It is admitted, that the object of the Sabbath, whensoever instituted, was the commemorating of 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 commencement)— 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.

1

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 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 institution 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.

3. I found a third argument on the language of the inspired author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. iv. 3-5, "For we which have believed do enter into rest: as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest; although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest." We shall have occasion to illustrate the whole of this passage at some length in a future discourse. The principle on which it bears upon our present argument is very obvious. The words which have been quoted, clearly imply that the seventh-day rest had been "entered into" from the beginning. Without this, the continuity and force of the Apostle's reasoning

are gone. The mere finishing of Jehovah's work, and his own resting from it, would have been nothing to his purpose; because it might still have left the rest to be entered into by his people afterwards. Now, when the Apostle quotes the words of God—“I sware in my wrath they shall not enter into my rest," he does not, in distinguishing this from the sabbatical rest, say—“ Although, before this oath of interdiction and exclusion was uttered, the rest of the seventh day had been instituted in the wilderness for the observance of Israel;" but," although the works were finished from the creation of the world"-intimating most clearly, both in language and argument, that that rest had been "entered into" from the time of the finishing of creation.

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 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 practice of its observance are found to have

all along existed amongst the different tribes of the human family. Now, our argument is this. If this division of time had the origin thus assigned to it, the reason of it must, of course, have been originally known, namely, the fact of the Creator's having made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh.-God's "resting" means two things, his cessation from his work, and his complacency in it. These two things are expressed in the language of Moses elsewhere, Exod. xxxi. 17. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth; and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." To no one who is even superficially versant in the Holy Scriptures, can it be necessary to say, that such terms as these, when applied to Deity, are not meant to convey any such ideas as those of repose from fatigue, and the recruiting of exhausted strength. The first words, indeed, of the narrative of creation should be enough to silence the profanity of the scoffer, and to command into awe the leer of his scornful countenance-“ God said, Let there be light; and there was light." The Book which opens with such an exhibition of the divine omnipotence, -containing so striking an exemplification of the sentiment, that of lofty conceptions the simplest expression is the most sublime,-is not to be interpreted as, only a few sentences after, sinking the Almighty from the lofty majesty in which it had thus enthroned him, by representing him as the subject of weariness and exhaustion. If there be one quality, indeed, by which the inspired account of creation is more distinguished than by others, it is its divine simplicity, the entire absence of every thing like effort or labour, on the part of the "Mighty Maker,” in bringing into being the various portions of the stupendous

universe. He "speaks, and it is done; he commands, and it stands fast :"- "The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary there is no searching of his understanding." It is true that creation occupied a certain portion of time: but not because omnipotence required it. The same word that commanded into existence the successive parts could, with equal ease, by one fiat, have commanded the whole. But there was a design in its being ordered otherwise; and the design related to man. It was, to give commence. ment to such a division of time amongst the inhabitants of the new-formed world, as should connect the finished work of creation with a commemorative day. Between the divine eternity (let it be recollected) and the divisions of time, there can subsist no possible relation. When the eternal God, therefore, is represented as "resting" in connexion with a day,-a limited portion of time, the representation must, of necessity, have reference to his creatures, and to that order which he intended should be observed amongst them. This is clear. To speak of days in the eternity of the Godhead, is a sheer absurdity. From this it follows, (and here returns the point of our argument,) that if God's resting on the seventh day was known by men, the reason of it must also have been known. But to what does this amount? Why to this: that the very existence of the division of time into weeks, or periods of seven days, necessarily implies the knowledge, on the part of men, of the divine intention with regard to a Sabbath. Days belong to creatures, not to the Creator; and, for my own part, I am altogether unable to imagine, how the circumstance of God's resting from his work on the