commences the day, Mikros has adduced no evidence from Scripture, to prove that the morning commences at midnight; and of course none to prove, that the Sabbath commences at midnight. If the Sabbath, therefore, does not commence with Saturday evening, it ought to be considered as commencing either when the day dawns, or at sun-rise. But it does not appear, that the day did dawn, on the first day. As soon as the luminaries of heaven were formed, it was undoubtedly broad day light, somewhere. If the first day began, as Mikros tells us, when the light was called;' then the first day could extend, according to his doctrine, only from sun-rise to midnight. Would this be twentyfour hours? Yet Mikros says, 6 the morning and evening here, include twenty-four hours." But why should the first day commence when the light was called, or at sun-rise; and the days following commence before sun-rise; before the day dawned; at midnight? Mikros tells us; 66 As the evening follows the day, and as there was uninterrupted darkness, till the light was called, there could be no evening till there was a day; and the evening succeeding the day, properly belongs to the day." But if there was no evening, before there was a day, and the first day commenced when God said, "Let there be light;" then, the first day did not begin, when God began to create. For "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth: and the earth, (after it was created) was without form and void (all things were still in a chaotic state) and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And (then) the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters: and God said, Let there be light, and there was light." If the first day did not begin, when God began to create; then the whole work of creation was not performed in the six days, enumerated in the first chapter of Genesis. But we are expressly told, in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, that the whole work of creation was performed in six Mikros tells us, that when the days. "For in six days the Lord evening belonging to the day, is thy God made heaven and earth, designated, the Scriptures never, the sea, and all that in them is." that he can find, reckon the evenIf Moses asserts the truth, in this ing preceding, as belonging to the passage, then the first day com- day. He tells us, that the evenmenced, when God began to cre- ing, for instance, on which the ate; and the evening preceded the passover was to be killed and eatday. en, was the evening following the The word, which is translated fourteenth day; and was, accordevening, literally signifies, a mix-ing to our doctrine, the evening of ture of light and darkness. According to this definition; there must have been an evening, before the first day, or the time when God said, "Let there be light. It appears from Genesis, that the materials out of which the heavens and the earth were formed, were created, before they were shaped and modified into their present forms. When God said, "Let there be light," we are not to understand Him, as creating the particles of light; but as forming the luminaries of heaven, out of the materials, which were already created. Before those luminaries were formed, the luminous particles. out of which they were formed, existed in a chaotic state, mingled with opaque matter. Tho' darkness was then upon the face of the deep; yet this could not have been perfect darkness. A mixture of luminous particles, with particles opaque, would form an apparent mixture of light and darkness; it would form an evening according to the true definition of that word. As the first day must have begun, when God began to create, and as the first evening must likewise have begun, when He began to create; it follows, that the first evening was the beginning of the first day, and not the close of it. The second evening would close the first day, and begin the second. Hence, the evening might be used, indifferently, to denote either the close of one day, or the beginning of the next. the fifteenth day; though it is expressly, and repeatedly called, the evening of the fourteenth." But, how does Mikros know, that this evening followed the fourteenth day? How does he know, that this evening was not the beginning of the fourteenth day? With respect to the paschal lamb, God said to the Israelites; "Ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the month: and the whole assembly of the congregation shall kill it in the evening." The command to keep up the lamb until the fourteenth day of the month, seems to imply a command to keep it up no longer, than till the fourteenth day; that is, a command to kill it, as soon as that day began. But if the lamb was not killed, till the evening following the fourteenth day, it certainly was not killed in the beginning of the day. It was probably killed in the evening following the thirteenth day. This would be keeping up the lamb, as the Hebrews were required to keep it up, until the fourteenth day of the month, and no longer. By killing it in the evening, they killed it in the beginning of the fourteenth day; and not, as Mikros says, in the evening or beginning of the fifteenth, according to our doctrine. 66 Says Mikros: If in Gen. i. 5, it had been said, The morning and the evening, were the first day, I presume no one would have thought of beginning the day at run-rise, and extending the morning to sunset; and then extending the evening from sun-set to sun-rise. But they would have considered the day as beginning at midnight, and the morning as extended from midnight to noon; and the evening as extending from noon to midnight." Does Mikros, indeed, suppose, that the first day began at midnight? Or would any one suppose so, had it been said "The morning and evening were the first day?" When was the midnight of the first day? Mikros tells us, "there was uninterrupted darkness before the light was called.” By midnight here, does Mikros mean the middle of eternity? How could there be a midnight to begin the first day, unless there was an evening which began, when God began to create? and which existed before the light of the sun appeared? If there was such an evening; then that evening and not midnight must have been the commencement of time: the beginning of the first day. Mikros asks, why so much stress should be laid upon the mention ing of the evening first, when the order of time is so often inverted in Scripture?" He has not been pleased to give us an example, in which the order of time is inverted. But why should the inspired writer tell us: The evening and the morning were the first day: The evening and the morning were the second day, and so on to the seventh day; unless he intended to mark the limits of each day in the week? Did he mean nothing more than, that there was, to each day in the week, a morning and an evening? To suppose this, is to charge the sacred writer with trifling. But how could his mentioning the evening and the morning, mark the limits of each day in the week, if no stress is to be laid upon the order, in which the evening and morning are mentioned? Mikros says: "In II. Tim. i. 9, Paul mentions salvation before calling. • Who hath saved us and called us,' &c. but no one would hence infer, that sinners are saved or brought into a state of salvation, before they are called, or regenerated." It is readily granted, that no such inference ought to be drawn from the apostle's words. For it is not his design here to mark the order, in which regeneration and salvation succeed each other. The meaning of the apostle, appears to be this: "Who hath saved us by calling us with a holy calling." With respect to Lev. xxiii. 52, "From even to even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath," Mikros says there is no reference here to the weekly Sabbath, but to the great day of atonement. In the third verse, he says, "the weekly Sabbath is mentioned, and nothing is said about the time of its beginning." I answer, the circumstance, that nothing is said about the time in which the weekly Sabbath in particular, begins, is a good reason why we should understand the Divine injunction in this passage, respecting celebrating the |