Remarks on the different sentiments entertained in Christendom relative to the weekly Sabbath

REMARKS,

Sfc.

J. POWELL, Printer, Hand Court, Dowgate Hill.

REMARKS

ON THE

DIFFERENT SENTIMENTS

ENTERTAINED IN CHRISTENDOM

RELATIVE TO

By ROBERT BURNSIDE, A.M.

—Ings; hold fast that which is good. — 1 Thess. 5. 21.
Speaking the truth in love. — Eph. 4. 15.

LONDON;
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR;

AND

SOLD BY L. B. SEELEY & SON, 169, FLEET STREET.

1825.

J3///0
J3 s

'j -j 7 & 6

y?ff

CONTENTS.

Page

Chapter I. — Differences of Opinion concerning the

Nature of a Weekly Sabbath '. 1

Chapter II. — Differences of Opinion concerning the

Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath 10

Chapter III. — Differences of Opinion concerning the

Antiquity of the Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath 21

Chapter IV. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
Regard paid by the Patriarchs and the Gentiles to
the Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath 41

Chapter V. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
Seventh Day observed by the Jews as the Weekly
Sabbath 73

Chapter VI. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
supposed Repeal of the Seventh Day Weekly Sab-
bath 106

Chapter VII. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
Claim of the First Day to be the Weekly Sabbath by
Divine Authority 153

Chapter VIII. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
supposed Authority of Apostolic Tradition to ren-
der the First Day the Weekly Sabbath 238

Chapter IX. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
Commencement and Termination of the Scriptural
Weekly Sabbath 264

vi CONTENTS.

Page

Chapter X. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
supposed Lawfulness of Man to transfer the Scriptu-
ral Weekly Sabbath to another Day 276

Chapter XI. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
supposed Authority of Man to institute a Weekly
Sabbath 302

Chapter XII. — Differences of Opinion concerning the
Importance of the Grounds on which Sanctification
is claimed for a Day as the Weekly Sabbath, and its
obtaining that Sanctification 319

Conclusion 344

INTRODUCTION.

The agreement in sentiment, at least in ap-
pearance, respecting the weekly sabbath is
so general, not to say universal, among
Christians, that there may seem at first view
to be no subject for the remarks proposed in
the title-page to be made. 'What occa-
sion,' it may be asked, € is there for observa-
tions on differences, which, supposing them
ever to have existed, have long ceased to ex-
ist ? Even admitting that differences in
opinion relative to some minute circumstan-
ces affecting the topic before mentioned still
remain, why should the peace of individu-
als or of society be disturbed for such tri-
fles ?' — In the course of the discussion, how-
ever, it will perhaps appear that the Chris-
tian world has been and still is greatly di-
vided in opinion relative to the weekly sab-
bath, and that the points at issue are by no

Vlll INTRODUCTION.

means inconsiderable. With respect to any
inconvenience that may arise from such an
investigation, an intelligent, and much more
a religious mind, will pause before it deter-
mines on refusing to examine a question that
involves any point of Christianity, small as
it may be comparatively, in order to avoid
inconvenience. The dread of error itself
should not prevent inquiry after truth ; since
the danger of adopting it in consequence of
discussion is not greater than that of retain-
ing it through declining discussion.

The points on which I propose to consider
the differences alluded to, are stated in the
following Chapters.

REMARKS

ON THE

DIFFERENT SENTIMENTS,

Differences of Opinion concerning the Nature
of a Weekly Sabbath*

The term weekly may be thought unnecessary :
but I have inserted it, in order to distinguish the
sabbath in question, not only from the monthly
and annual sabbaths existing among the Jews,
but also from the days, more or fewer of which
are kept somewhat like sabbaths by the gene-
rality of Christians.

Having premised this, I proceed to the con-
sideration of the subject proposed. The idea of li / <*J^
a weekly sabbath, prevalent for the most part '*-£
among the truly pious of every description who
admit that there is one by divine authority — in
the British isles at least — is> I believe, the conse-

B

2 Nature of a Weekly Sabbath.

cration of a day, and of the same day every week,
during the whole of the twenty- four hours, to re-
ligious purposes— that the business or amuse-
ments, lawful on other days, should on this day
be refrained from, both publicly and privately ;
no works of such a description being excepted,
save those of c necessity and mercy* — that on this
day public, as well as private and family worship,
should be attended to— that even the subjects se-
lected for conversation, for reading, and for me-
ditation, should either be spiritual, or receive a
spiritual improvement — and that the wakeful
hours of the night themselves should be subject
to regulations similar to those of the day. He
who does not aim at submitting to these restric-
tions, or conform in general to these requisi-
tions, according to the opinion of the people be-
fore described, cannot be justly said to keep a
weekly sabbath, whatever he may profess to do,
or however he himself or others may designate
his conduct.

I have the pleasure to avow, that I do most
heartily concur with the generality of real Chris-
tians among my fellow subjects in this sentiment.
My aim is the same as their's, though none of us,
perhaps, are always so successful in it as might be
wished. The variety that there is in the religi-
ous exercises which claim attention, in succes-
sion, on a weekly sabbath, effectually secure both

Nature of a Weekly Sabbath. 3

body and mind from any injurious consequences;
and he who conceives of fhem as insipid or wea-
risome, has reason to lament the want, not of
relaxation or entertainment, but of a well-regu-
lated taste.

But the opinion that has just been given con-
cerning the sanctification due to a weekly sabbath
neither has been, nor is, the prevailing one through
Christendom. Descriptive as it may be of the
manner in which (according to Isaiah 58. 13.) the
Jews of old did observe, or ought t6 have ob-
served, the seventh day, it by no means agrees
with the picture of a weekly sabbath, that is
drawn in the history of the Christian Church,
since the time of the Apostles. Bishop White,
who wrote A. D. 1635, justifies the Christians for
working on the first day, under the heathen em-
perors, on the ground of necessity: but neither
he nor any other ever produces a single passage
from any of the Fathers during this period, in
which the nesessity is lamented, or in which de-
liverance from it is sighed after and prayed for.
It ceased, however, when the Roman empire be-
came Christian : but still, according to White's
quotations, we find such men as St. Augustine,
St. Jerome, and Gregory Magnus, (born A. D.
544,) not only conniving at the continuance of
such working, but even commending or enjoin-
ing it, and that for no less a space than three

4 Nature of a Weekly Sabbath.

centuries* Mr. Wright, who wrote in the early
part of the last century on the c Religious Obser*

* It is proper to mention, in opposition to these assertions
of Bishop White, that Milner, in his History of the true
Church of Christ, and particularly Morer, in his Dialogues on
t he Lord's Da y, produces various recommendations, decrees,
and edicts, in favour of strictly observing the first day during
this period* But though both these writers lived after the
Bishop's time, and ought to have known his assertion, yet
they never attempt to refute it, or even notice it. That it
was true in general, the following references will show.

1 If the Christians in St. Jerome's time, after divine wor-
ship on the Lord's day, followed their daily employments, it
should be remembered, that this was not done, till the wor-
ship was quite over, when they might with innocency enough
resume them, because the length of time and the number of
\ hours assigned for piety were not then so well explained as in
after ages.' — Morer, p. 236.

c In St. Jerome's time, Christianity had got into the throne,

as well as into the empire. Yet for all this, the entire sancti-

iication of the Lord's day proceeded slowly ; and that it was

the work of time to bring it to perfection appears from the

several steps the Church made in her constitution, and from

I the decrees of emperors and other princes, wherein the pro-

I hibitions from servile and civil business advanced by degrees

from one species to another, till the day had got a consider-

, able figure in the world.' — Ibid.

i Paula, a devout lady in St. Jerome's time, is represented

by him, after coming from church on the Lord's day, as sit-

I ting down with the virgins and widows attending her to their

/ daily tasks, which consisted in making garments, and as doing

Nature of a WeeMy Sabbath, 5

vation of the Lord's Day/ never once contradicts
the citations made from these Fathers by the Bi-
shop for the purpose just stated, nor quotes others
in opposition to them, anxious as he is to show,
by referring to the quotations of the same learned
writer relative to a l ater period, that the Chris-
tians abstained wholly from secular labour on the
first day. From the quotations last mentioned,
it appears, indeed, that for about five centuries
afterwards, that is, between A. D. 600 and A. D.
1 100, many orders for abstaining from business on
Sunday were given both by princes and councils,
as well in the Greek- Roman empire, as in Eng-
land and France. The same abstinence, how-
ever, was required on the other days that were
observed by the Church as fasts or feasts j* and

this on that day for themselves, as well as for others that needed
them.'— p. 235.

1 St. Chrysostom gives leave to his audience, after impress-
ing on themselves and their families what they had heard on
the Lord's day, to return to their daily employments and
trades.'— p. 234, 235.

* If any one of the fasts or feasts referred to was weekly,
there was no difference whatever in sanctification between it
and Sunday ; and if Sunday only was kept weekly, still it
was no more a sabbath on that account, than Good Friday, or
Christmas-day, would be, were it weekly, instead of annual.
There being no other weekly day kept more holy, does not
prove that Sunday was kept as a sabbath, but that no day
was kept as a sabbath.

6 Nature of a Weekly Sabbath.

| therefore is no proof of peculiar regard for the
\ day they professed to hold sacred. What effect
these orders had, and how long it lasted, does not
appear: but in England, so late as Richard the
Second's reign, about A. D. 1380, the Parliament
met on Sundays to transact business ; and in
the reign of Henry the Sixth, (A. D. 1440,) the
public markets did not continue shut longer
than till the close of the afternoon service ; and
the sports which followed in the evening were
practised till the reigns of the Stuarts. The ce-
lebrated ( Book of Sports,' which was published
by the order of James the First, and republished
by his son Charles the First, professes to allow no
more than what had been usual in former reigns ;
nor is it likely, indeed, that the inhabitants of
the northern counties would have given occasion
to the former of these monarchs to issue such a
proclamation, by complaining of the encroach-
ments made on their pastimes by the Puritans,
had they not been considered by them as innova-
tions. Among the Roman Catholics, if not in
Protestant countries, the regard professed to be
entertained for theirs* day, (though perhaps as
great as was paid to any other weekly day,) is
still subject to the same defalcations which at-
tended it in England prior to the reign of Henry
the Sixth.

Nature of a Weekly Sabbath. 7

Mr. Wright, in the work before referred to,
does not exculpate the Protestant states from this
charge, which he acknowledges to have been
brought against them, as well as against the
Roman Catholics. He only in his preface ex-
cuses the Hanoverians for spending the Sunday
evening in amusements, on the ground that, as
he had heard, they abstained from them on the
preceding Saturday evening. Mr. W. does
not say whether this was done or not done on
the Scriptural principle of the evening preced-
ing the morning. If it was not, however true
it was that the Hanoverians kept twenty- four
hours sacred after six days' labour, it was not
equally true that they kept the whole of the first
day, and that on account of our Lord's resur-
rection.

Let it not be replied, that whatever may have
been the practice of Christendom in this respect,
its opinion was conformable to the account alrea-
dy given of what a weekly sabbath ought to be.
None of the Fathers or Reformers ever state that
any weekly day is enjoined by Scripture on Chris-
tians to be sanctified according to Isaiah 58. 13.
as already described.

Bishop White, in the work before mentioned,
which was patronized by the highest authority
both in Church and State, pleads for the laxities
in question. Nor have I ever heard of any pub-

8 Nature of a Weekly Sabbath.

lie remonstrances against this weekly species of
practical latitudinarianism, drawn up by any
considerable number of pious characters in the
countries abroad,* similar to those which have
issued from the press in this country, both in
the Establishment and among the Dissenters.f

I am not aware that the sanctification due to a
weekly sabbath, for which- 1 contend in common
with the generality of my pious countrymen, dif-
fers at all from that which the Fourth Command-
ment enjoined upon the Jews, when freed by our
Saviour from the superstitious additions which
they had made to it. Necessary as it may now
be for us, under present circumstances, to kindle
a fire and to dress provision on the sabbath, it
might not be necessary for the Israelites to- per-
form similar acts on that day, at the time they

* Mr. Wright, indeed, quotes Witsius as strongly incul-
cating the proper sanctification of the whole of Sunday. But
this learned and pious professor in Holland was cotemporary
with the Puritans in England, and a Presbyterian like them.
It is not very extraordinary, therefore, that he should act as
his brethren did, who were the first that urged the entire
consecration of Sunday, as a sabbath.

t Even here, if a judgment may be formed of the regard
required by law for the weekly sabbath from the decisions of
magistrates, it sustains no injury from private labour that is
exercised for amusement, though it does from the same la-
bour, when gain is the object.

Nature of a Weekly Sabbath. 9

were interdicted. I therefore see no just cause
for complaining of the restrictions and observan-
ces before mentioned as being required by a
weekly sabbath. Extravagant as some of the ex-
pressions used by the Puritans two hundred years
ago concerning the guilt of sabbath-breaking are,
I do not know that, with respect to sanctifying
the sabbath, they differed materially in sentiment
and practice from the pious at large in modern
times — at least in this country. Whatever Bishop
White may have thought, we should not any of us
like, I believe, any more than they would have
done, to travel on the sabbath for secular purposes,
without necessity — to allow our dependants pas-
times on that day — or to let tailors and shoemak-
ers contract a habit of not executing the orders
given them before that time : much less should
we tolerate the dressing of wedding dinners on the
day, or carrying our complaisance toward an in-
valid who was in bed so far as to engage with the
clinic for his diversion, in a game of some sort or
another, in the course of the sacred season.

But for what purpose, it may be asked, have I
brought forward the different opinions of exalted
individuals, both civil and ecclesiastical, relative
to the nature of a weekly sabbath, or the practi-
ces observable in different nations throughout
Christendom, relative to the same matter, since
the Christian era? My object is, to show, that
b2

10 Nature of a Weekly Sabbath.

the real observers of a weekly sabbath, notwith-
standing appearances and professions have al-
ways been, and still are, sufficiently extensive,
compose a much smaller mass than is commonly
imagined — that even among true Christians, taken
as one body, though belonging to different deno-
minations, the number of these real observers is
extremely small, and would appear much small-
er, perhaps, if individuals would submit to be
closely interrogated on the subject — and that
those of the real observers who differ from the
bulk of their brethren on certain points respect-
ing the weekly sabbath, few as they are, bear, it
may be, as great a proportion to them, as they
themselves do to the professors of Christianity
who observe a weekly sabbath only nominally or
partially.

CHAPTER II.

Differences of Opinion concerning the Obliga-
tion of a Weekly Sabbath.

After remarking on the differences of opinion
among Christians respecting the nature of a
weekly sabbath, I might be expected to discuss,
next, the difference of sentiment among them (if

Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath. H

there be a difference) concerning the existence
of any weekly sabbath, be its nature what it may.
I shall not, however, enter into this question at
present; but, taking for granted that the senti-
ment of there being a day entitled upon just
grounds to weekly sanctification more or less is
universal, I shall examine the different opinions
entertained by Christians respecting the nature of
those grounds.

Those who think that there is solid reason for
keeping holy a weekly sabbath, are almost uni-
versally agreed, that the day itself which is to be
sanctified, can be determined only by a positive
institution — either divine altogether, or, if hu-
man, by divine permission; but that the obliga-
tion to keep one day in a week, is moral. In
the first of these opinions, namely, that the obli-
gation to sanctify a particular day every week
must proceed from a positive appointment of
God, I readily concur. Taking, however, the
word moral not as opposed to ceremonial, but in
its more general acceptation, as opposed to po-
sitive,* I do not think, with some of the Sab-
batarians, (Christians who observe the seventh
or last day of the week as their sabbath,) that

* A law may be positive, that is dependant on the will of
God whether it shall or shall not be, when it is not ceremo-
nial ; that is, referring to Christ, as well as dependant on the
will of God.

12 Obligation of a WeeMy Sabbath.

the observance of the seventh or last day of
the week is, or ever was, a moral obligation.
Whatever I may think of the divinity of its
claim to be the weekly sabbath, I cannot consi-
der the secularization of it as being in itself im-
moral, or found a belief of its perpetuity on the
immutability of a moral precept. But for a si-
milar reason, I cannot consider the neglect or vi-
olation of the first day, were the proof of its be-
ing a sabbath in consequence of a divine institu-
tion ever so satisfactory, as immoral in itself, any
more than the unnecessary omission of Baptism
or the Lord's Supper, by any one who was fit for
them.*

I repeat, then, my entire concurrence with al-
most the whole of the Christian world, in think-
ing that the obligation to sanctify a particular
day every week is merely positive. But I cannot
by any means accede to the opinion — notwith-
standing its general prevalence, and its being
treated like an axiom or self-evident proposition
— namely, that the consecration of the seventh
part of time, or of one day in a week, is a moral
obligation, in opposition to the idea of a positive
institution, which might or might not have been,

* Property speaking, the wilful breach of any divine law,
whether moral or positive, is immoral ; but the term is usu-
ally confined to the breach of a moral precept.

Obligation of a Weekly &ab\<Hfi. 13

which may be temporary, and is alterable. The
common, and, I think, the correct and accurate
notion of a moral precept, is, an obligation dk>
tated by reason, and discoverable by the light of
nature. Now, however manifest it is, by the
light of reason, that God should have some part
or parts of every day, yet it is not at all manifest
from reason that he should ever have a whole day
at a time, and still less that such a day should re-
turn regularly after a certain period, or after one
period rather than after another. There is no-
thing in the nature of things to direct us to wor-
ship and serve God for twenty-four hours, rather
than to grant him fewer or more hours together >
or to devote a seventh part of our time to him,
rather than a sixth or an eighth part; or to de-
vote the same part invariably, rather than differ-
ent parts. Reason does not prescribe to us the
consecration of one day at once, much less of one
day merely, in a week, even admitting that a
week is a natural division of time, and that it
consists of seven rather than of ten days. I do
not, therefore, consider the obligation of keeping
a weekly sabbath on one day, or on another, as
being moral, but, if it exists at all, (and I certain-
ly think that it does exist,) as being a positive in-
stitution of Heaven.

It has been said, that the morality of sanctify-
ing the seventh part of time consists in the equity

14 Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath.

and reasonableness of it. But there is an essen-
tial difference between a practice being reason-
able, and its being a dictate of reason. A posi-
tive institution, if the Divine Being be the Au-
thor of it, must be reasonable, even if its reason-
ableness does not appear. But will any one
think it reasonable, detached from its institu-
tion ? — It is true, the institution of a weekly sab-
bath does appear reasonable, in itself, as well as
on the ground of the divine authority; but not
more so, than if the institution had made the
week to consist of fewer or more days than seven,
or than the requiring a particular day, appears to
be. Of course, no superiority of reasonableness
in either case would have struck the mind, or
have imposed a duty on conscience, without the
knowledge of the Deity's positive interference.
Were a positive institution of the Deity allowed to
be moral on account of its reasonableness, pro-
priety, and equity, there would be no difference
between a moral and a positive precept.

It has likewise been said, that the consecration
of one day in seven is called for by humanity
even toward the brutes, as well as toward the de-
pendant part of the human species, and that it is
necessary for the civil and religious interests of
mankind. I readily admit the truth of this. It
is upon this ground that the reasonableness of the
divine institution, now so apparent, stands; and

Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath. 15

it is a consideration which abundantly proves the
divine wisdom and goodness, in positively insti-
tuting (as will be shown afterwards) a particular
day for it every week, as also the importance of
our observing it. But there is not the least rea-
son to suppose that nature did or ever would of
itself have suggested the idea to man, without
such an institution. Notwithstanding the effect
produced among the ancients by a tradition of it,
and which, there is reason to believe, never
wholly ceased after the tradition itself was in a
great measure forgotten, the importance of sanc-
tifying one day in a week, whether in whole or
in part, for the good both of man and beast, was
never reflected upon before the Christian era.
The idea was entertained in consequence of
knowing that there was such a divine institution.
The beneficial results of it were discovered by
experience and observation, not anticipated by
speculation. Indeed, though the holy and hap-
py effects of sanctifying, to one extent or to ano-
ther, one day in a week, are generally admitted in
the Christian world, yet the aversion of the f car-
nal mind' to it on account of its apparent auste-
rities, and the serious evils arising to individuals
and to society from the extensive abuse of it, are
such, that were it not for the positive institution
of it by divine authority, it is extremely question-
able whether man's regard for his own benefit,

16 Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath.

or for the benefit of those dependant on him,
whether rational or irrational, would have led
him to an appointment of this nature. There
are numbers of people, (and among them, too,
some not a little eminent for intelligence, rank,
and character in society,) who, so far from ap-
pearing likely to think of, to introduce, or to
promote such an institution, can scarcely endure
or submit to it, (though they acknowledge its
existence by divine authority,) not only in a reli-
gious, but even in a civil or moral view. They
do not, perhaps, wholly abstain from business in
private; and however they may occupy an hour
or two in public devotion, or refrain from some
pleasures, yet they suffer other pleasures to al-
low their dependants, whether rational or irra-
tional, little leisure for rest, and themselves still
less for religion. It is doubtful whether the
pious themselves, in the absence of Scripture,
would ever have thought the Scriptural sanctifi-
cation of a day necessary for devotion, and much
less for morality, humanity, or civilization.

It is true, the public worship of God is a dic-
tate of reason. But with respect to the day, the
hour, the length of the service, and its recurrence,
(except in general that it should be frequent,)
reason determines nothing universal or constant.
It leaves these points to the convenience and suf-
frage of the future worshippers. Still less is there

Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath. YJ

any thing in nature that obliges them to employ
any of the days on which they worship publicly
wholly in religion. Nor need the season for it
return after any particular interval, or statedly.
When a ruler calls upon a nation to assemble for
public worship on a civil account, or on any ac-
count in which Revelation is not supposed to in-
terfere, he does not think himself obliged to re-
quire them to sanctify a whole day^ he likewise
calls upon them occasionally, not statedly ; or if
the latter, annually, not weekly.

The obligation, therefore, if there be any, to
keep a weekly sabbath at all, as well as to keep
a certain day, seems to me to be entirely posi-
tive. Of course I think, that neither the obser-
vers of the seventh day, nor those of the first day,
would be warranted in charging each other with
sabbath-breaking, and much less (as explained
before) with immorality, merely because they do
not keep each others' sabbath. No one, in my
opinion, is justly liable to the charge of sabbath-
breaking, except he neglects or violates the day
which he professes to account the sabbath, or
except he cannot with truth affirm that he has
made proper inquiry which day God has re-
quired to be kept, and that he acts agreeably to
the conviction of his own mind. Whether he
has really so inquired or not, can be ascertained
only by his own conscience*

18 Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath.

Positive, however, properly speaking, as the
obligation to observe any weekly sabbath what-
ever, as well as a certain day, cannot but be, in
my opinion, I am not unwilling to call it moral
in a qualified sense, on account of several ex-
traordinary circumstances, which, as appeal's
from Revelation, attend it : such as that it was
instituted as early as there was any human be-
ing to observe it — that it was made known as
soon as any precept can be known, which is,
strictly speaking, moral — that it was discovered
in the same way as moral obligations were
themselves at first discovered ; that is to say, by
Revelation — that it was founded on a reason pe-
culiarly great and important, and which, like
moral duties, concerns all mankind in all ages
and places, namely, the Deity's rest after the
Creation — and, finally, that it was placed by di-
vine authority, not merely among other pre-
cepts, some of which are moral, and others posi-
tive, because the purpose for which they were
mentioned made it of importance to separate
them, but in the middle of a code that is con-
fessedly moral, in opposition to other codes
which are as confessedly positive. Should any
one think that the obligation to observe a week-
ly sabbath is entitled to the high and weighty
designation of moral for these reasons, and that
it was intended by the Divine Legislator to be so

Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath. 19

considered and treated by mankind, I own that
though I cannot admit the designation to be its un-
doubted right, yet I am far from objecting to the
Fourth Commandment's having it, when the claim
is made for it, or allowed by others.* But then,
in admitting the obligation of keeping a weekly
sabbath to be moral on such grounds, it will be
indispensably necessary to admit the morality of
keeping the seventh or last day of the week,
since (as will be proved hereafter) those grounds
apply solely to that day, and not to the seventh
part of time abstractedly — they relate to that day
directly, and to the seventh part of time only by
necessary consequence, since it was impossible
to consecrate the former without consecrating
the latter at the same time. The last day of the
first week was the subject of the institution, and
nothing else; nor does the reason assigned for it
accord with any thing else.

I have only to remark further, before I con-
clude this Chapter, that though I consider the
observance of a weekly sabbath, including the
particular day to be kept, as a positive institu-
tion, and not, properly speaking, a moral duty,
yet it does not necessarily follow, in my opinion,
that the institution is temporary. It only fol-

* Upon the same principle, sabbath-breaking, as before
explained, may not improperly be termed immorality. ,

20 Obligation of a Weekly Sabbath.

lows, that man would not have been obliged, by
the law of nature, to keep a weekly sabbath, had
there been no positive institution, and that the
blessed God could revoke the institution, with or
without a view to the making a different one,
if he pleased. Whether he has done either, or
not, I shall not now inquire. I shall merely re-
mark, at present, that if what I stated should be
proved, namely, that the seventh part of time is
no otherwise instituted than as the seventh day is
instituted, the seventh part of time will of course
be abrogated, whenever the seventh day is abro-
gated; nor can it ever be renewed, except by an-
other positive institution, that appoints it either
abstractedly, or in consequence of appointing an-
other day. In such a case, the new institution
would stand upon its own ground, and would
have no occasion to seek authority, confirmation,
or explanation, from the abrogated one; nor
could it derive any one of these advantages from
that quarter, if it wanted help ever so much.

21

CHAPTER III.

Differences of Opinion concerning the Antiquity
of the Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath.

Many learned and pious writers, who observe
the first day as the weekly sabbath, are of opi-
nion, that the passage in Gen. 2. 2, 3. relative to
the Divine Being's blessing and sanctifying the
sabbath day, which was the day after the Cre-
ation, is an anticipation of the Fourth Command-
ment, expressing what was to take place, not
directly, but a long time after, namely, when the
Jews arrived in the Wilderness. Of course, the
holders of this opinion do not think, with the ge-
nerality of Christians and myself, that the obser-
vance of a weekly sabbath on one day, or on
another, is of serious importance to the interests
of humanity, of civilizaton, and of religion. For
if they do think this, they must also think that
the duty must have been known as early as the
existence of man and of human, society, and that
therefore, as it could not be known by reason,
(as had already been proved,) a positive institu-
tion of the Deity, which was absolutely requisite
to the knowledge of it, in being announced just
after the Creation, was not brought forward a
moment before it was wanted; being wanted

22 Antiquity of a Weekly Sabbath.

immediately, as well as at the distance >of two
thousand years afterwards.

It must, indeed, be admitted, that the older
the world grew, and the more populous it be-
came, the more it would need an appointment
that tended so materially to its civil and religious
improvement. But there were considerable na-
tions long before the time of Moses; and though
not tribes, there were individuals and domestic
society from the Very beginning. These, not-
withstanding their inferiority in largeness and
number to the bodies of people that existed at a
later period, were far too important to be passed
by, since they needed the benefits of the sabbath,
as well as those who lived in the more populous
ages that were to follow.

Another observation proper to be made, con-
cerning the holders of the opinion that Gen. 2.
2, 3. contains only an anticipation of the Fourth
Commandment, is, that they at least consider,
agreeably to the general sentiment and my own,
the seventh day which is appointed by that Com-
mandment as being the same in rotation with
that which is mentioned in Genesis. Were this
not the case, the latter would not be an anticipa-
tion of the commandment, but a different insti-
tution. This, indeed, is the opinion of some
great and good men; but whether upon just
grounds or not, it is not yet my business to ex-

Antiquity of a Weekly Sabbath, 23

amine. All I wish to observe just now upon the
point is, that the opinion of the institution in
Genesis being nothing but an anticipation of
the Fourth Commandment, and the opinion that
the seventh day in that commandment is not
the same in rotation with the seventh day which
God sanctified after resting upon it at the close
of the Creation, cannot both be maintained at
the same time by the same individual.

For my own part, I concur in sentiment with
Mr. Wright and Dr. Jennings, who wrote in the
last century, and with many more respectable
observers of the first day, who think that the
weekly sabbath was instituted by the Creator at
the close of his great and good work of cre-
ation, as also that it was intended to be re-
garded, and was regarded, immediately. I
think, too, with Dr. Jennings, and many more,
that it was the seventh or last day of the first
week, and no other, that was appointed for the
purpose. I cannot accede to the opinion of
Professor Wallis, of Oxford, Who wrote on the
Christian Sabbath in 1692, and with whom Mr.
Wright agrees, that the passage (Gen. 2. 2, 3.)
only institutes one day of the week after six
days' labour, without determining which day,
or any day in particular. The order in which
the seventh day is introduced, appears to me to
show, beyond dispute, that it was the last day of

24 Antiquity of the Seventh Day, #c.

the week only that was consecrated by the Di-
vine Legislator; and the reason assigned for its
consecration agrees with no other. Neither was
the seventh part of time first consecrated, and
then the seventh day, but the seventh day alone.
The consecration of the seventh part of time
only follows indirectly, and as a necessary con-
sequence of the institution: it is not the subject
of the institution itself, nor renders it a matter of
indifference which day of the week is kept, nor
gives a latitude to man to transfer the weekly
sabbath from the seventh or last day of the week
to some other.

Would any one who thinks that the first day is
now the weekly sabbath by divine authority, on
account of our Lord's resurrection, and that it
was called 'Lord's Day' for that reason, allow
that it signifies no more than the appointment of
the seventh part of time, leaving the day of the
week that was to be kept to human discretion
and choice? The divine appointment of the se-
venth or last day of the week for holy purposes,
together with the reason for it, must surely be
allowed by the most confident and zealous sup-
porters of the first day, on the authority (as they
imagine) of the New Testament, to be express-
ed in as plain and definite language as that in
which the first day, (and not merely the seventh
part of time,) together with the facts respect-

Antiquity of the Seventh Day, fyc. 25

ing it, is expressed in the texts on which they
rely.

In my opinion, there never was nor can be a
law more plainly enacted, or more explicit in
regard to its nature, and the time when it was to
take effect, than the divine institution recorded
Gen. 2. 2, 3. The seventh day, on which God
* rested from all the work which God created and
made/ could be no other than the last day of the
first week. The expression, ( God sanctified it,'
must mean that he set it apart for his worship and
service. Finally, when he is said to have f bless-
ed it/ I know not what else can be intended, ex-
cept that he proposed to render it a day peculi-
arly happy for man. Considering the opinion I
entertain concerning the light in which the an-
cient Patriarchs and the Gentiles viewed this
day, and concerning the day which the Jews ob-
served for so many ages in their own country,
and which they still continue to observe, (an
opinion which I shall have occasion in the course
of this work to support,) I can have no doubt of
God's having fulfilled the gracious promise
which I think is implied in his c blessing the se-
venth day/* and though the state of Christen-

* The Lord blessed the house of Obed-edom on account of
the residence of the ark there ; and no doubt substantial ef-
fects followed the gracious act. But they are only hinted at
C

26 Antiquity of the Seventh Day, Sec*

dom in general (so far as it is known) has for
many centuries exhibited an appearance not very
suitable to this most benevolent and interesting
act of the Deity at the commencement of human
existence and of time, so far as relates to the di-
vision of it into weeks, yet it is by no means too
late for him to fulfil his promise, and that in a
most extensive and striking manner.*

The act of God in sanctifying this day is not
synonymous with, or another way of expressing,
his having * rested' upon it. His sanctifying it
was the effect, of which his resting upon it is
declared to be the cause. It is prospective, and
refers to some line of conduct, internal and ex-
ternal, that was to be observed henceforward to-
ward that day. By whom was this to be observ-
ed, and who was to be the object of the pecu-
liar blessings to be conferred on this highly-fa-
voured day? It cannot be thought that God pro-
posed to render homage to himself, or to bless

indirectly and obscurely, where we find himself, his brethren,
and his sons, employed as attendants at the house of God, as
leaders in the band of sacred choristers, or as keepers of the
holy treasure.

* If the opinions that the seventh day was not kept before
the time of Moses, and that the one kept by the Jews was not
the weekly return of the first seventh day, be correct, the day
has not yet been blessed, in effect j and thus its future bles-
sedness is rendered more certain.

Antiquity of the Seventh Day, #c. 27

himself. It can only be a creature for whom it
is proper to perform the one, and that stands in
need of the other. What creature could this
be, but man ? who, however justly f the morning
stars sang together, and all the sons of God
shouted for joy/ on occasion of the Creation,
was the only intelligent being who was imme-
diately and deeply interested in it.

I consider, therefore, both the duty and the
privilege to have been intended by the Divine
Legislator and Benefactor particularly for man,
and to take place forthwith, since neither the
sanctification nor the benediction are mentioned
a moment sooner than they were wanted. Nei-
ther were they, as already intimated, to be con-
fined to the day on which God rested.* Both
were to be repeated on the subsequent seventh
days in rotation, since propriety and the interest
of man required such a repetition, as much as
they did the commencement. Both, in fine,

* Were the first seventh day alone intended to be holy, and
not its weekly return also, it would not be the day itself that
was sanctified, but a certain day of a month that in a certain
year fell on the last day of the first week. The historical
event, however remarkable, could have been of no use in
practice to Adam and to his posterity. The first-day Chris-
tians do not consider the first days mentioned in the New
Testament alone as sacred, but the weekly return of the first
day also.

28 Antiquity of the Seventh Day, See*

were intended to be continued, till orders should
be received from the Divine Being for their dis-
continuance. — In this sentiment I am happy in
concurring with Dr. Jennings, and other learn-
ed and pious advocates for the Paradisaical Sab-
bath.

Such, according to my judgment, is the sense
of this important passage. It does not appoint
first one day in seven generally, and then the
last day of the week in particular, but the last
day of the week only. It does not mean, as Mr.
Wright states, primarily or principally, and
much less solely, that the seventh part of time
was to be kept sacred; but that the seventh day
in succession from the day on which God rested
should be so kept. There is no utility any more
than justice in the representation made by the
writer just mentioned, that the institution re-
quired, and merely required, the seventh day af-
ter six days' labour on the part of man to be
kept. The Divine Being had indeed worked
six days preceding that rest Which is the reason
assigned for his distinguishing the day so highly
as he did. But man certainly had not worked
six days prior to the first sabbath which he was
called upon to spend in the worship and service
of that Being, to whom he owed his ability both
to work and to enjoy. From that time, of
course, the sabbath would or might be, after six

Antiquity of the Seventh Day, &c. 29

days of man's labour : but the series of weekly
sabbaths was fixed; nor was he at liberty to
alter the day by keeping two sabbaths together,
(and thus making the sabbath that followed the
next six intervening days of labour fall one day
sooner or later than the regular day,) or by any
other expedient.

To these observations it has been replied, that
it was impossible for mankind to regard the in-
stitution according to the sense just given of it.
But I can by no means acquiesce in the con-
clusiveness of the arguments that have been
brought to prove the impossibility.

Bishop White thinks that the weekly sabbath
could not have been given to our first parents in
Paradise before the fall, because they under-
went no labour, had no servants, nor were in
any of the other circumstances supposed by the
Fourth Commandment. But it is not a pre-
requisite to a man's keeping a sabbath, that he
should have servants, or follow a secular calling.
If Adam did not till the ground during the state
of innocence, there is little doubt that he and his
wife employed their time in the study of the ob-
jects that surrounded them, and more particu-
larly of themselves; and though the researches
of the natural philosopher have a religious ten-
dency, and ought to issue in piety, yet as they
are not acts of piety in themselves,, and (as ex»

30 Antiquity of the Seventh Day, S?c.

perience and observation too well prove) are ca-
pable of existing separate from it, they might
very well form the worldly occupation of our
first parents on the working days. The discove-
ries thence made would no doubt have a reli-
gious influence on their private thoughts, their
conversation with each other, their conduct, and
their acts of devotion, whether secret or social,
through the week ; but more especially on the
sacred day that closed it, when it would be their
sole business to contemplate and adore the di-
vine perfections, and to apply their knowledge
of them to proper purposes.

The supposed impossibility, therefore, of our
first parents keeping the weekly sabbath in a state
of holiness and happiness, seems to me to be with-
out ground. Nor does another objection appear
to be better founded, that is raised by the same
learned prelate, by Dr. Wallis, and by many others,
against the credibility of the seventh day's hav-
ing been enjoined upon the first human pair and
their posterity, on account of the day's not hap-
pening during the same period of absolute time,
j under meridians considerably remote from the
I spot about which Paradise is usually supposed to
{ have been situated, and from each other — as also
; on account of the peculiar circumstances attend*
j ing the inhabitants of the polar regions. I am
surprised that any one who professes to advocate

Antiquity of the Seventh Day, fyc. 31

the cause of the first day, should bring forward
an objection to the divine institution of the se-
venth day, which, if solid, must have equally
prevented the institution of the first day, and in-
deed of any day. But it strikes me, that the in-
ference to be drawn from the circumstances
mentioned in the objection is, — not that the words
under consideration do not contain a precept,
when they so manifestly appear to contain one, —
or that they do not mean what they cannot but
mean, if there be any meaning in language, — or
that mankind at the beginning did not think the
precept binding upon them, when they knew no-
thing, any more than the common people do at
this day, that should, in consequence of the pro-
gress now made in the study of geography and
astronomy, make them think otherwise 5 but that
the facts, now they are discovered, form no mate-
rial obstacle to it. The assumption wants proof,
that the Divine Being would not order mankind
to keep a particular day, because the day would
commence and terminate sooner or later in some
countries than in others. . The circumstance does
not prevent his Majesty from ordering his birth-
day to be kept in the East and West Indies on
the same day on which it is kept in England, or
a bill drawn upon a resident in a country situat-
ed under a distant meridian from being paid the
day on which it becomes due. Why, then, should

32 Antiquity of the Seventh Day, Src.

it prevent the institution in question on the part
of the Divine Being? It does not indeed follow-
that God would do so, because man acts in this
manner: but it follows that his doing so is not
impossible ; and that there is no reason for inter-
preting Gen. 2. 2, 3. in a way different from the
natural import of the words, on such a ground.*

With respect to the great mass of places and
persons, the objection in question is futile. One
weekly sabbath could not differ from another in
absolute time more than twelve hours at fur-
thest j and in the generality of cases the differ-
ence would not amount to a couple of hours, if
so much. They differed scarcely any thing, till
emigrations took place east or west from the
neighbourhood of Paradise before the flood, and
from Mount Ararat after the flood. Even when
these emigrations did take place, the differences
were inconsiderable, till the removals were to ve-
ry remote distances. If it be asked what was to
be done by the emigrants relative to the day for
the sabbath, whenever that should return, I an-
swer, even that which has always been done, and
still is done, by the moderns in such a case —

* The meridian of Jerusalem is not the same with that of
Sinai; yet the Fourth Commandment required the Jews to
keep the seventh day in the former place, as well as in the
latter.

Antiquity of the Seventh Day, 3?c. 33

namely, to call that the evening of what we now
call the sixth day, (and if any of them did not
know which was the sixth day, through losing
their reckoning after setting out, that was their
fault,) when darkness commenced at the place
where they were. This would be the beginning
of the sabbath, and the end of it would be the
commencement of darkness on the day following.
The interval would be their seventh day now,
according to the course of nature and providence,
however it might differ less or more in time from
the one they left behind them.

What the ancients actually did in the case of
emigrating with respect to their computation of
time, no one can now tell. But I may venture ■
to affirm, I believe, that the moderns have acted,
and still act, in substance, as just stated, altering
their time-pieces according to the meridian of
their new residences. The Jews and the Chris-
tians, in keeping their respective weekly sab-
baths in this country, do not keep precisely the
weekly returns of the same days which their
forefathers or predecessors kept, and which they
themselves would now keep were they in Asia.
Yet regardless of the difference, and most of
them totally ignorant of it, they both think that
they each keep the same days in succession
which the professors of their respective religions
kept in the east many centuries ago. And so
c2

34 Antiquity of the Seventh Day, &?c.

they do, so far as the course of nature and provi-
dence allows them. Nor do they either of them
imagine, or have they cause to imagine, that the
foreknowledge of such a circumstance on the
part of the Deity, rendered it impossible for him
to fix or to continue a particular day for the
weekly sabbath, or that they having become ac-
quainted with it, are now at liberty to exchange
it for any other day that fashion or interest may
recommend.*

The people of Europe, and those of America,
frequently remove their residences from the one
to the other, without ever thinking that in con-
sequence of these changes they do not sanctify
the same day weekly that they used to sanctify;
nor are they thought to keep a different one by
others, notwithstanding the far^t, that in such
cases the former begin their sabbath some hours
later, and the latter some hours earlier, than
they did before. Travellers to a distance east or
west, whether by sea or land, alter their time-
pieces, as was said before, to the hour of the
place where they happen to be, whenever there
is occasion, and reverse the alteration on their re-
turn, or in the course of returning, without ever

* In speaking of the ancient Christians as considering the
first day to he the weekly sabbath, agreeably to Isa. G8. 13.
the author delivers the popular sentiment, not his own.

Antiquity of the Seventh Day, S?c. 35

supposing that such changes can or ought to in-
terfere with their fixing on or adhering to particu-
lar days agreed on with those left behind them for
transacting important business. Supposing two-
individuals to go round the world in opposite di-
rections, and to gain or lose a day, so that on
their return to the same spot there should be a
difference of two days between them, I have no
doubt that they would give up, the one his Mon-
day, and the other his seventh day, if they found
it to be Sunday at home, without any obstruc-
tion, either on their own part, or on the part of
others ; and whatever concern Dr. Wallis, in his
6 Discourse on the Christian Sabbath/ p. 80, pro-
fesses to feel for Sir Francis Drake, on his return
to England after sailing round the world, re-
specting the mode in which he and his friends
would settle their differences about time, I will
venture to affirm that the gallant admiral and
they settled them without the smallest embar-
rassment on either side. Yet no one, I believe,
will agree with the worthy doctor in thinking,
on account of this incident, the Deity could not
appoint a particular day, whether the seventh or
the first day, for the weekly sabbath, and expect
it to be kept, too, without the liberty of making
a transfer.

During the parts of the year that the inhabit-
ants of the polar regions are in total light or in

36 Antiquity of the Seventh Bay, Src.

total darkness for many days and weeks together,
they certainly cannot measure time by the natu-
ral means by which we can. But admitting that
they have no other mode of distinguishing days
and weeks, so as to enable them to keep the se-
venth day sabbath, it is by no means certain that
their peculiar situation would prevent an institu-
tion which regards the human race at large. A
Baptist does not think that there is no such di-
vine ordinance as that of baptism, (that is, in his
opinion, the immersing the whole body,) because
there may be a few instances in which persons
making a credible profession of their faith could
not be baptized without endangering their lives.
Nor is it an objection to the existence of a,
weekly sabbath by divine appointment, that no
day whatever can at any time be wholly kept,
because there is no one on which the occasion
for ' works of necessity and mercy' does not
occur.

To proceed. Another objection has been taken
against the Deity's having appointed a particular
day to be observed by mankind in general, from
the present natural, and from the artificial modes
of computing time, both ancient and modern. It
is imagined, that the three first days not having
been measured by the absence and the presence
of the sun, as every day has been measured since,
no seventh day subsequent to the first has a right

Antiquity of the Seventh Day]w& 37>>^$>

to sanctification, on the ground of being ks proper
representative; not happening after apoi
time equal to that after which the first seven!
day happened, but after a space of time that was
either longer or shorter. It is likewise imagin-
ed, that all mankind cannot sanctify the return of
the day which was the seventh day in Paradise,
because some of them reckoning the beginning
of their days, not from the beginning of darkness,
but from either the noon before, or the midnight
after, their seventh days commenced neither
with that particular day, nor with each other. I
shall have occasion to discuss these objections
more fully, when I come to consider the ques-
tion concerning the commencement of the week-
ly sabbath according to Scripture. At present,
I reply to the first of these objections, that there
is no proof of the three first days of the first
week being respectively different in length from
the four days that followed them. The Deity
knew when the twenty-four hours were complet-
ed, as well without as with the sun, and there-
fore could make them precisely of the same
length as the others. It appears that he did so,
by the sacred historian calling the three first
days, as well as the four last, without noticing
that the word was used in different senses. Con-
sequently the first week did not differ in length
from any one that followed*

38 Antiquity of the Seventh Day, #c*

As to the other objection, I reply, that men
knew, at the beginning, that the commencement
of darkness was the original sign of a new day's
commencing, and that the commencement of the
weekly sabbath was signified by the same sign as
the commencement of any other day. They were
able, and it was their duty, in their emigrations,
to preserve the knowledge of the day, be it
which of the seven it might, and likewise of the
sign when a new day commenced. However
lawful it might be for them to alter the com-
mencement of the six working days, it does not
appear that they were under any necessity, or
that they had any authority, to alter the com-
mencement of the seventh day sabbath. If any
of the nations, through their own fault, or that of
their ancestors, lost their reckoning, they were
able to recover it by means of the Jews, among
whom (as I shall show in the proper place) the
knowledge of the true seventh day has always
been preserved.

Finally, the argument against the divine insti-
tution of the Paradisaical sabbath, or at least
against the obligation to regard it immediately,
drawn from the supposed silence of sacred and
profane history on the subject of its actual observ-
ance, appears to me to be equally inconclusive.
A law may have really existed, and may conti-
nue to exist, even though no one should keep it,

Antiquity of the Seventh Day, &?c. 39

or ever have kept it. Besides, it does not fol-
low, from there being no account of any one's
keeping a law, that no one ever did keep it.
Would it follow that there had not been a state
of perfect innocence and happiness, if the Scrip-
tural account of the means by which the fatal
change was effected were wanting, and we
merely knew (according to the Grecian fable)
that the gold was become iron, without possess-
ing any information how it became so ? Whether
there actually be no records of a weekly sabbath
having been kept, prior to the time of Moses, I
shall not now inquire . The important advantages
generally acknowledged (as already stated) to
attach to such an observance to man and beast,
to individuals and to society, both in a civil and
in a religious view, show that it could not be
postponed, without delaying for a time the holy
and benevolent purposes of the Deity in the in-
stitution, and without injury to his creatures in
this lower world. The constant recurrence of
the human mind, for instance, during twenty-
four hours eveiy week, to the time when there
was no visible world, and when the course of na-
ture had no existence — to the depe'ndance of man
himself, and of all around him, on the Divine Be-
ing, had a wonderful tendency to compensate
. the disadvantages of not, for the most part, be-
holding him present and acting 5 and if this was

40 Antiquity of the Seventh Day, fyc.

the case while man was often favoured with visi-
ble, or at least audible, manifestations of the
Deity, and had no temptations either internal or
external, such as he at present meets with, to
disregard the Supreme, how much more was it
so, when these manifestations were in a great
measure withdrawn, and when ( the carnal mind
was enmity against God/*

Though these considerations would never in
all probability have occurred to man, or proved
the occasion of his keeping a weekly sabbath of
his own accord, either at the beginning of time
or afterwards, yet they abundantly justify the
Deity's instituting one to be kept on the last day
of the week, declare his intention respecting its
immediately taking effect, and show that it was
the duty and interest of man, as well as practica-
ble for him, to comply instantly with the will of
his Maker, even if he did not comply with it.

* The topics just adverted to were at first the only ones
that could engage his attention ; but in consequence of the
fall, others infinitely greater became interesting to him, and
happily for him, had a real existence. It is remarkable, that
prior to human apostasy, there was no act of religion founded
on Revelation prescribed to man, except that of sanctifying
the seventh day weekly, unless the negative one of abstain-
ing from eating of the tree of knowledge, may be accounted
such.

41

CHAPTER IV.

Differences of Opinion concerning the Regard
paid by the Patriarchs and the Gentiles to
the Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath.

It is not known, I believe, what the opinion of
the Jews . who lived before our Lord's time was,
concerning the conduct of the Patriarchs prior to
Moses, and that of the Gentiles, relative to the
weekly sabbath. But some of them since, in
conjunction with the oldest Christian Fathers,
and not a few great and good characters in mo-
dern times, have (it is said) expressed it to be
their sentiment, that the ancients had no sab-
bath. The chief reason assigned for their think-
ing so is, that there is no account of such an
observance, either in sacred or in profane his-
tory. This alleged silence, however, is denied
by Dr. Jennings, and others as respectable for
learning and piety — perhaps for number, as
their opponents 5 and I own that I am of their
opinion.

I have already observed, that there being no
instance recorded of a law's having been obeyed,
cannot disprove the existence or importance of
the law itself, where there is sufficient proof of
both. That this is really the case of the institu-

42 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, 8rc.

tion (Gen. 2. 2, 3.) relative to the seventh-day
weekly sabbath, I distinctly showed in the last
Chapter. It was there proved, likewise, that
obedience was practicable, and that it was the
duty and the interest of man instantly to obey it.
This suffices for establishing the obligation, whe-
ther it was regarded or not. But the apparent
non-observance of a law may be owing to the
want of records. What an infinite multitude of
' facts must have existed, of which there is no re-
cord ! The history of barbarous ages and coun-
tries, and particularly ancient history, are almost
blanks for want of such records. What a varie-
ty of causes may prevent their having been writ-
ten, or occasion their loss or destruction after
they were written ! Silent, therefore, as history
may be on the subject, it is reasonable to suppose
that that was really clone, which, considering the
circumstances, it was reasonable to do; and this
is. the case respecting obedience to a law like
that of the weekly seventh- day sabbath, which,
as has been shown, really existed, and which,
being noways impractiblc, it was both the duty
and interest of man on whom it was enjoined to
obey. With respect to our first parents before
the fall, I do not see how their non-observance
of the sabbath, at that tin^e, could be compatible
with the state of innocence which they must then
be supposed to possess.

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, S?c. 43

With regard to there being no mention in the
two oldest books in the Bible (those of Genesis
and Job) of the Patriarchs' keeping the sabbath,
the concise manner in which they give the histo-
ry of between two and three thousand years for-
bade their noticing any weekly routine, such as
this would have been, except something extraor-
dinary and of general interest occurred in it; and
that an extraordinary occurrence of importance
enough to the world at large to deserve inser-
tion in such a narrative was not very likely to
happen on that occasion, the experience of every
individual and of every Christian society that ob-
serves or records whatever passes on the sabbath
that is singular and of moment, sufficiently
proves. He who carefully peruses the account
of pious characters contained in the books under
consideration, will see that no act of religion
is told concerning any of them, except some-
thing remarkable attaches to it. Thus we are
informed, more than once, that 'Abraham built
an altar unto the Lord/ because he did it in a
foreign and in an idolatrous country, or because
he did it near a new place of abode. At other
times, the piety of the Patriarchs is recorded,
on account of its being uncommon, and on ac-
count of the peculiar regard paid to it by the
Deity. For the want of some such extraordi-
nary circumstances I imagine it was, that after

44 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, S?c.

Abel's death there is not a word said concerning
the religion of any of the Antediluvian Patri-
archs, except Enoch and Noah, though no one
doubts, I suppose, that they were pious. The
memoirs of most godly men, not only in the
books of Genesis and Job, but also in other parts
of Scripture, were not intended, like those in
modern biography, to give complete views of re-
ligious characters, and therefore omit many par-
ticulars concerning them, which, however inte-
resting in a private, domestic, or local view, were
not of general importance. In fine, though so-
cial worship is thought to have been early and
commonly practised by the Patriarchs before the
flood, yet nothing of it was known from Inspira-
tion, (except the words e then began men to call
upon the name of the Lord' were intended to in-
dicate it,) till the Second Epistle of Peter and the
Epistle of Jude were written; nor would these
have noticed what they do of Noah and of Enoch,
had they not been led to do so by the resem-
blance of many professors of religion in their
time, to people who lived in the time of the
aforesaid Patriarchs,*

* The sabbath is seldom mentioned in the Old Testament,
even after the time of Moses. In the days of the most pious
rulers the Jews ever had, such as Joshua, Samuel, David,
Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, it is never no-

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, fyc. 45

The non-existence of any nation professing
the true religion prior to the time of the Jews,
(for the subjects of Melchisedec, ' Priest of the
Most High God/ were little more than a tribe,)
and consequently of an opportunity for celebrat-
ing the weekly sabbath by numerous assemblies
performing divine service on the day, is stated as
another objection to the idea of the institution's
having been regarded in the infancy of the world.
But I must remark, that however important a
nation may be to the keeping a sabbath with
eclat, it is by no means necessary to the keeping
one at all. The same thing in substance may
take place where there is only a tribe, though
with an appearance far less striking. Nay in a
single family there may be social prayer and reli-
gious instruction, by means of reading, address-
ing, and conversing. In short, an individual
may worship God in retirement, and direct his
thoughts, words, and actions, to piety, through
the day appropriated to religion, privately, when
he cannot manifest a spirit of devotion publicly;
and though private devotion cannot have the
magnificence and splendour which often accom-

ticed as being personally regarded by them but twice,
namely, in the 42nd and 92nd Psalms. The few other times
at which it is mentioned seem to have been only because the
public and the nation were concerned;

46 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, fyc.

pany public worship, yet it is not less suitable or
essential, under God, to the sanctification of a
day, than the other. f Cast down' as c the soul'
of the Psalmist David might be ' within him'
when he could not e go to the house of God with
the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude of
them that kept holy-day/ there is little doubt
that in the spiritual state of mind in which he
appears to have been at this time, he kept the
sabbath full as well for the purpose of devotion,
though not of comfort, in his constrained absence
from the tabernacle, as when he was favoured
with an opportunity of approaching the 'holy
oracle/* In fine, as little force seems to me to
be in the objection to the actual observance of
the weekly sabbath by the ancients, taken from
the supposed impossibility of its being kept by
the Israelites, when they were c in the house of
bondage/ Admitting that the Egyptians knew
nothing of such a day by tradition, (the contrary
to which is asserted by a host of writers,) or that
knowing of it and keeping it themselves, their

* The observations that have been made respecting the
practicability of sanctifying the sabbath before the time of
the Jews, are as applicable to the mode of worship under
the Patriarchal, as to that under the Christian dispensation.
For there were private sacrifices, and sacrifices offered up in
families, as well as public and national sacrifices.

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, &C. 47

avarice and inhumanity, though to their own de-
triment, would not allow their unhappy slaves to
do the same, this compelled secularization of the
day would have been only 'a work of necessity;'
it would not prove that the disposition of the
oppressed people could not be devotional, or that
they did not manifest such a disposition, so far as
they had opportunity in secret and in conversa-
tion. No one who observes the first day now,
thinks that the Christians after the apostolic age,
and before the time of Constantine the Great, did
not keep it, notwithstanding Bishop White tells
us that most of them were employed by their
heathen masters, on that day, in digging mines,
rowing galleys, draining marshes, and in every
kind of mean and laborious service.

The remarks hitherto made, proceed upon the
ground that the silence of history respecting any
regard paid by the ancients to the weekly sab-
bath, is absolute and total. But I must now
observe, that there are various circumstances
which strongly indicate, that the Patriarchs be-
fore the time of Moses did really keep the se-
venth day sabbath. After what has been said
concerning the evidence of its institution by the
Creator, and his intention that it should be re-
garded immediately, agreeably to what might be
expected from the conviction generally prevalent
of the importance of a weekly sabbath both to

48 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, ftc.

man and beast, it may seem incredible that these
pious men should not keep it, provided they
knew of it. Now that they did know of it, can-
not, in my opinion, be reasonably doubted, since
it appears that they knew of the division of time
into weeks.

The frequent use of the period of days which
compose a week in the Patriarchal history, as
also of the number seven in preference to other
numbers, in the case of animals, and in other
cases in which a selection was wanted, cannot
be satisfactorily accounted for, without supposing
that there is a reference to the number of days
employed in the Creation, which, with the divine
institution of the sabbath, composed the first
week, and was the origin of that division of time.
Indeed the term week is expressly used (Gen.
29. 27.) in the compact made with Jacob by his
uncle, which would not have been, had not the
word been intelligible and familiar to Jacob.*

The most direct and positive proof, however,
of the institution in Gen. 2. 2, 3. being observed
by the Jews, and consequently by their ancestors
the Patriarchs, from whom they must have de-

* If week had originated in its being nearly the fourth part
of a month, or in the moon's quarters, the term would have
occurred in the Greek classics, as well as the terms month and
year, which does not appear to be the case.

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, 8?c. 49

rived the knowledge and practice of it, before
the giving of the law from Mount Sinai, is con-
tained in Exod. 16. at the time they were in the
wilderness of Sin, being not yet arrived at Sinai.
But as there are those who contend that the
sabbath kept then was not on the seventh day
which was the regular return of the day on
which God rested in Paradise, I shall defer the
consideration of this proof to a future occasion.

1 proceed to inquire whether any regard was
paid by the a ncient Gentile s to the seventh day
sabbath. Even ir it was not, I have already
shown that it was as much their duty and inte-
rest to pay such a regard, as it was the duty and
interest of that race of people, which, in common
with themselves descending from Adam and
Noah, composed the ancestors of the Jewish na-
tion. But respecting their actual conduct, that
is, whether they really kept it, or did not keep
it, there is the same diversity of opinion among
authors, that there is concerning the question
which has justj been discussed. The same writers
who with Dr. Jennings maintain that the Patri-
archs kept the Paradisaical sabbath, maintain
likewise that the Gentiles kept it; and I am of
the same opinion — at least that they did so for a
while. They had the same regard for the num-
ber seven which the Patriarchs had, as appears
from the number of altars, bullocks, and rams,

D

50 Regard paid hy the Patriarchs, 8?c.

which Balak the king of Moab prepared at the
instance of Balaam. There is, therefore, the
same reason for thinking that they knew of the
division of time into weeks, with its origin, and
were accustomed so to divide it, as that the Pa-
triarchs had this knowledge and custom. Laban,
who in the passage before quoted used the word
week* in his conversation with Jacob, did not
reside in the family or in the country of the
Patriarchs Abraham and Isaac; he was also an
idolater. Correct, therefore, as Dr. Wallis may
be in his opinion, that among the Gentiles who
were contemporary with the Jews in C anaan,
the period of seven days, called a week, was ut-
terly unknown, he is certainly mistaken in think-
ing that they did not know it in the time of the
Patriarchs.

Thus does it appear that the anc ient Gen tiles
did know of the w eek, and that they respectST
both it, and the number of which its days consist.
This, however, it may be said they might do,
without knowing any thing of the origin, name-
ly, the six days employed in the Creation, with
the divine institution of the seventh day sabbath
at the close of them, or showing the smallest

* The Hebrew word rendered week (Gen, 29.) is the same
that is rendered so under the Jewish economy j nor is there
any other for week in that language, except it be sabbath.

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, S?c. 51

degree of sacred regard for that day. Let us,
then, examine such remains of antiquity as tend
to reflect light upon these latter points. Dr.
Wallis thinks that Cfemens Alexandrinus, who
lived toward the close of the second century after
Christ, first collected these passages from the
Greek writers ; but he could not have collected
them all, if Dr. W. has enumerated all he did
collect. What Clemens himself thought of the
matter in question does not appear from the
learned Professor. But according to him, this
ancient Father roundly asserts that the Gentiles
derived all their r eligious knowlerl g ^ from the
Jews. Many, I believe, have avowed the same
sentiment. I cannot say that this is my opinion.
I think a distinction should be made between the
persons and t hing s recorded in Scripture that
existed b efor e, and those that existed after the
time of Mose s, respecting the means by which
the Greeks became acquainted with them. With
regard to the latter, they most probably did owe
their knowledge to their intercourse with Judea
and its inhabitants. But it is as probable that
they derived their knowledge of the former from
tradition, the source of which must be looked for
in the individuals who were their ancestors, as
well as the ancestors of the Jews. They must
have heard tell of many striking and interesting
particulars through Ham and Japhet, as the He-

52 Regard paid by the Patriarchs^ 8fc.

brews did through Shem and his descendants. In
this way they heard of Tubal- cain and Noah,
of Japhet and Ham, whom they called respec-
tively Vulcan and Fo, Japetus and Jupiter Ham-
mon. Hence they became acquainted with the
Creation, the state of innocence and happiness,
the fall of man, the deluge, and the preservation
of Noah and his family : which particulars are
plainly referred to in their account of order rising
out of chaos, and in the fables of the Four Ages,
of Deucalion and Pyrrha, and of Saturn and his
Three Sons, who divided the universe among
them. From the same source, in my opinion,
and not from the Jews, they derived their know-
ledge of the division of time into weeks, with
the cause of it, and the sacred regard due to the
seventh or last day of the week.*

* The defeat of the giants who attempted to scale heaven,
as also the_ dethronement and expulsion from Olympus of
Saturn, which make so conspicuous a figure in the heathen
mythology, seem evidently to refer to the history of the apos-
tate angels. But the knowledge of these particulars could
not have been obtained by the ancient heathen from the
Jews, the latter having no better means of knowing them
than themselves j because the Scriptures in that stage of
Revelation contained no information on the subject, I must
observe, too, in general, respecting the knowledge supposed
to be derived by the Gentiles from the Jews, that before the
Babylonish captivity, it related to customs themselves, rather

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, fyc. 53

I now proceed to bring forward and examine
the passages which the researches of the learned
have succeeded in collecting from ancient wri-
ters relative to this point. I begin by observing,
that though Dr. Jennings, who is a firm believer
in the regard paid both by the Patriarchs and the
Gentiles to the Paradisaical sabbath, scruples not
to affirm that the nations in general, during that
period and afterwards, used to divide their time
into weeks, he does not support his declaration
by any testimonies. A little before him, Mr.
Wright wrote much the same, not indeed of the
seventh day in particular, but of what he calls
the seventh part of time. Dr. Rees, in his Ency-
clopaedia, under the word Week, has given us a
number of authors, who all acknowledge the re-
gard paid by the ancient Gentiles to the seventh
day, though they differ from each other concern-
ing the cause. Dr. Wallis, on the contrary, flatly
denies that any nation divided time into weeks,
except that of the Jews; and I must own, that I
have not yet been able to discover any term that

than to their origin ; it being difficult to get access to a copy
of the Scriptures, or to find a Jew that could give informa-
tion of their contents. It will appear, however, presently,
that Hesiod, one of the earliest of the Greek; writers, knew
not only the sacred character of the seventh day, but also
something of the reason of it.

54 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, $rc.

is descriptive of that period of days, or that an-
swers to the word week, in any Greek or Latin
classic prior to the Christian era. On whichso-
ever side, however, the truth lies, Dr. Wallis is
certainly mistaken in supposing, as he does, that
the Gentiles never knew of or had weeks, ad-
mitting that they lost the idea and the use of them
afterwards : for it is plain, as I have already
shown, that the Syrians had them in the time of
Laban, the Moabitesin the time of Balaam, and
the Philistines at the time that Samson was mar-
ried among them ; it being incredible in this last
case, that the Philistines would have borrowed the
period of seven days from the Jews, whom they
hated and oppressed.

The earliest writers from whom the quotations
% alluded to a little before were taken, are Homer
I and Hesiod. Both of them are commonly
thought, I believe, to have been cotemporary
with King David, about 1000 years before Christ:
though Dr. Wallis represents Hesiod as being in
the time of King Uzziah, nearly two hundred
years later. Morer, a rector in London, who
(A.D. 1701) published several c Dialogioeson the
'Lord's Day,' which he dedicated to the Bishop
of London, quotes more passages from the afore-
said writers than any other whom I have seen.
He also annexes to them, or intermingles with
them., some verses relative to the point under

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, 8?c. 55

discussion, from C allimachu s, who wrote about
300 years before Christ. Unhappily, he does not
assign to each his own expressions respectively.
I shall translate them in the order in which he
has given them, p. 102.

'Afterwards on the seventh, the sacred day de-
scended/

' The seventh day was. and all things had been
finished on it/

'The s event h was sacred/

'And on the seventh morning, we left the
stream from Acheron/

'And the seventh sacred day/

'And again the seventh, the bright shining of
the sun/

' The seventh was among good things, and the
seventh was the birth-day/

' The seventh is among the first, and the se-
venth is perfect/

' The seventh indeed, on which all things were
finished/

' And on the seventh morning all things were
finished/*

56 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, fyc.

• H Of these lines Dr. Jennings quotes two, the
first and the sixth; the former, he tells us, is
from Homer, the latter from Hesiod. He
thinks, with me, that in consequence of the posi-
tive institution of the seventh day sabbath at the
end of the Creation, (the knowledge of which'
in my opinion, as already explained, these earli-
est writers, in common with the other ancients,
obtained from tradition,) they knew of weeks,
and accounted ' one day of the seven' more sa-
cred than the rest.

In order, however, to place in a true light the
sense of these singular verses, and their bearing
on the present question, it will be necessary for
me to remark on the observations of my oppo-
nents concerning them, and to add some of my
own. Dr. Wallis quotes two other lines, after
Clemens, from Hesiod, (and .they are the only
lines he does quote,) which he renders thus: —
p. 5.
I ? Begin we with the First and the Fourth, and
f the Seventh, a sacred day, because that on this

*E(3£ofA.D ei» aya9o«7i, xat E/3Jbjui} tern ysttSXri.
'E^ojjL-n tv vrpuTOHTi, y.<x\ !/3&>/ai) tern rt\etvi.
€ £/3^0jt*aT>j $7), xxh rtrtr\ta-f/.t¥oi. iravrct rtrvKrau
' £/3JbjbtaT»j ¥ viot TtriKettr airatra.

Regard paid hy the Patriarchs, 8?c. 57

day, Apollo, who has a golden sword, was born /
of Latona/

Having cited the passage, he remarks (and
Morer concurs with him, p. 149) that the seventh
was not the only da y which Hesiod notices as
worthy of distinction, and also that he is speak-
ing not of the days of the week, but of the days
of the month, as appears from his noticing
afterwards the e leventh , twelth, and other days.
But though the statement of these learned men
is correct and pertinent, yet it concludes nothing
against the argument of Dr. Jennings. It does
not deny, that the seventh day, which Homer
calls ( s acre d/ is the seventh of the week; and
even if the day called sacred by Hesiod was the
seventh of the month, it is remarkable that he
gives that epithet to none of the other days
which he distinguishes. The epithet, too, is
repeatedly given to that day. It is easy to con-
ceive, how an epithet which the heathen applied
at first to the seventh day of the week, might
afterwards be transferred to the seventh of the
month — especially if any of them had lost (as
they seem to have done in a course of time) the
knowledge of weeks, and the custom of reckon-
ing by them. As to the first and fourth days
which Hesiod mentions with respect, as well as
the seventh, which he calls sacred on account of
its being the first day of Apollo, [the sun,] and
d2

58 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, fyc.

consequently, according to the fable, of Diana,
[the moon,] when it is considered that light was
created on the first day, that the two great sour-
ces of it to this earth are represented to have
been ' made' on the fourth day, and that the se-
venth day was set apart for sacred purposes by
the Deity in honour of and for commemorating
the Creation, of which light and its two great
sources are such eminent and important parts,
the statement of Hesiod can scarcely be looked
upon otherwise than as an allegorical account of
the facts just mentioned, and as confirming in-
stead of overthrowing the supposition, that the
heathen had heard of the institution of the se-
venth day sabbath by tradition, and for a certain
time paid this respect to it. The observation,
therefore, of Morer, that the priests of Apollo
called him by a Greek name which signifies
seventh day born, is not adverse to the aforesaid
reasoning; for though the sun was 'made' on
the fourth day, his birth might very well be kept
or celebrated on the seventh day, according to
the Scriptural narrative. With respect to the
divine worship performed on the first, fourth,
and seventh days, being, as the same poet tells
us, at length transferred to Jupiter, it is possible
that my reader will wonder as little at that
change, as that the sacred regard paid at first to
the seventh day of the week, should afterwards

Regard paid by the Patriarchs , Sec. 59

be transferred to the seventh day of the month.
Without the natural supposition that has been
made, there is no way of accounting for the pre-
tended birth-day being fixed to the seventh day
of any period rather than to any other day; nor
is the transfer more extraordinary, than that the
celebration of Apollo's birth-day should be
monthly, (if it was so, and not weekly,) rather
than annual.

Plutarch, according to Bishop White, men-
tions in the life of Theseus, (who lived in the
time of the Judges,) that the Greeks consecrated
the eighth day, as also that the ' Roman s kept the
ninth day. Both these days were, 1 suppose,
days of the month. Certainly keeping either of
these is different from keeping the last day of each
week. But (as was said before) the practice of
keeping a stated day at all, and so frequently as
every month, might arise from their ancestors'
knowing and keeping the seventh day sabbath
originally; and it is not easy to account for the
practice, though a deviation, on any other
ground.

The most important expressions, however, in
the lines that have been quoted are, that 'jhe
seventh day is a perfect day;' that ' on it all
things were finished;' and that it was f among
the good things.' They resemble so strongly the
words of the institution, (Gen. 2. 2, 3.) that their

60 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, fyc.

reference to it cannot be doubted. Morer, as I
stated before, does not tell us whether Homer,
Hesiod, or Callimachus uses them, nor have I
any means of ascertaining to which of these po-
ets they belong. But supposing that they should
be the expressions of Callimachus, the question
will then be, how he came to use them. It is not
likely that the tradition before mentioned conti-
nued so long as his time, which was seven hun-
dred years later than the time of the two former
poets. He might indeed have gotten them from
some ancient work or another, not now extant.
But it will perhaps be thought most probable
that he got them from the Septuagint.

I am aware that there are those who fix the
date of the celebrated Greek version of the Old
Testament just mentioned, nearly one hundred
years later than the time of Callimachus, who
flourished in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphia,
king of Egypt, about three hundred years before
Christ. But if some such incident as that which
is commonly believed, of the Jews having fur-
nished that prince with a copy of the Bible and a
translation of it into Greek, for his new library at
Alexandria, did not take place, (though detached
from the fabulous circumstances that have been
added to it,) I cannot account for his singular
munificence to them, (according to Josephus,}
and the friendly connexion between his country

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, fyc. 61

and their's for *fi fty or sixty years at least, after
the hostile proceedings of his father toward
them. The idea is not incompatible with the
opinion of those who think that the present Sep-
tuagint did not originate with the copy in the
library, but with the translation made many
years after by the Alexandrian Jews. The copy
in the library, too, might or might not be called
the Septuagint; and if it did bear that name, it
might be so called, not from seventy-two men
being concerned in making it, which is the
vulgar notion, but, according to the new senti-
ment, from the Sanhedrim, which consisted of
seventy elders, as having been procured by them
for the king's use.

This great and laborious writer (Callimachus)
might, then, in my opinion, have easily seen and
perused the Greek translation of the Old Testa-
ment, since he resided at Alexandria many years.
But supposing him to have gotten the striking
expressions under consideration from the Septu-
agint, it still remains difficult to account for his
using them. It is not likely that he would have
thus honoured and justified the weekly sanctifi-
cation of the seventh day by the Jews, at the risk
of surprising and offending his Grecia n country-
men, if the general sentiment and practice had
been wholly adverse to the expressions he
adopts. Most probably, though the ancient tra-

62 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, 8fc.

% kjz~[ dition itself among the Gentiles had been long
since lost, the effect of it continued, especially
among the many nations that witnessed the con-
tant observance of the seventh day sabbath by
the Jews in the different places where they were
scattered after the Babylonish captivity. Their
idolatrous neighbours might not, in the time of
Callimachus, be so hostile to it, as the Roman
poets and philosophers showed themselves after-
wards, and might even perform some supersti-
tious rites of their own on the day. They per-
haps retained the original service performed in
honour of Apollo, or Jupiter, on the seventh day
of the week, long after the cause of it was forgot-
ten. Callimachus, therefore, in thus expressing
himself, might be only supplying that defect, and
could easily plead in his defence, if necessary,
that the cause which he assigned was agreeable
to the sense of the lines that have been quoted
from Homer and Hesiod, and perhaps to the tes-
timonies of some others now unknown. Should
the remarkable passages in question be really
Homer's or Hesiod's, and not Callimachus' s, they
will, in my opinion, place the knowledge of the
ancient Gentiles concerning the sacred regard
due to the seventh day of the week, and also their
actually paying it, beyond all controversy.

The ideas I have hazarded, receive no small
support from the declarations of Philo and Jose-

Regard paid ly the Patriarchs, fyc. 63

phus, who lived a short time after our Lord's
ascension. Philo calls the seventh day sabbath
1 the general feast of the world. [See Morer, p.
10£j"And Josephus says, [Ibid, p. 162,] 'The
laws established among us have been followed by
all n ations; yea the common people have long
since drawn our piety into imitation ; neither is
there any^country, Greek or Barbarian, to which
the rest of our sabbath day has not reached/

The extent to which the knowledge of the
seventh day sabbath spread itself among the Gen-
tiles, and the regard which was paid to it in some
respects by them after the Babylonish captivity,
were doubtless owing in a great measure to the
Jews; but not so, for the reasons already given,
the knowledge and respect which they had for it
originally. They derived them from tradition, -
which must have informed both them and the
Jews of the existence of many remarkable per-
sons, and of many important facts, long before
the time of written Revelation, and independent
of it, notwithstanding the impossibility of stating
with accuracy which, and how many. They
knew of weeks, and had them in use, when the
Jews were in embryo; and the quotations before
mentioned, and which indicate the sacred cha-
racter of the seventh day, were some of them
written at a time when it was not easy to get ac-
cess to a copy of the sacred books even in the

64 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, &c.

original, or to find any one that could give infor-
mation from them concerning the origin of their
customs.* Nor indeed was either of these means
necessary: for why should not the Gentiles know
that from tradition, which the Jews themselves
did, who, as I shall have occasion to show in the
next Chapter, knew of the seventh day sabbath
before they heard of it from Moses ? Yet the tra-
dition, or rather the effect of it, was most proba-
bly preserved and extended, if not renewed,
among them, by intercourse with the Jews, and
by their example. It needed these helps, as well
as that of worshipping the Deity, or of offering
sacrifice; nor did it experience much greater
mutilations and corruptions, than those which
fell to the lot of the others.

Before I conclude these remarks on the dif-
ferent opinions relative to the regard paid by the
Patriarchs and the Gentiles to the seventh day
sabbath, I wish to make a few on the name
which the seventh day of the week usually bears
in modern times. The English historian, Rapin,
affirms that its present name, Saturday, was im-
ported into this country by the Saxons, and that
they called it so in honour of their God, Satur,
whom, as he tells us, they worshipped on that day.
Nor do I see any cause to question the correct-

* The beginning of the Jewish monarchy is here referred to.

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, 8?c. 65

ness of his assertion. For though it may be
thought that they borrowed it from the Britons,
(since the Welch at this day call Saturday by a
word which signifies the day of Saturn,) yet if
they had done so, they would most probably have
borrowed the names of the other days from the
Britons, which they certainly did not.

But whence did the Saxons in Germany obtain
their Satur and their Saturday? Not from the
Romans ; for though the latter, as will be shown
presently, resembled them both in the name they
gave to the day, and in their practice on it, yet
in their wars with Germany they never reached
the north , where the Saxons resided. The Saxon
custom, therefore, must have a different origin.

To speak first of the Romans: — Whence did
the Romans derive their Saturn? Not from the
Greek X/>o»o?, [Chronos,] to which it bears no re-
semblance, though the latter is constantly tran-
slated by the former, and understood to be the
same deity.* True as it may be in general that
the Latin language was formed from the Greek,
it is plain that this word Salurnus, among many
others, had a different source. Most likely, it
was imported from some other country near Italy,

* The Greek word for Saturn is Kpono,- ; but he was always
considered as the emblem of Time, however X came to be
exchanged for K. — See Rees's Encyclopaedia, Art. Saturn.

66 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, fyc.

not from Greece. It is more than probable,
that the origin of the Saxon god Satur, was the
same with that of the Roman Saturn.

There was a particular day at Rome kept sa-
cred to this deity; as appears from the following
lines of Tibullus, who lived in the time of Au-
gustus Caesar ; —

' Aut ego sum causatns aves, aut omina dira,
Saturni aut sacram me tenuisse diem.' *

Lib. I. Eleg. ill. ver. 18.

That this sacred day recurred weekly, and was
the same with the Saturday of the Saxons, (ac-
cording to Rapin,) and with the modern Satur-
day, is proved by the following circumstance.
Dion Cassius, an historian of the third century,
according to Dr. Wailis, in his .'Defence of the
Christian Sabbath/ p. 64, calls the seventh day,
on which the Jews, from a mistaken principle of
religion, refused to defend themselves against
the Romans, by the name of Saturday. This,
then, must have been the day referred to by Ti-
bullus; for it is incredible that the Romans
should call two days by the same name, or that
since the time of Tibullus they should have

* ' I assigned as the cause, either that the birds, or un-
favourable omens, or that the sacred day of Saturn, detained
me,'

He gar d paid by the Patriarchs , frc. (yj

transferred the name to another day without a
reason ; the time also being so short.

Thus does it appear that there was a God of
the name of Saturn worshipped by the Romans
on the weekly sabbath kept by the Jews, which
they called from him Saturday , before the Chris-
tian era, and by the Saxons also, under the name
of Satur. The question is, then, Who was this
Saturn ? The sense of the word can only be ob-
tained from the Greek word Kronos or Chronos,
which . the Romans consider as answering to it.
The Greek word signifies Time, and the Romans
represent him as the son of Ccelus and Terra;
that is, of the Heaven and of the Earth. Time,
therefore, the division of which into night and
day took place first after God created the heaven
and the earth, was worshipped by the Greeks, Ro-
mans, and Saxons, independently of each other,
and that from a period immemorial : for though
the Romans did. not exist till between seven and
eight hundred years before Christ, and the
Greeks were only about four or five hundred
years earlier, yet there is reason to think that
the custom originated, not with them, but with
those from whom they respectively descended.
There is no reason to doubt the antiquity of the
custom among the Saxons or their ancestors, if it
existed at all among them in Germany 3 and the
evidence seems to me (as noticed before) to pre-

68 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, S?c*

ponderate in favour of that opinion — particularly
since the expressions sennight and fortnight,
which we still retain, and which were derived
from them, contain manifest vestiges of a tradi-
tion among them, that alight originally preceded
day.

On what day the Greeks worshipped their
Chronos is not known. But if the day ditfered
from that on which the Romans and the Saxons
worshipped the same God, it is not wonderful that
civilization should in some cases (as the lines
quoted from Hesiod intimate that it did sooner or
later) corrupt that which the simplicity of barba-
rism had long retained. The Romans and Saxons,
then, if not the Greeks, worsh ipped Time on the
s eventh da y, weekly — the day which (as I shall
show afterwards) the Jews kept — the day which
God consecrated for celebrating and commemo-
rating the beginning of time — the day which di-
vided time into those useful periods of it, which
we call weeks.

I am not ignorant that Saturn has been thought,
by some to signify Noah, He bears, indeed,
some resemblance to Time, being the father of the
new world, as the other commenced with the old
one ; and whether in the old or new world, all
things happen during the progress of time. In
the time of Noah, too, almost every living thing,
rational or irrational, perished, as Time is said to

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, S?c. GO

be the devourer of all things. Still the Greek
word Chronos, which the Romans translate Sa-
turnus, does not mean Noah, but Time; and
though the Greeks (and the Romans too, probably
in imitation of them) suppose him to have had
three sons, as Noah had, 1 never understood that-
the Saxons imagined this of their Sdtur, whom I
have spoken of as the same Deity with Saturn,
being so like him in name, and worshipped on
the same day. Upon the whole, I consider the
three words in question as originally and princi-
pally indicative of Time, notwithstanding the
name and family of Noah have been by some
attached to him, because of the resemblance be-
tween them in certain particulars.

Let no one wonder that Hesiod (as before
stated) should represent Apollo, [the Sun,'] and
not Chronos, [Time,] as being worshipped on
the seventh day. Apollo might possibly have
supplanted Chronos or Saturn, as he himself, ac-
cording to the same writer, afterwards gave way
to Jupiter. Whether the Romans who worship-
ped Saturn on the seventh day in the time of Au-
gustus, according to Tibullus, had constantly de-
voted that day to him from the time they were
first a people, cannot be known. As Dion Cas-
sius, in the passage before referred to, writing in
Greek, most likely calls the day Chronos' s day,
(and not literally Saturn's day, or Saturday — so

70 Regard paid by the Patriarchs, See.

Dr. Wallis renders the phrase,) the Greeks had
possibly caused Jupiter to restore that throne to
Saturn, which their fable states to have been
taken from him by Jupiter.

With regard to the origin of the word Chronos,
or Time, it would, I believe, prove useless to in-
quire. With respect to Saturn or Satur, by
which the Romans always translated it, it ap-
pears to me to have been derived from one of the
great northern languages, as these perhaps were
from the Hebrew, which was likewise the parent
of the Greek. There have been various conjec-
tures concerning the root from which Saturn or
Satur sprang. One of them, 1 believe, makes the
Hebrew term Satan the primitive. The de-
thronement of Saturn, according to the heathen
mythology, by Jupiter, whom it represents as the
Supreme Deity, favours the supposition that
Time, the most ancient of its gods next to the
Heaven and the Earth, had been confounded witli
the leader of those < angels, who kept not their
first estate.' The name, indeed, of the arch-
apostate does not occur in the Scriptures till the
time of the patriarch Job, many ages after the
Son of the < Heaven and the Earth' who was dei-
fied must have existed. But it might have been
known by tradition from the time he deceived
our first parents, as Jannes and Jambres, who
withstood Moses, were, though not mentioned in

Regard paid hy the Patriarchs, 8?c. 71

Revelation till the apostle Paul's time ; and thus
have rendered it possible to confound him with
the God Time. The alteration from Satan to Sa-
tur or Saturn, might be occasioned by mistaking
one Hebrew letter for another, and is not much
greater than the alterations of many Hebrew
words written in Greek, or of Greek words writ-
ten in Latin.

Such are the circumstances which indicate the
knowledge and observance of the seventh day
sabbath to have existed among the ancients, whe-
ther Patriarchs or Gentiles. They are certainly
not sufficient to prove the reality of the institu-
tion ; but they are neither brought forward nor
wanted for any such purpose — that being abun-
dantly manifest (as 1 have shown) from Gen. 2.
2, 3. if there be any meaning in words. They
are brought merely to show that the silence of sa-
cred and profane history on the subject of the an-
cients' knowing and regarding it is by no means
so profound and total as is commonly imagined.
Indeed, not a few among the most sincere and
zealous supporters of the first day's claim to sanc-
tification, not deficient in learning any more than
in piety, consider, as has been noticed before, the
evidence of the Patriarchal sabbath, or at least of
the seventh part of time, having been always and
generally, if not universally, kept, as decisive.
But even those who think differently must ad-

72 Regard paid hy the Patriarchs, Sec.

mit the probability of the Patriarchs' keeping it,
from their knowledge of weeks — as also of the
ancient Gentiles' knowing it by means of tradi-
tion, and of their respecting it for a while, and
of the effect continuing extensively after the tra-
dition itself was lost. Such a probability is abun-
dantly sufficient where no proof at all was want-
ed, which is the case relative to the actual observ-
ance of the seventh day sabbath : for the exist-
ence of the law for it having been proved, its non-
existence would not follow, were it even demon-
strable that no one had ever kept it — much less
when there is no evidence at all of its non-observ-
ance, and where the appearances to the contrary
are not few or inconsiderable. Strange and un-
accountable as the defect of evidence concern-
ing a particular fact may be, (though in the case
of the seventh day sabbath having been kept an-
ciently, the defect, as I have shown, may in a
great measure be accounted for,) it will not
justify the rejection of another fact, the reality of
which does not rest upon the former, and which
can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. At
the same time I must observe, that the evidence
of the former fact, defective as it may seem, is not
more imperfect, than the evidence adduced in
favour of the miraculous parts of the Old Testa-
ment from ancient fable and history, which 1 my-
self, in common with every lover of the Holy

Regard paid by the Patriarchs, S?c. 73

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 Testa-
ment 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, (Exo-
dus 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 w T as this ? Was it
the same in rotation with the seventh day which
was appointed in Paradise for the weekly sab-
bath, 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 se-
venth day; and the reason assigned in the Fourth

£

74 Day observed by the Jews

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 conclu-
sion that both signify the same seventh day in
succession. Moses, who wrote both, would, as a
faithful historian, have provided against the dan-
ger 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 institu-
tion 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 en-
tertained any idea of a change in the days of the
week before the Israelites entered into the Wil-
derness of Sin, or in the epoch whence the se-
venth days were computed. In a word, all who
think that the passage in Genesis is only an anti-
cipated 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 pre-
vailing one among the generality of Christians.
But as some able writers have maintained a dif-
ferent 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

as the Weekly Sabbath. 75

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 sab-
bath. 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 tra-
vel round the walls of Jericho on the sabbath.

In the former Chapter of this Work, I men-
tioned that the children of Israel, when enslaved
in Egypt, had it in their power to keep the sab-
bath mentally and in private conversation, if not
in a public manner— provided they were so dis-
posed. It does not, however, follow that, what-
ever some might do, the bulk of them were so
disposed: the contrary is by far the most pro-
bable supposition. In that case, the general
practice of the duty would be revived and re-
stored at one time or at another; and this seems
to have been done, on the occasion of the man-
na'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

76 Day observed by the Jews

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 sur-
prise, when they were reminded that e 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 Para-
dise. Whatever, in fine, the statute and ordi-
nance which God is said toward the close of Exo-
dus 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

as the Weekly Sabbath. 77

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 pro-
duces 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 clay 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 incredi-
ble. Pie however assigns no reasons for this sup-
posed 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

78 Day observed by the Jews

changes to which mankind, individually and
socially, were peculiarly subject in the early
ages. It should, however, be recollected, that
long as the period in question is, it is but a few
hundred years more than the period which has
elapsed since the destruction of Jerusalem, dur-
ing which neither Jews .nor Christians have
wanted for emigrations, persecutions, and revo-
lutions; yet, though Dr. W. expresses himself
doubtful whether the present Sunday, and con-
sequently the present seventh day, kept by Chris-
tians in general, or by the Jews, be the same
in regular succession with the days that were
named the Jirst or the seventh at the time our
Lord rose from the dead, I never heard that any
one concurred with him in his doubts. As to
the want of records among the ancients, allow-
ing that there were none of any kind, (which
cannot be proved,) the want was compensated
for two thousand years by tradition, in a way
that it has never been since ; the tradition hav-
ing to pass through so few generations, and
the opportunities of recurring to the person
with whom it originated being so frequent : the
tradition in particular respecting the sabbath,
the origin of the institution, and the division
of time into weeks to which it gave rise, had
to pass through four or five individuals only
between Adam and Moses, Besides, however

5>.tf.

*> .»>

as the Weekly Sabbath. l\_ K ?*>^

deficient the ancients in general might be re-
specting the possession, transmission, or preser-
vation of records, the First Book of Chroniclfcsfe^
and other parts of Scripture show that there was
no want of them among either the antediluvian
or the post-diluvian Patriarchs; nor can any
genealogies equal to their's in length of period,
in detail of important circumstances, or in com-
pleteness, be produced among the Gentiles, at
least since the Christian era. I see no reason,
therefore, for thinking it improbable that the
Patriarchs and their cotemporaries, between
Adam and Moses, should know of the week and
the sabbath, or that they should retain them cor-
rectly, especially the week — at least in that line
of ancestry from which Moses descended. The
preservation of the right week w r as sufficient
for securing or recovering the sabbath: and
though Dr. Wallis positively asserts that none
except the Jews knew of the division of time
into weeks, it has been proved from Genesis
29. 2/. that the Gentiles knew of it once, how-
ever they might forget it afterwards, as they
did the sabbath in some important respects, the
origin and design of sacrifices, and the worship
of the true God. No diary of private or public
transactions that I know of exists, or is judged
necessary, to prove the constant succession of
weeks in the proper order, either among the Jews

80 Day observed by the Jews

or the Christians, from our Lord's time to the
present moment : — why should any be called for
to prove it from the first man to the days of the
Jewish lawgiver? I cannot but think that Dr.
Wallis is unreasonable in doubting, without as-
signing any reason for his doubts, in a case, the
possibility of which he does not deny — that his
doubts tend to universal scepticism, so far as an-
cient history is concerned — and that this part of
his argument is no less hostile to the divine in-
stitution of the day for which he professes himself
to be an advocate, than to the claim of that day
to sanctifi cation which he opposes. In my opi-
nion, there is no fact in history more certain! than
that of there having been no change whatever in
the days or the weeks since the Creation. The
idolatrous Gentiles readily acquiesced in the ideas
of the Jews and Christians on the subject during
the second century, if they were ever ignorant or
differently minded respecting them. There has
never been any dispute between the Jews and
the Christians, or among the Christians them-
selves, either in the same country, or in different
countries, about the beginning or the ending of
the week, and which was the first or the last day
of it. The Blessed God on Mount Sinai states
the same reason for sanctifying the seventh day,
which was stated for it in Paradise; and had any
accident happened between the two eras to

as the Weekly Sabbath. 81

change the day, he both could and would have
corrected the error, to prevent a day's being
kept, to which the reason assigned for its observ-
ance was not applicable.

Upon these grounds, therefore, I see no cause
for dissenting from the general opinion in mo-
dern times, and which I believe to have been
universal before our Lord's ascension, that the
seventh day kept by the Israelites in the Wilder-
ness of Sin, and enjoined a short time after in the
Fourth Commandment, was the very same in
rotation with the seventh day which the Divine
Being consecrated in Paradise, and consequently
that it was no new institution; but, like the other
nine commandments, only a solemn repetition
of what was, and always had been, a law from
the very beginning. I am happy in agreeing in
this particular with the bulk of Christians in
this country, so far as I am able to judge from
documents very generally approved of among
them. The Protestant Dissenters avow the sen-
timent I have been maintaining, by the answer
returned in the Assembly's Catechism to the
question relative to the day appointed by the
Divine Being to be the weekly sabbath before
our Lord's time, from the Creation; and the
Church of England state the same in their Ho-
mlly on Prayer.

82 Day observed by the Jews

Before I close the evidence of the Jews' hav-
ing observed the weekly return of that seventh
day on which the Divine Being rested, I must
briefly notice the objection made to it by some,
on account of the miracle recorded in the book
of Joshua of the sun's standing still a whole
day, which they suppose to have transferred the
former seventh day to a different day. This
by no means necessarily follows. Suppose the
miracle to have happened at three o'clock in
the afternoon on a Tuesday : when it ceased on
Wednesday afternoon at the same time, there
was no necessity for calling the day Tuesday in-
stead of Wednesday, since, according to the sa-
cred narrative, it was known how long the
miracle lasted. Nor was it called otherwise
than by its proper name, [Wednesday,] as ap-
pears from the reason assigned in the Fourth
Commandment for the enactment of the seventh
day sabbath continuing unaltered : for the reason
would have ceased to be applicable, had the for-
mer seventh day now been called the sixth, and
consequently the sabbath not been kept till the
day after.

Having thus shown that the seventh day no-
ticed in Exodus 16. and in the Fourth Com-
mandment, was the same in regular succession
from the seventh day which the Divine Being
sanctified in Gen. 2. as being the day on which

as the Weekly Sabbath. 83

he rested at the close of the Creation, I wish to
make a remark or two on the phraseology and
meaning of the Fourth Commandment itself.
Mr. Wright asserts, in substance, that the terms
of the Commandment are expressed so indefi-
nitely as to suit any nation or age of the world,
let it keep which day of the seven it may. This
would be the case, were there nothing in it ex-
cept the general expressions seventh day and
sabbath. But the words used in connexion with
them effectually confine them to a definite and
precise meaning. The e seventh day/ which is
the e sabbath day* that is to be ' remembered to
be kept holy,' signifies only that seventh day
which the Jews knew of, and which they were
in the habit of keeping already. Their uniform
conduct ever since shows that they understood it
to mean the last day of the week, and that only;
nor did they think that they were at liberty to
exchange it for any other of the seven, under the
pretence of having equally laboured the six pre-
ceding days. Mr. W. himself, I should imagine,
would be obliged to admit, that if they had dared
to act differently, they would soon have paid
dearly for their presumption. But if their sense
of the precept was correct, no age or country has
a right to understand it in a different sense; for
a law cannot — at least ought not — to have two
senses. Even the repeal of a law cannot alter

84 Day observed by the Jews

its meaning. The partial repeal of a law will
indeed alter the original sense of it ; but the
change would necessarily require an alteration of
the expressions in the law, and in that case the
law. would become a new one. While its terms
continue the same as ever, the meaning must
continue the same as ever.

The expression, therefore, ' sabbath day/ in
the last clause of the commandment, which the
Lord is said to have 'blessed and hallowed/
could not be understood by the Jews, at the time
they heard it delivered, to be any ot!;er day than
the seventh or last day of the week; and of
course not by any one else justly, in a subsequent
period of time. But if the former clauses of the
commandment had not prevented its ambiguity,
the words in connexion must have infallibly
done so, since they confine it to the last day of
the week; for it was the seventh or last day of
the first week on which God rested, and which
he blessed and sanctified, and no other.

If this commandment did not bind the Jews to
the observance of the last day of the week exclu-
sively, there is no other that did. It likewise
consecrates the seventh part of time merely in
consecrating that day : so that if the sacred cha-
racter of the latter had ever ceased, that of the
former must have ceased with it. If the seventh
dav sabbath had been repealed before our Sa-

as the Weekly Sabbath. 85

viour's time, the Jews would not have been
obliged to keep any other on the ground of the
Fourth Commandment, whatever they might
have been obliged to do on the ground of reason,
or of a new institution.

Finally, there is no other difference between
the Fourth Commandment and the institution in
Genesis 2., than the account contained in the for-
mer of the mode in which the sabbath was to be
sanctified. The advanced state of society, com-
pared with what it was at the beginning, re-
quired this. It checks the inordinate love of
gain, and inculcates the exercise of humanity to-
wards all dependants, whether rational or irra-
tional.

It may now be asked of what use it is for us
to know that the day enjoined on the Jews, at
Mount Sinai, was the same in succession with
that which was hallowed at the Creation. I an-
swer, that it appears hence not to have been
necessary for the apostles to tell the Gentiles to
keep the day, in order to render the keeping of
it a duty incumbent on them. It was their duty
to keep it, as well as to keep the other nine com-
mandments, whether they were commanded to
do so by the inspired missionaries of Christ, or
not. If they had forgotten the day, or were in
the habit of neglecting it, (as too often happens
with respect to the other commandments,) or if

86 Bay observed by the Jews

they had showed any reluctance to return to the
observance of it, it might have been necessary for
the apostles to remind them of their duty. But
there seems to have been no occasion for this, so
far as can be judged from the testimonies of Jose-
phus and Philo, already quoted, concerning the sa-
cred regard felt by the nations for the seventh day
at that time — the very great probability that they
were in the habit of worshipping some false God
or another (Saturn perhaps) on that day, in
consequence of the ancient tradition once among
them, though now lost — and the readiness with
which the { religious proselytes' coalesced with
the Jews in that practice. So far as can be
learned from the New Testament, in order to
the converts from among the Gentiles keeping
the seventh day, it was only necessary for the
apostles not to forbid it. Whether they did
forbid it, I shall not at present inquire.*

It cannot be denied, however, that there are
certain expressions in different parts of the Old

* The sarcasm of the Latin poet, Horace, on the sabbata of
the Jews, relates not to their weekly sabbaths, but to their
new moons (tricesima). The Romans might call them Sabba-
tarii, or Sabbath-men, in derision, not because they kept a part,
but because they kept the whole of the seventh day. This
seems likely from Seneca's charge against them, of wasting
one day weekly in idleness.

as the Weekly Sabbath, 87

Testament, which appear at first view to prove
that the Divine Being intended to confine the
sanctification of the seventh day to the Jews.
These I shall state fairly, and give them all the
force in the argument to which they are enti-
tled.

In Deuteronomy, it is said that the Jews were
commanded to keep the sabbath day, because
they had been ( strangers and bondmen in Egypt/
Were there no other reason assigned elsewhere
in Scripture for the injunction, this statement
might be thought decisive in favour of the pre-
cept's belonging to the Jews only. But the
Fourth Commandment itself gives a different
one, and one that relates to all the rest of man-
kind as well as to the Jews. Nor is the one rea-
son incompatible with the other. For a com-
mandment may be binding on an individual on
the same account for which it is binding on
others, at the same time that it is binding upon
him for a reason peculiar to himself; and that
without releasing others from their obligation to
obey it. The particular obligation which the
patriarch Joseph was under to dutifulness toward
his father Jacob, did not confine the obligation to
him, exclusive of his brethren and all others who
have parents. Beside, the consideration men-
tioned in Deuteronomy enforced only that part
of the commandment which related to rest from

88 Day observed by the Jews

labour, on the part of their servants, the stranger
within their gates, and their cattle, as well as on
their own part : it did not extend to sanctifying
the day, that is, to setting it apart for God, or
for religious purposes. For the reason of this
injunction, recourse must be had to that which
is given in the Fourth Commandment, and
which belongs not only to the Jews, but to all
other nations.

Again : the day ordered to be kept holy in the
Fourth Commandment has been considered as
merely Jewish, on account of its being placed at
the head of feasts which are agreed on all hands
to be peculiar to the Jews, and which are enu-
merated Lev. 23. The reason of this, I conceive,
was, the resemblance it bore to them in its gene-
ral nature, being, like them, a positive institu-
tion and a religious feast. But in its cause and
object it did not resemble them at all. It did
not proceed from any thing that regarded the
Jews only, as they did ; since it arose from the
Divine Being's resting after the Creation. Nor
was it directed, like them, to an object which
would cause it to terminate with the Jewish
dispensation, namely, to the death of Christ;
since it was instituted before the fall of man.
The obligation to sanctify the seventh day no
more becomes a part of the ceremonial law, on
account of its association with Jewish feasts, than

as the Weekly Sabbath. 89

fornication became a part of it, because of its
being mentioned (Acts 15.) in conjunction with
participating in things offered to idols, things
strangled, and blood ; or than the Fourth Com-
mandment, which is positive, becomes strictly
speaking moral, and therefore unrepeatable, in
consequence of being inserted in a code of law
that is properly speaking moral.

A third argument brought to prove that the
day kept by the Jews was intended for them
solely, is the supposed rigour of its restrictions,
and the peculiarity of the penalties annexed to
the breach of it. But with regard to the for-
mer, it should be remembered, that though the
Jews were forbidden on that day to light a fire
or to dress food in the Wilderness, they might
not be so restrained in Canaan, nor even in the
Wilderness, under any extraordinary circumstan-
ces, such as cold, sickness, &c. Necessity or mer-
cy might not require those works of them, which
they do of us ; and works of these kinds only are
now lawful on the sabbath. Our Lord did not
treat the restrictions of the seventh day sabbath
as rigorous; he merely condemned the super-
stitious additions which the Jews had made to
them.

As to the extraordinary penalties annexed to
the breach of the commandment, they were no
other than the punishments which were inflicted

90 Day observed by the Jews

on the transgressors of almost, if not quite, all
the other nine. Yet who is there that thinks
that the other nine precepts of the Decalogue
were obligatory solely on the Jews ?

The grand argument, however, for supposing
that the Fourth Commandment — at least that
part of it which enjoins the sanctification of the
seventh day, and which is imagined to be sepa-
rable from the rest, was designed exclusively for
the Jews, is taken from the latter end of Exodus
31. and from different passages in the Prophecy of
Ezekiel, where the seventh day sabbath is point-
edly and repeatedly spoken of as intended to be
a sign to distinguish them from the Gentiles,
and to be a memorial throughout their genera-
tions. These passages, understood literally, and
detached from the rest of the Old Testament,
certainly do naturally and powerfully suggest the
idea just stated. But I must observe, that if
they do really confine any part of the Fourth
Commandment to the Jews, they confine the
whole of it to them, and not a part only ; for
the divine declaration is equally made, and in a
manner equally peremptory, concerning every
part, as it is concerning any part. There is not
the smallest ground, in the texts alluded to, for
detaching the seventh day sabbath from the rest
of the commandment, and supposing that only to
relate to the Jews. The day kept by the Jews

as the Weekly Sabbath, 91

at the time that the Fourth Commandment was
given, and the reason assigned for the command-
ment's being given, confine the words * seventh
day' to the last day of the week ; so that if that
day be not now referred to in the Fourth Com-
mandment, no other day can be referred to.
Supposing the seventh part of time abstractedly
to have a right to sanctification, its right must
stand on the ground of reason, not on the ground
of the expression f seventh day' in that com-
mandment. The unavoidable inference is, that
Christians have no more concern with any part
of the Fourth Commandment, than they have
with the Passover; and therefore cannot with
propriety introduce it into their speeches or
writings as a precept binding upon them, or
pray to God to incline their hearts to keep it.

If, on the other hand, it be thought reasonable
to introduce any consideration foreign to the
natural import of the passages, for the sake of
showing that a part of the Fourth Command-
ment, though not the whole, relates to us and is
binding on us, (an object which, as has been
shown, is unattainable, on account of the exclu-
sive meaning and the indivisibility of the com-
mandment,) it is equally reasonable to adduce
considerations for the purpose of showing that
no part of the commandment was given to the
Jews for a sign between them and other na-

92 Day observed by the Jews

tions, in such a sense as to exclude the Gentiles
from participation in it, and from obligation to
keep it.

Such considerations I propose to bring for-
ward. But before I do it, I wish to remark a
little more at large on the justice and tendency
of the distinction usually made in modern times,
between one part of the Fourth Commandment
and another. I say in modern times, because I
believe that the distinction was never made be-
fore our Lord's ascension, any more than that it
was ever supposed, before that time, that the
seventh day which the Jews observed in the Wil-
derness of Sin, was different from that which
was the seventh day of the week, reckoning in
order from the Creation. The distinction is
this — that the Fourth Commandment is partly
positive or ceremonial, and partly moral; the
former part only of which, it is said, was given
to the Jews for a sigh, and intended solely for
them. The part referred to, is that which en-
joins the sanctification of the seventh or last day
of the week. All the rest of the commandment
is imagined to form no part of the sign in ques-
tion, as being moral, and on that account as be-
longing to and being obligatory upon all mankind.
I have proved, however, in a former Chapter,
that the part (if such a part existed) in which
the morality, the equity, or the spirit of the pre-

as the Weekly Sabbath. 93

ccpt is commonly made to consist, is no more
moral than the part which is commonly spoken
of as positive or ceremonial, if by the term
moral something is meant that is a dictate of
reason, and discoverable by the light of nature.
In this sense, nothing is moral, except that some
part of every day should be occupied in the wor-
ship of God. Mere reason does not require that
the time devoted to him should be the same
time, or the same portion of time, one day as on
another; much less does it require that he
should be worshipped for a whole day together,
and that once rather than twice a week, weekly
rather than monthly, or on the same day of the
week rather than on different days. With re-
spect to domestic, social, and public worship, the
only particular enjoined by reason (beside fre-
quency in the last case) is, that it should be at
such times, and for such a length of time toge-
ther, as the persons independent of each other,
who propose to engage in it, can agree upon.
Even a ruler, in fixing the time arbitrarily for
this purpose, when left to himself, would never
think of devoting a whole day to religion in one
way or in another at once ; and the part that he
does order to be so devoted, returns annually at
most, and not weekly, or even monthly.

Reason, then, only calls for the setting apart
some time by individuals each day for divine

94 Day observed by the Jews

worship, and some time on some days by bodies
of men for social or public worship, leaving to
them the choice of the hours and the days, pro-
vided the worship be frequent. Whatever else
it enjoins in this matter is contingent, being
founded upon something that may or may not be 5
for instance, that twenty- four hours together
should be sanctified, and that the same should
recur at stated periods* in case the Divine Being
should be pleased to appoint both these by a po-
sitive institution. Such contingencies, (while
they continue to be contingencies,) and the ab-
solute cases mentioned before them, are the only
ways in which the Fourth Commandment can be
conceived of, in order to its being accounted,
properly speaking, moral. For though the ex-
pression ' to keep holy* certainly signifies some-
thing morale and nothing else, yet the morality
of the commandment never can be made reason-
ably or usefully to consist in that solitary phrase,
since sanctification cannot possibly be reduced to
practice, detached from specifying some person
or some thing that is to be sanctified.

Removing, therefore, that part of the precept
which is supposed to be ceremonial, and to re-
late to the Jews only, the sole part which re-
mains, and is binding upon us, as strictly moral,
is as follows: —

as the Weekly Sabbath. 95

■ Remember to keep holy such time or times
as the Deity may have appointed, or shall ap-
point, for that purpose. In it thou shalt do no
manner of work, nor suffer work to be done by
any under thy control, whether rational or irra-
tional/

The precept now resembles that given to the
Israelites to erect no altar for public worship, ex-
cept in the place where the Lord their God should
choose. It may with propriety be recited and
acquiesced in, in all ages and places. It will
possess a claim upon practice, whenever the
Deity shall have appointed a time> but not else 3
nor can it be known by the light of nature whe-
ther he will ever appoint a time, if he has not
appointed one already. Of course it can contain
no reason for any appointment, because none is
supposed to have taken place, and because every
new appointment requires a new reason. I must
add, that whenever a time is named, the precept
will be no longer moral, but positive.

Whether such a skeleton as the precept is
now reduced to, so unnecessary, so abstract, and
in that respect so unlike any of the other nine,
ought to satisfy the mind of a real Christian, let
the reader judge. For my own part, I should
think that such a Christian would be shocked at
thus altering and mutilating a divine command-
men^ even in imagination* Can this adherence

96 Day observed by the Jews

to the morality of the Fourth Commandment be
called retaining its spirit ? Would a human legis-
lator allow any law of his to be thus treated ?
But if the credibility of its having been reduced
by Christianity to the state just described be yet
insisted upon, still its actual reduction to this
state remains to be proved from the New Testa-
ment, as also the authority for substituting the
new form for the old, without which there can
be no Fourth Commandment for Christians.
Even then the new Fourth Commandment would
be useless in practice, except the New Testa-
ment has named a weekly day for sanctifica-
tion ; and in that case, the commandment is not
wanted.

The commandment, then, will stand thus: —
c Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work :
but the seventh part of time, or one day in seven,
is the sabbath of the Lord thy God, &c. For
the consecration of this part of time is requi-
site for civil, moral, and religious purposes.
Therefore the Lord thy God blessed the seventh
part of time, &c.'

If this be now the Fourth Commandment upon
the authority of the New Testament, it commands
something, it is true; but it is positive, not mo-
ral; it is also a new commandment, and ought to
be substituted for the former.

as the Weekly Sabbath. 97

I am sensible, indeed, that the advocates for
dividing the Fourth Commandment into positive
or ceremonial, and moral, include more in the
moral part than I have done. They include in
it the obligation to keep a whole day together —
a stated day — and that every week.

But I must repeat my denial of these ideas
being moral as dictates of reason, any more than
the sanctification of the seventh or last' day of
the week is, strictly speaking, moral. Reason
dictates nothing more on the Subject than what
I have stated in a preceding Chapter. If the
observance of either the seventh day or the se-
venth part of time be termed moral, (to which,
as I have stated, I have no objection,) it must
be on grounds different from that which is usu-
ally and properly stated as the ground of a law
being moral — namely, that it is a dictate of
reason, and discoverable by it. These grounds,
as enumerated in that Chapter, are, — that it was
discovered in the manner in which certain moral
duties were themselves actually discovered — that
is, by revelation ; — that it was discovered as early
as any moral duty whatever ; — that it has a rea-
son assigned for it, as every moral duty has a
reason naturally and necessarily; — that the rea-
son assigned for it relates to all mankind, as well
as the reasons on which moral duties are founded ;
— and, lastly, that it is inserted by the Divine

98 Day observed by the Jews

Legislator himself in the midst of a code deliver-
ed solemnly as a moral code. But these reasons
give the seventh day as good a title to sanctifica-
tion on the ground of morality, as they do to the
seventh part of time, and even a much better one,
because they relate directly and immediately to
the seventh day; whereas they relate to the
seventh part of time, only in consequence of the
former fact.

It may perhaps be said, that though the obser-
vance of one day in seven abstractedly be not a
moral duty on the ground of revelation, it is so
on the ground of reason ; since reason dictates
that such a day should be kept, as conducive to,
if not necessary for, the benefit of both man and
beast. But it is not true that reason inculcates
any such practice, separate from revelation.*
The idea never occurred to man till lon<r after
the Christian era, and most probably never
would have occurred to him had it not been for
revelation. There can be no doubt of its propri-
ety, since the divine appointment of the seventh
day sabbath :+ and the beneficial effect of a

* See Chapter ii.
t The seventh day of the week, Vfhich God appointed, is
as fit for the purposes alluded to, as any other can be — and
infinitely better for that reason, except he has been pleased
to substitute auother for it.

as the Weekly Sabbath, 99

weekly sabbath has been felt both by the rational
and irrational part of the creation ; but without
such an appointment, the weariness often felt
by too many, with the misapplication of lei-
sure, and the fatal abuse of it in multitudes of
cases, would induce mere reason to suspect the
wisdom of consecrating twenty-four hours to-
gether : neither would it be clear that one day
in seven should be consecrated in preference to
one in six, or in eight days; the week being
made to consist precisely of seven days, and
neither more nor fewer. Mankind are indebted
for all these ideas to the positive institution of the
seventh day sabbath by divine authority ; which,
together with the six preceding days that were
employed in the Creation, composed the first
week : and whatsoever is thus founded on the
revealed will of God, rational and agreeable to
expediency as it certainly must be, never can be
a dictate of mere reason.

The seventh part of time, therefore, is no more
moral on the ground of reason, than the seventh
day itself; and though, as was said before, it may
be called so in a qualified sense, on the ground
of revelation, yet it depends on the seventh day
for its title. The sanctification, then, of the se-
venth day is not more positive than the rest of the
commandment. The commandment is like our
Lord's coat. i Let us not rend it.' < What God

100 Day observed by the Jews

hath joined together, let not man put asunder.**
It is positive in every part, though not ceremo-
nial— -if the term be understood judaically, as
something that referred to Christ, and ceased at
his death. The whole of the Fourth Command-
ment must consequently be abandoned to the
Jews as a sign, if any part of it be in reality ex-
clusively their's ; and the whole must be read or
heard by us, as we read or hear of circumcision.
We must in this case look elsewhere in the word
of God, and in no respect at this precept of the
Decalogue, for the obligation on our part to con-
secrate any day, and which day we are to conse-
crate.

But it is now time for me to observe, that how-
ever the sanctification of the seventh day did
distinguish, or might be intended to distinguish,
the Jews from the Gentiles, it does not appear
to me to have been meant for them only. A se-
condary and subordinate reason or end may ex-
ist without detriment to the grand and primary
cause or end. I have already assigned my rea-
sons for thinking that the seventh day sabbath
was instituted at the close of the Creation, that

* The substance of the commandment is plainly this, that
God would have us keep holy a particular day every week for
a certain reason^ which reason applies to that day, and to no
other.

as the Weekly Sabbath. 101

it was given to all mankind, and that they actu-
ally paid a sacred regard to it for a longer or
shorter time, in one way or in another. I have
also given my reasons for thinking that the se-
venth day kept by the Israelites in the Wilder-
ness of Sin, (Exod. 16.) and that mentioned in
the Fourth Commandment, were the same in ro-
tation with that which was instituted in Gen. 2.
2, 3. I must, therefore, of course think, that the
seventh day in the Fourth Commandment was not
peculiar, or intended to be peculiar, to the Jews.
With respect to the phraseology used toward
the close of Exodus 31. and that of some texts in
Ezekiel's prophecy, 1 think that it relates entirely
to the extraordinary mode of the original institu-
tion being 'made known' (Nehemiah 9.) to the
Jews, and to the effect it had in consequence of
the forgetfulness, ignorance, and error of the
Gentiles concerning it. The latter knew the se-
venth day sabbath only by traditionary revela-
tion: the former had, in addition, the benefit
of a personal revelation. The Gentiles had, per-
haps, few instances among them of spiritual bless-
ings bestowed on that day : not so the Jews,
among whom the pious were chiefly to be found
under the former dispensation : the Gentiles
forgot or misapplied it after a while. The Jews
continued to observe it. In a word, those of the
Gentiles who continued to pay any sacred regard

102 Day observed by the Jews

to it at all kept only a part of it, whereas the
Jews spent the whole, externally at least, in re-
ligious exercises, abstaining entirely from secular
business, and refusing to take even the most ne-
cessary measures for the defence of their liberty,
if not of their lives, on that day, though the law
of God did not require any such self-denial.

What a singular appearance must this absti-
nence and practice every week, through a whole
nation, have presented to every foreigner who vi-
sited the Jews while they resided in their own
country, accustomed as he was to observe and to
see observed the sabbath, of which a part only
was occupied by the Heathen in sacred rites,
as was the case with many other days which
were kept by them! How peculiar must this
weekly habit have been thought by surround-
ing nations, whenever it occurred to their minds,
or became the topic of discourse among them !
Above all, it must have given the Jews a strange
appearance, after they were dispersed through
the Gentile world, when the natives of each
different country saw a large body of people in
the midst of them doing nothing for a whole
day together, except one religious act or ano-
ther, and that weekly ! The censure of the Ro-
man philosopher Seneca, before alluded to,
concerning the supposed idleness of the Jews,
ought scarcely to excite wonder. The rite of

05 the Weekly Sabbath. 103

circumcision, on account of which they were
sometimes reproached, did not distinguish them
from other nations, like the custom in question :
for circumcision was practised by other nations,
as well as by them. It was also a rite performed
with comparative secrecy ; it occupied only a few
moments, and occurred only once in a person's
life. But the sanctification of the sabbath occu-
pied a whole day every week, and that in the
most public manner. No one could tell a Jew
from another by any external appearance that
circumcision gave him among men ; but all
around him could not possibly avoid knowing
what he was by his attention to the peculiarities
of the weekly sabbath. The Gentiles must con-
verse with him to know his principles, or go into
the temple or the synagogue where he worshipped,
to learn the nature of the public service he per-
formed there : but to become acquainted with the
distinction made by the sabbath between them
and him, they had only to open their eyes, and
view his proceedings, and his abstinences for a
whole day together, every time that particular
day returned, which was with every new week.

The Jews, therefore, were indeed distinguished
from all other nations, by the extraordinary man-
ner in which the knowledge (Neh. 9. 14.) of the
seventh day sabbath, as well as of the rest of the
Decalogue, was communicated to them, and by

104 Day observed by the Jews

the spiritual blessings bestowed on it, which were
chiefly experienced among them — by their uni-
versal and continued observance of it — and par-
ticularly by their devoting the whole day to
religion. But these singularities do not prove
that the other nations had no concern with the
seventh day sabbath , any more than their not
knowing the true God, or their not possessing
the Old Testament by means of written revelation,
or God's not having made known his judgments
and statutes (even those contained in the moral
law) supernaturalty to them, (by all which the
Jews were also separated from them, as well as
by the sabbath,) prove that they had no concern
with, nor were called upon to regard any one of
them.

Such are the reasons that induce me to think
the arguments brought to establish the exclusive
obligation of the Jews to keep the seventh day
holy insufficient, and unable to invalidate the
contrary inference of its extending to the Gentiles,
drawn from the evidence of the day observed by
the Jews being the same in rotation with that on
which God rested, and which he in consequence
appointed to be the weekly sabbath .

From this coincidence it follows, that the se-
venth day sabbath is still obligatory upon man*
kind, except it be repealed.

as the Weekly Sabbath. 105

A positive institution differs from a moral one
In durableness of obligation only in this, that it is
repealable, whereas the other is not. But the
regard due to the former is as firm as that which
is due to the latter, till it be repealed. That a
repeal has actually taken place, may sometimes
be known without a formal notice. This was the
case of the Mosaic ritual, and of sacrifices. These
were not only positive laws, but ceremonial.
They were typical of Christ ; and therefore when
the work and sufferings of the Great Antitype
were accomplished, they would of course have
ceased to be valid, even if no information had
been given in the New Testament to that effect.
But every positive law is not typical, nor does
every one contain circumstances in it or about it,
which show that it is intended to cease being in
force after a certain period; and when it does
not, its repeal cannot take place, without a formal
notice to that purpose from the same authority
that instituted it. This is the case of the seventh
day sabbath. There is nothing in the law itself,
as recorded in Genesis 2. or Exodus 20. that
limits its duration to a given time, except it be y
tli at it is the memorial of something temporary,
namely, of the Creation. The law must, there-!
fore, last as long as the world stands, except no-,
tice be given to the contrary; and this notice
will (as was said before) with the seventh fa$

106 Day observed by the Jews

abolish the seventh part of time, which owes its
obligatory power solely to the former, and will
consequently need a new institution in order to
recover it.

1 cannot but observe, in conclusion, that the
common expression 'Jewish sabbath,' if indica-
tive of the seventh day sabbath belonging to the
Jews exclusively, can only be proper in the
event of a repeal having taken place with regard
to the Gentiles, that confines the obligation of
keeping it holy to the Jews : for it appears, from
what has been said, that prior to such a repeal,
the sanctification of it was no more obligatory
upon them, than it was upon all other nations.

CHAPTER VI.

Differences of Opinion concerning the supposed
Repeal of the Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath.

Were the sanctification of the seventh or last
day of the week moral in the proper sense of the
term, as a dictate of reason, and discoverable by
the light of nature, it would not be repealable.
For though an act usually moral may be dispen-
sed with, or one of the contrary description be au-
thorized or commanded occasionally by the An-

Supposed Repeal, 8?c. 107

thor and Preserver of those relationships on which
morality depends, to answer some highly impor-
tant purpose of which He alone can be the judge,
(as the second marriage after the Creation — the
attempted offering up of Isaac — and the con-
nexions formed by the prophet Hosea with diffe-
rent females,) yet it does not appear that these
deviations could take place for a continuance,
or that a moral disposition could be dispensed
with in any instance whatsoever. But the law
enacted in Paradise respecting the seventh day
weekly sabbath has been shown (as the seventh
part of time, had that been sanctified abstract-
edly, would have been) to be a positive insti-
tution, and moral only on account of certain
extraordinary circumstances in which it resem-
bles a moral precept ; it is therefore liable to a
repeal.

It is proper, however, to observe, that there
are several considerations which render it not a
little improbable that it would be repealed. The
Creation, the completion of which was the occa-
sion of its institution, will last till the end of time.
The institution celebrates a work interesting no
less to every other nation, than to the Jews ; to
people living under the Christian dispensation,
than to those who lived under the Patriarchal
and Jewish dispensations. It is a work most
magnificent, extensive, and perfect, as origin-ally

108 Supposed Repeal of the

made; splendid and beautiful, beneficial, and
commensurate in duration with the present state
of existence allotted to mankind, through an
uninterrupted series of generations for several
thousands of years. That an institution would
be caused to cease many ages before such a work,
the completion of which was the cause of it, and
on account of which it had continued for four
thousand years, or that that day should be set
aside which is the only true and proper repre-
sentative of the day on which the event took
place whence sabbath derives its name, seems not
very likely. There is as much need since the
Christian dispensation, as there was before, that
man should be reminded, weekly and appropri-
ately, of nature's originating in something super-
natural, and that this visible series of causes and
effects was under the government and control of
an intelligent, though invisible Being. Infinitely
superior as Redemption is to Creation in diffi-
culty, grandeur, and importance, it could not
have existed without the other ; and as it has two
ordinances for its commemoration, there seems to
be no necessity for that purpose to deprive the
other of the only one which has been appointed
for celebrating its origin. The extraordinary
sacrifices which the Jews offered on the seventh
day in compliance with the divine command, and
the offering of which was the principal act of

Seventh Day Weekly Sab

public religion by which they distinguished the
sabbath from other days before the Babylonish
captivity, plainly show, that attention to the Gos-
pel is not unsuitable to the day : and most of the
evangelical topics insisted upon by Christian
ministers, relate as much to that day as they do
to any other. In a word, there seems no utility
in repealing the old sabbath to substitute another,
since the latter would relieve from no burden,
nor promote the ends of civilization, morality,
and religion, better than the other.

Notwithstanding, however, these presumptions
against a repeal of the seventh day sabbath, it is
by no means meant to deny the possibility of
such an abrogation. The contrary has already
been distinctly admitted. The sole question,
therefore, is respecting the matter of fact, whe-
ther the repeal has actually ever taken place.
Here it will probably be asked, Who denies, or
even doubts it? The Christian world at large
has indeed for many centuries avowed that opi-
nion. I cannot under this head, as under the
former heads, produce authors of contrary senti-
ments among the observers of the first day, before
or since the days of Constantine the Great. 1
cannot bring forward persons of this description,
eminent for learning, piety, and station, in the
Latin and Greek churches, or among the Pro-
testants in the Establishment or out of it> who

110 Supposed Rep eal of the

have called in question the reality of the repeal y
much less denied it. Yet the Christian world,
though so generally in favour of the affirmative,
has never been universally so: and though indi-
viduals belonging to various descriptions of reli-
gious people have not stepped forward to oppose
the common sentiment, yet numbers of Christians,
especially during the early ages, have ever op-
posed it in practice, and some, within the two
last centuries, in writing. Ever since the Re-
formation, if not long before, they have compos-
ed a body of themselves, and borne a distinct
title; nor have they been without persons of
considerable learning, piety, and property,
though not so extensively known as those among
their opponents.

The reader will perhaps perceive, without
difficulty, that I refer to the Christians called
Sabbatarians, of whom I now proceed to give
the following short account; premising that to
these people I think it my duty to , attach my-
self.

The Sabbatarians derive their appellation from
the peculiar tenet held by them concerning the
Scriptural weekly sabbath, as being the last day
of the week since our Lord's resurrection, as
well as before it. They make their appearance
in the history of the Church, as early as their
Christian brethren who are of a different opinion

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. Ill

from them in this particular. Their sabbath is
said by the historians Socrate s and Sozomon to
have been kept, in c onjunc tion with the first day,
every where among the Christians, except at
Rome and Alexandria, for upwards of three cen-
turies.* Accordingly the seventh day and the
first day are called Sisters by Gregory Nyssen.
Strong remonstrances were made against not
keeping both days by St. Ignatius and others,
and penalties were ordered, by the Councils of
Trullo and Laodicea, to be inflicted on clergy-
men who did not observe both days as festi-
vals.f

At length Constantine, the first Christian em-
peror, issued a proclamation about A. D. 321, in
favour of the first day solely ;X which was follow-
ed by several others similar to it. In conse-
quence of these edicts, which strictly enforced
the observance of the first day, without making
the smallest provision for the seventh day, that

* See Morer's Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 188, 189.

t Ibid.

$ According to Eusebius, Constantine ordered, in the same
decree, the observance of the other days consecrated to
Christ, to the Saints, and to the Martyrs. This he did, not as
executing the decree of a council of which he was president,
but without even calling one. — BampfieWs Inquiry, A* D.
1692, p. 97.

112 Supposed Repeal of the

had hitherto been upon an equality with the
other, the Sabbatarians, like all other religious
bodies that found themselves aggrieved by impe-
rial and ecclesiastical mandates, seem to have
retired into Abyssinia;* for there, as Scaliger,
and Brerewood, the professor of astronomy, in-
form us, they still remained in the time of Queen
Elizabeth.f

Whither they retired in Europe, after the de-
crees of Constantine, does not appear. But
most probably, like many other bodies of people
who could not in conscience accede to all the
decisions of princes and councils on religious

* According to Dr. Buchanan, in his Christian Researches,
the Armenian Christians have always kept the seventh day
sabbath, and still keep it.

t There were, however, traces for many centuries in the
Latin and Greek churches, of the sacred regard once paid by
Christians in general to the seventh day sabbath ; as appears
from the Magdeburg Centuries, and from Lucius's Ecclesiastical
History. 7 See BampfieWs Inquiry, p. 90. Bampfield also
refers to Brerewood and others to prove these facts. So late
as A. D. 673 a general council was held at Constantinople, at
which the Emperor presided, and Lega'ps were present from
the Pope. The seventh day was ordered to be kept as a fes-
tival, agreeably to the tradition and custom of the Church ;
and if any one in the Church of Rome fasted on that day
any more than on the first day, it was ordered that he should
he deposed or excommunicated, according as he was a. clerk
or a laick, p. 104.

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 113

subjects, they took refuge in the valleys of Pied-
mont.* From these they emerged, it would seem,
about the beginning of the Reformation ; since,
according to Bishop White, history associates
them, in the time of Luther, with the people
called Anabaptists, in Germany. Their state in
England, during the seventeenth century, was
sufficiently important to draw the attention of
Professors Brerewood and Wallis, who wrote
against them ; as also did White, Bishop of Ely,
by the direction of Laud, Archbishop of Canter-
bury. There were Sabbatarians among the
Refugees who came over to this country from
France. A century or two ago, there were se-
veral congregations of Sabbatarians in London,
and also congregations of them in many of the
counties in England :f but their state in this
country at present is very low. However, in
the United States of North America, whither
some of them went from England during the
reigns of the Stuarts, they have greatly increased

* Mosheim mentions two sects of Sabbatarian Christians
among the Waldenses, &c. of the Alps and Lombardy, in the
12th century. There were many, also, in Transylvania in the
14th century. — Hubbard.

t According to Hubbard, (an American writer,) there were
nine or ten churches in England about A. D. 1668, beside
many Sabbatarians that were not members any where,

114 Supposed Repeat of the

within these few years. One of their churches
has nine hundred members. Another of them, in
the year 1820, received an accession of one hun-
dred and forty members in the space of seven
months. Among their communities are two
churches, the foundations of which were laid by
persons from Germany and Scotland 5 from the
former in 1720.

With respect to their religious principles, so
far as is known, they have always been, and still
are, connected with that description of Chris-
tians, which in this country bear the name of
Protestant Dissenters, and more particularly
with that denomination of them called Antipce-
dobaptists, or Baptists, But they do not all hold
the same doctrinal tenets, either here or else-
where, any more than the other descriptions of
Christians. Those to whom I belong are styled
Particular or Cahinistic Baptists. Their creed
may be found in the doctrinal Articles of the
Church of England, and in the Assemblies' Cate-
chism.

Having given this short account of the Sabba-
tarians, I proceed, in their name and in my own,
respectfully to state my reasons for differing
from the Christian public on the question rela-
tive to the repeal of the seventh day sabbath.

Though the possibility of such a repeal cannot
justly be denied, since a weekly sabbath can only

Seventh Dai/ Weekly Sabbath, 115

be, properly speaking) a positive institution, yet
the considerations already adduced in support
of its improbability are so strong, in my opinion,
that it ought to be well substantiated, before it
is supposed that the old sabbath can be quitted
with propriety and safety. Let it not be said
that a repeal was unnecessary either for Jews or
Gentiles; unnecessary for the Jews, because
their obligation to keep the seventh day ceased
of itself when they ceased to ' dwell alone,* to be
the peculiar people of God, and to enjoy extra*
ordinary privileges, civil and religious ; unneces-
sary for the Gentiles, as never having been sub*
ject to the law, and as requiring only the non-
existence of an injunction to keep it. In oppo-
sition to such an objection, I have already shown
that the Jews were bound to keep this law prior
to its being given to them at Mount Sinai, and
even if it had never been given to them at all ; or
if they had never been distinguished from other
nations by peculiar marks of the divine favour,
I have also shown that the Gentiles were never
exempt from subjection to it, since it was enjoin-
ed upon our first parents and all their posterity
at the Creation. They were, therefore, obliged
to keep it, as well as the Jews, except they
were told to the contrary by proper authority;
and (as was said before) there was no need of
the apostle's exhorting them to it. as there would

116 Supposed Repeal of the

have been in the case of a new duty, especially
as there were subjects of far greater importance
to them to be insisted upon. With respect to
their ignorance or forgetfulness of this duty,
the institution recorded both in Gen. 2. 2, 3. and
in the Fourth Commandment, which they would
find on searching the Old Testament, (as they
were ordered to do,) and which the Jews every
where supported by their example, was abun-
dantly sufficient to remind them of it. Nor did
they ever show any reluctance to comply with
their duty in this respect, so far as can be judged
from the Acts of the Apostles.

Neither could the repeal be reasonably infer-
red from the repeal of other laws at the close of
the Jewish dispensation. For though the law
relative to the seventh day sabbath was positive,
it was not ceremonial. It had no reference
whatever to Christ, and therefore did not, like
the law of sacrifices, and many other institutions,
terminate by his sufferings and death. It was
not, like circumcision, binding only upon the
natural descendants of Abraham, and conse-
quently did not end, like it, when the Jews
ceased to be the people of God exclusively. In
short, a distinct, specific, and separate repeal is
wanted, for the abrogation of the seventhly
gabbath.

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 117

I now proceed to consider those passages in
the New Testament which are thought to imply
the repeal in question. The text which has most
the appearance of it, is Colossians 2. 16. If,
however, the word sabbaths in that verse is to be
understood universally of all sabbaths, without
exception, it must include the sabbath of those
who oppose the Sabbatarians; for this sabbath
must have existed at that time, supposing it ever
to have existed by apostolic authority. If, on the
other handj the observers of the first day consi-
der the limitation of the term not inadmissible,
the Sabbatarians have an equal right to consider
the limitation of it not inadmissible.* 1 In fact,
both parties do limit it; the former confining it
to the sabbaths kept by the Jews, including the
weekly sabbath, that was binding upon all other
nations as well as upon them, the latter con-
fining it to the sabbaths that were peculiar to the

* The object of the Apostle seems to be, to relieve the
Gentile converts from a burden. But how is the observance
of the seventh day, in the manner inculcated by Christ, a
greater burden than the observance of the first day would
have been ? Neither is the seventh day sabbath more a sha-
dow than any other medium of divine grace, compared with
the blessings conveyed through that medium, or than the
first day is. The institution of the seventh part of time
is truly a shadow, of which that of the seventh day is the
body.

1 18 Supposed Repeal of Ike

Jews — that is, to their monthly and annual sab-
baths. The Sabbatarians ground their opinion
on the context. The weekly sabbath is indeed
sometimes mentioned in the law of Moses in
conjunction with feasts peculiar to the Jews,
because it was a positive institution and a festi-
val, as they were ; but it never was a shadow,
of which Christ was the body, as the new moons
and all the ordinances of the ceremonial law
were ; and therefore it is of these, and of these
only, that the apostle shows himself to be speak-
ing. With these holydays the seventh day sab-
bath is not so much as connected here, nor had
it any more to do with them than fornication
had to do with ' things offered to idols, and things
strangled, and blood,' though it is enumerated
with them in Acts 15. The law of the seventh
day sabbath, though positive, as that of any sab-
bath cannot but be, (which has already been
proved at large,) yet never formed a part of the
ceremonial law of the Jews. It existed before
man had any need of Christ; it therefore had
no reference to the gospel, and was instituted on
quite a different account. The Jews kept it, it
is true j and so they kept, or ought to have kept,
the other precepts of the Decalogue: but there
is no more reason for thinking that this precept
shared the fate of their peculiarities, than that the
others did. It should also be recollected, that if

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 110

the text under consideration be subversive of the
seventh day sabbath, it is equally subversive of
the sacred regard due to the seventh part of
time; it is also subversive of the rest of the
Fourth Commandment. For the holy character
of the seventh part of time arises out of and de-
pends upon the original institution of the seventh
day ; and therefore no day will be left for us to
keep holy : and any new sabbath by divine ap-
pointment will stand upon its own ground en-
tirely, independent both of the institution in Pa-
radise, and of the Fourth Commandment.

I may add, that if the passage in question re-
pealed the weekly sabbath that was kept by the
Jews, it would repeal a sabbath that was equally
obligatory on the Gentiles. For it existed long
before the time of the Jews — as early, indeed, as
there was a human being to keep it ; and though
it was delivered afresh to the Jews at Mount
Sinai, so were the other precepts of the Deca-
logue, which no one ever thought not to belong to
the Gentiles, or to be repealed at the close of the
former dispensation, as being Jewish. But the
term sabbath in the commandment which God is
said there to have blessed and hallowed, is the
seventh day ; for so it is called in Gen. 2. 2, 3. to
which the commandment refers. I have already
shown in what respects it was a sign between
the Jews and the Gentiles consistentlv with its

120 Supposed Repeat of the

being obligatory on the latter, and that the con^
trary supposition infers the abrogation of the
whole of the Fourth Commandment, as well as
of the seventh day sabbath.*

As the term sabbaths, or sabbath days, (Col. 2*
16.) is limited in its sense by the context, so is
the word days, (Gal. 4. 10.) as also the applica-
tion of the Apostle's remarks (Rom. 14.) relative

* The ingenious and learned Dr. Wallis thinks that the
trord sabbath, in the verse that has been considered, cannot
possibly mean the monthly or annual sabbaths of the Jews,
because the Apostle refers not to the Jews in their own coun-
try, but to the Asiatic Jews, who, according to the law of
Moses, could not keep them, not being at Jerusalem. But
he forgets that these Jews were in the habit of repairing to
Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, if not the other feasts ;
and that possibly the evil which the Apostle wished to cor-
rect was, in part at least, that they 'judged' their brother con-
verts from among the Gentiles, for not taking the same in-
convenient and hazardous journeys as they perhaps did. Be-
sides, it is impossible for Dr. Wallis or for any one else to say
that some deviations from the law of Moses might not be
deemed lawful and necessary by the Hellenistic Je\vs> under
their circumstances. This we know, that the Jews in Eng-
land keep the Passover in some way, notwithstanding the
restrictions of that law. That the Apostle, in Col. 2. 1G. has
the ceremonial law of the Jews solely in view, seems evident
from his expostulation with the Colossians a few verses af-
terwards — ' Why are ye subject to ordinances ? (Touch not j
taste not j handle not.)'

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbalh. 121

to c keeping or not keeping a day to the Lord.'
The context in both places shows that he is
speaking, not of positive institutions exclusively
by divine authority, but either of the Mosaic ritual,
which though once binding on the Jews was no
longer so, or else of abstinences and observances
which the Divine Being has neither commanded
nor forbidden. While, therefore, he casts no
censure upon the religious observation of any
day, be it what day it may, he does not mean to
represent it as justifiable in any one to ' esteem
every day alike' in opposition to a divine institu-
tion, whether an old one, like the seventh day
weekly sabbath, that had nothing to do with the
Mosaic ritual, or with the Jews exclusively,
and that remained unrepealed, or a divine in-
stitution that was new. The explanation just
given must be acquiesced in by every one who
believes that there is a certain day of the week
obligatory upon Christians to be sanctified as
the weekly sabbath, whether it be the seventh,
the first, or any other day; or, indeed, whe-
ther the Scriptures name it or not : as, for in-
stance, if they had merely instituted the seventh
part of time abstractedly. I will add, that it is
perfectly incredible that a day consecrated on
so great an occasion — a day enjoined upon man
as soon as he existed, and upon all his posterity
without any distinction — a day, the reason for

G

122 Supposed Repeal of the

sanctifying which indicated that it was to conti-
nue sacred as long as the creation lasted, and
which was in itself as adequate to any holy or
beneficial purpose as that of any other could
be — a day, in short, the observance of which was
as highly important as ever to the beast as well
as to man, and to mankind at large both in a
civil and religious view — should be dismissed in-
directly by means of expressions so slight, gene-
ral, and ambiguous, as those used in the texts
that have been considered.

Such are the reasons for which the Sabbata-
rians feel compelled, in opposition to their
Christian brethren, to deny the sufficiency of the
texts that are relied upon to prove the direct re-
peal of the seventh day weekly sabbath. I pro-
pose now to examine certain circumstances
which have been thought to amount to an indi-
rect proof of it. The circumstances are — that
the apostles never tell the converts, if Jews, to
continue, or, if Gentiles, to commence keeping
it — and that the inspired writers of the Acts and
the Epistles record no instance in which Chris-
tians, as such, held a meeting on it for a religious
purpose, much less state that such a meeting
was sanctioned by the presence of an apostle,
and that he took a leading part in it.

Before I reply to these observations, I beg
leave to ask those who make them, whether they

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 123

would deem them sufficient (admitting the cor-
rectness of them) to set aside the old sabbath, if
they did not think that there was a new one to
substitute for it by divine authority ? For if they
would not deem the observations adequate to the
purpose for which they are made in the case
supposed, neither ought they to deem them suf-
ficient in the contrary case. I proceed to exa-
mine the observations.

The first of them infers the repeal of the se-
venth day sabbath from the silence of the apostles
about it, in addre ssin g the co nverts. But what
occasion was there for the inspired missionaries
to address persons concerning a law which they
had always been under, which they knew they
were under, which they were in the habit of
obeying, and which they knew of no reason for
not continuing to obey ? This was unquestionably
the case of the Jews, and no less of the Gentiles,
if the accounts given of them by the first- day
writers, and which have been referred to before,
may be depended on, so far as relates to practice,
whatever might be their idea concerning the
origin of their keeping the day sacred, and of the
extent to which it was to be so kept. It was
merely necessary for the apostles to forbid their
hearers to keep it any longer, or to tell them
that it was not requisite to begin keeping it.
This might have been expected, had the sacred

124 Supposed Repeal of the

heralds intended to repeal it, since nothing had
happened to make the people think of their own
accord that it was repealed, the reason for the
original institution continuing the same as ever.
They really did this in the cases of sacrifice
and circumcision ; though the last of these, be-
ing given to the descendants of Abraham only,
might be supposed to lose its claim to regard
when they ceased to be a peculiar people —
at any rate not to be binding upon any who
never were the peculiar people; and the first
ceased naturally the moment the Great Sacrifice
was offered.

So far, however, from a repeal being an-
nounced respecting the seventh day sabbath,
we find the inspired writers after Christ's as-
cension uniformly continuing to call it by its old
name, the sabbath day, without ever intimating
that they only did so because the day had been
or was still kept peculiarly by the Jews — and
what is more, without ever giving the appella-
tion to any other day.

No one doubts that the Gentiles, when they
became Jews, kept the seventh day as a matter
of course, finding both the institution and the
practice connected with the true religion reveal-
ed in the Old Testament. Was it not natural
for them to continue or to commence doing the
same when they became Christians, except they

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 125

were told, or had examples set them, to the con-
trary? Why was it more necessary to tell them
to do so in the latter case, than it was in the
former? There is no proof that the apostles or
the first Christians ever treated the seventh day
as secular. The transactions at Troas certainly
do not prove that Paul and the disciples did not
keep the seventh day. There is not the slightest
hint that the Gentiles at Antioch, in Pisidia,
upon embracing Christianity, kept a different
day from that which they kept while they were
Jewish proselytes, or that they thought them-
selves at liberty to renounce the seventh day,
because they were not told to continue keeping
it. Similar silence was observed at Lydia's con-
version; yet there is no reason to think that she
quitted the sabbath which she kept when she
used to resort along with the other women to
the river side.

The apostles were too much occupied in urging
the essentials of religion and of Christianity to
preach upon the subject of the weekly sabbath,
(which, however important, is only a circumstan-
tial of religion,) except something extraordinary
had called their attention to it. As the univer-
sal and continued obligation of the seventh day
sabbath was never disputed or resisted by any of
the converts, it was sufficient to enjoin the study
of the Old Testament, where they would find an

126 Supposed Repeal of the

account of it, if they needed it, both in Gen. 2.
2, 3. and in the Fourth Commandment. Whe-
ther the converts were from among the Jews or
the Gentiles, they were made to understand that
they were to regard every part of the Old Testa-
ment, except the ceremonial law, and that which
related to the political economy of the Jews;
neither of which, as has been shown, excluded
the weekly sabbath.

The other indirect proof adduced in support
of the supposed repeal under consideration is,
that there is no case on divine record in which
an apostle authorized, presided at, or concurred
in, any religious act performed or to be perform-
ed by Christians as Christians, or indeed of any
Christian assembly being held for a religious
purpose, on the seventh day. I reply, that it is
not true that no religious meetings or religious
acts of Christians, as such, are recorded as taking
place on this day. We are told (Acts 2. 46.)
that meetings and acts of this kind took place
among them ' daily;' and if they took place every
day, they of course took place on the seventh
day. Nor does it follow that the seventh day
ceased to retain the exclusive right to sancti-
fication it had hitherto possessed, on account of
religious acts being performed in Christian as-
semblies on other days likewise. ' Breaking of
bread/ too, is expressly mentioned as taking

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 127

place 'daily;* on the seventh day as well as on
other days: and there is as much reason to
understand by it celebrating the Lord's supper
in this text, as in Acts 20. 7«*

But were the passage in Acts 2. 46. wanting,
it would by no means follow that the Christians
did not hold religious assemblies or perform
ligious acts on the day in question, merely be-
cause there is no account of them. It is not
necessary to the proof of a law which was uni-
formly regarded for ages continuing in force at
a certain period, that examples of obedience
to it should be produced during that period.
It is enough that there were examples of it a
little before — that there has been no notice of a
repeal — and that nothing has intervened which
justified the expectation of a repeal, or which,
without such notice, tended to or warranted fu-
ture disregard. It may be presumed that obe-
dience to a law continues to proceed in its usual
course, when nothing is stated to have happened
to annul the obligation, or to interrupt the habit
of obedience. It was the duty of the Jews, when
they became Christians, still to keep the seventh
day sabbath, and of the Gentiles, on their con'-

* The word meat in Acts 2. 46. occurs also in Acts 47. 35,
&c. where there is no mention of any thing, except of bread)
and of ?p/<«<{,

128 Supposed Repeal of the

version, to commence keeping it, as they al-
ways did, when they became Jewish proselytes,
if they did not keep it before, (which it was
their duty to have done, and which testimonies,
as I have already shown, are not wanting to
prove that they did in some way and to a certain
extent,) except they were informed to the con-
trary, of which there is not the slightest appear-
ance. The mere change of dispensation was
not adapted to release either Jews or Gentiles
from an obligation which commenced at the
Creation, and the reason for which was as weigh-
ty and as universally interesting as ever — a rea-
son which could not be affected by the recovery
of man, because it existed before his fall. The
sabbath in being was as much wanted after our
Lord's death as before, for civil, moral, and reli-
gious purposes ; and in the absence of any decla-
ration to the contrary, seems as proper for pro-
moting them as any other sabbath whatever. It
was as proper in itself as has been before observ-
ed, for explaining and applying the glorious facts
and truths of the gospel, as any other day; as
appears from the double sacrifices which the
Jews used to offer on it, and from the religious
services now performed on it by the Sabbata-
rians, who expatiate as much upon the gospel
on their sabbath, as the advocates of the first day
do on their's.

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 129

With respect to the authority for abandoning
the old sabbath on account of no one of the great
events, or of a particular event, not having taken
place on it, no one, I suppose, will say that the
converts would be justified in doing this as a
matter of course, without a divine permission or
injunction — especially since the events referred
to for the most part no more happened on the
first day than on the seventh, and since they
were already commemorated and celebrated by
two ordinances which Christ himself instituted ;
whereas the Creation would be without any
institution for its commemoration and improve-
ment, if the seventh day ceased to be kept holy.
That such permission or injunction exists, could
not, for the reasons just stated, be anticipated or
expected. There has been no proof of it hither-
to, nor would the new sabbath be less burden-
some than the former was, from the foregoing
considerations.

Since, then, the first converts had no cause to
question, either from the nature of the case, or
from any intimation given or act performed by
an apostle, the continuance of a law that had
existed from the beginning of time, and which
was of universal obligation — a law which the
Jews had always kept, and which there is very
great reason to think that the Gentiles them-
selves in some respects kept, (as it was their
g2

130 Supposed Repeal of the

incumbent duty to do,) though they had probably
forgotten the origin of it; there would be no just
ground for supposing that the first converts had
discontinued the practice, were the instance al-
ready stated wanting, by which it appears that
they met together and performed religious acts
on the seventh day as well as on other days. In-
stances are not wanted to prove the continuance
of that which there was no cause for discontinu-
ing. No inspired person ever secularized the
seventh day, nor indeed any one else, so far as
appears from the Scriptures. The silence of
the sacred writers, therefore, on the subject of
their keeping it, would not prove that they did
not keep it, (since they say nothing to the con-
trary,) eveft were it total, or not at all to be ac-
counted for. But their silence has been shown
not to be total ; and that it is so great as it is,
may, in my opinion, be very easily and satisfac-
torily accounted for. There is not any thing
surprising in the supposition that the apostles
might seldom or never be present at Christian
assemblies held on the day in question. Their
missionary character in general required their
attendance at other places of public resort — par-
ticularly at the synagogues of the Jews, on ac-
count of the great opportunities afforded them
at these times and places of diffusing the glad
tidings of salvation more widely. In that case,

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 131

the Christians might keep the day socially as
well as individually, publicly as well as pri-
vately, without any remarkable occurrence, es-
pecially of a miraculous nature, taking place;
the apostles, and perhaps not only they, but
their disciples and s fellow- helpers/ and in gene-
ral all others whose instrumentality was usually
employed in working miracles, being absent for
the reason just stated. Were this the fact, no-
thing ever passed or happened at these meetings,
except the routine of holy duties : and it could
not be expected that any thing said or done by
Christians, or any event that took place among
them, except what was singular, of general in-
terest, or of lasting importance, would be insert-
ed in a work like that of the sacred historian
Luke and the Epistles of the apostles, which
was not intended for a diary or for minute details
relative to particular individuals and churches,
but to furnish a general view of characters and
occurrences that were principally connected
with the rise and progress of Christianity,

Let no one think, that in supposing the absence
of every thing extraordinary from the Christian
meetings on the seventh day to have occasioned
the silence of the sacred writers about them, I
have been substituting hypothesis for fact. There
is no one that doubts but the Jews kept the se-
venth day between the death of Moses and that

132 Supposed Repeal of the

of Samuel. Irreligious as the Jews in general
were, there were not wanting pious characters
among them during that period — a period of be-
tween four and five hundred years; yet we have
no evidence of the fact that they did actually
keep it.

What can the silence of the sacred historians be
owing to, but to the cause just mentioned ?* On
the other hand, it is evident that we should not
have known from sacred history that the Jews
kept it in our Lord's time and that of his apostles,
or that he kept it himself, had it not been for
extraordinary and even miraculous occurrences
on that day. In our own country, the celebra-
tion of the 5th of November is never noticed by
historians from the time of its appointment for
celebration till the year of the Revolution ; nor
would it have been mentioned then, had not the
historian Rapin been reminded of it by the land-
ing of the Prince of Orange in 1688 about that
time of the year ; but no one would have doubted
that the English did observe it during the period
of between eighty and ninety years that preced-
ed, if Rapin had continued silent about it, since

* The silence of the inspired writers under consideration
relates to a period of no more than sixty years, and therefore
is not so much adapted to shake the credit of the institution's
continuance as the former silence was.

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 133

nothing is stated to warrant the contrary opi-
nion.

There is one circumstance which appears to
me impossible to be accounted for, if the apos-
tles really authorized the Jewish converts by pre-
cept or by example to forsake the old sabbath,
or if the Gentile converts did not continue to
keep it or embrace it ; and that is, the profound
silence observed by the unbelieving Jews, and the
total absence of controversy from the Christian
cnurches on the occasion. The indignation re-
peatedly manifested by the Jews when our Lord
performed cures on the sabbath- day, as well as
the testimony of profane history, clearly shows
that they were no less enthusiastically attached
to the day they sanctified, than they were to cir-
cumcision : and how tremblingly alive they were
to the claim of the latter — even those of them
who believed, the Acts of the Apostles and the
Epistles of Paul abundantly prove. They insist-
ed that the believing Gentiles could not be saved
without it; they compelled the latter to appeal
to the church at Jerusalem ; they urged their fa-
vourite tenet in the council of the apostles and
elders : and notwithstanding the solemn decree
passed by the council, with the concurrence of
the Holy Ghost, in favour of exempting the
Gentile converts from obligation to be circum-
cised, and the tranquillity which the knowledge

1 34 Supposed Repeal of the

of the decree restored to the churches in gene^*
ral, yet the sharp remonstrances of the Apostle,
in his Epistle to the Galatians, plainly show that
the dissensions had by no means subsided in these
parts. But how does the case stand with respect
to the seventh day sabbath, for which the Jews
were equally, if not still more, zealous ? Do we
read of any animosities or outrages of the unbe-
lieving Jews, which must have been the conse-
quence if the apostles had repealed the old sab-
bath? Did they ever express their displeasure
against the neglect or violation of it, now sup-
posed to be general at that time among Chris-
tians, as they did on the mere appearance of
either in our Lord's time ? Do the Jewish con-
verts ever remonstrate against being called upon,
supposing them to have been so, to leave their
favourite day, or insist upon the Gentiles keep-
ing it upon their becoming Christians, if they did
not keep it before ? Is there any reason to think
that they would be less tenacious on this point,
had they been required to give it up, or more
liberally minded towards a Gentile brother, had
he differed from them in this particular, than
they were respecting circumcision ? Were there
any dissensions among the Christians, any ap-
peals to the apostles and elders, any decrees un-
der the direction and influence of the Holy Spi-
rit on the subject ? It is well known that there

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath, 135

was nothing of the kind. For though the passages
Col. 2. 16. Gal. 4. 10. and Rom. 14. 5. have been
considered as indicative of controversy among
Christians on the subject of the weekly sabbath,
and also of remonstrance on the part of the sa-
cred writer against censuring the non-observ-
ance of the seventh day, the context (as I have
already shown) proves that they relate to a dif-
ferent topic; and my opponents must at least
allow them to be ambiguous : whereas the obli-
gation of circumcision on the Gentiles is repro-
bated by the inspired penmen in terms that can-
not possibly admit of any other meaning.*

I am aware that when Paul says, * to the Jews
I became as a Jew,' it has been thought that he
did so by conforming to them in keeping the
seventh day himself, and in conniving at its being
kept by others, though he knew of its repeal.
Were this the fact, it would at least prove that
the silence of the sacred writers concerning
the Christians' keeping the seventh day is no
proof that they did not keep it. But the case of

* The texts referred to, however, are not ambiguous.
They cannot relate to any dispute between the Jewish and
the Gentile converts about the seventh day sabbath. For
why should the latter object to it when they became Chris-
tians, any more than they did when they became Jews ? If,
on the other hand, the Jewish converts did not keep it, how
could it occasion disputes ?

136 Supposed Repeal of the

his circumcising Timothy, (an act then unneces-
sary by divine law,) though the father of Timo-
thy was a Greek, ? because of the Jews that were
in that quarter/ (and who knew that Timothy's
father was not a Jew,) is a sufficient illustration
of the apostle's assertion, without any other in-
stance; and were any other instance really want-
ing, to supply the defect by explaining the words
as already stated, without the apostle's autho-
rity, is 'begging the question,' or taking that for
granted which remains to be proved.

The unwillingness of the apostle and his com-
panions to give offence to the Jews, whether un-
believers or believers, by exempting any, whe-
ther Jew or Gentile, from obligation to 'keep
holy the seventh day,' has also been attributed to
the continuance of the temple at Jerusalem, the
daily services there, especially those on the sab-
bath, and the attention still paid by the Jewish
nation to the Mosaic institutions, though abro-
gated. They are thought, therefore, to have kept
and treated the old sabbath, as Paul conformed
to the customs of the Nazarites the day on
which the Jews took him in the temple; at
least, then, as before noticed, the seventh day
was kept by the Christians, notwithstanding the
silence of the sacred writers : and how does it ap-
pear, from them, that it was not to be kept after
the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as before ?

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 137

If it had been true that the seventh day sabbath
was a part of the religious or civil economy pe-
culiar to the Jews, and therefore to cease when
they ceased, the Fourth Commandment, accord-
ing to what was proved in the last Chapter, must
have gone with them. But the seventh day sab-
bath, as has been shown already, formed no part
of the Mosaic ritual, nor did it belong to the
Jews more than to any other nation, being insti-
tuted at the close of the Creation, and on that
account. If, then, it was kept by the apostles
and the first believers till the destruction of
Jerusalem, there is no reason to think that it was
to cease being kept afterwards, since we are no-
where told that it would be no longer binding
after that event. The ceremonial law was dis-
tinctly repealed, though, from the design of it
having been answered, its repeal might have
been presumed without a formal statement.
How much more might such a repeal, if a repeal
had been intended, have been looked for in a
case where the abrogation could not be known
without it, since the reason of the institution
continued to be as important as ever? If nothing
more than a temporary compliance with the
prepossessions of the Jews in a matter of indiffer-
ence had been meant by the sacred regard which
the Christians paid to the seventh day before the
destruction of Jerusalem, we should have been

138 Supposed Repeal of the

informed of it, as the apostle Paul acquaints us
with the abridgement of his liberty, which he
imposed upon himself in the cases of eating meat
and drinking wine. Since neither he nor any of
his companions or followers allege any such
reason for adhering to the old sabbath, which
they did cheerfully and universally adhere to, it
follows that they did not act from a temporising
and accommodating spirit, but in compliance
with an incumbent duty.

Thus the indirect proof of the repeal of the se-
venth day sabbath fails, in my opinion, as well
as the direct proof. I indeed consider as positive
evidence to the contrary, our Lord's exhortation
to his disciples to pray that their flight from Je-
rusalem, when threatened to be encompassed by
armies, might not take place on 'the sabbath
day/ There was certainly no other sabbath day
in being at that time, except the one which is
inculcated in the Fourth Commandment. The
disciples, therefore, must have understood their
Divine Master as speaking of that sabbath day.
He says nothing to prevent their thus under-
standing his meaning, and their expressing them-
selves in prayer according to that meaning. It
is far more natural to suppose that our Lord re-
ferred to the disturbance which their own devo^
tion, and that of the pious in general, would be
in danger of receiving in the case imagined, than

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath, 139

to any they might suffer from the acts of devo-
tion continued to be performed by the Jews on
an obsolete sabbath. Of course, if I am right in
my interpretation of the texts which have been
noticed, the seventh day sabbath was to conti-
nue forty years after our Lord's ascension ; nor
is the slightest intimation given that it was then
to cease.

To conclude. — Though it is commonly sup-
posed that the seventh day is called sabbath in
the sacred writings after our Lord's resurrection
merely as belonging exclusively to the Jews, and
as being observed by them, and that the apostles
attended at the synagogues on that day merely as
pursuing their missionary work among the Jews,
there is not a tittle of evidence to support either
conjecture. The sacred writers never intimate
any thing of the kind. Till it be proved from other
sources that a repeal was wanted, expected, and
announced by divine authority, the seventh day,
in still being called sabbath, only retained the
name to which it was exclusively entitled both
among Jews and Gentiles \ and the apostles, in
attending to their missionary labours on the day,
proposed likewise to sanctify that day which it
was their duty to ' keep holy/

Let it not be objected to the conclusiveness
of the foregoing reasoning, that from the non-
repeal of the seventh day sabbath, the inconvenw

140 Supposed Repeal of the

ence would follow of sanctifying two days in a
week. I own the inconvenience, and, as well as
all other Christians, think it utterly improbable
that the Divine Being would require this. I am
ready to admit, further, that the non- repeal
should not be acquiesced in without the greatest
care, considering how long and how extensively
the contrary idea has prevailed. At the same
time, I must observe, that caution in examining
evidence should not be confined to the case of
retaining the old sabbath, but be extended to the
case of receiving a new one.

The Sabbatarians, therefore, cannot agree with
their Christian brethren in calling the seventh
day sabbath the Jewish sabbath, as if it ever had
belonged, or continued to belong, exclusively to
them. So far from it, that they always call it
Sabbath, and never call any other day by that
name. They can admit the propriety of the
phrase only in the sense in which Jewish Scrip-
tures and Jewish God are commonly under-
stood.

The Sabbatarians, however, are not the only
people who ever demurred to the repeal of the
seventh day sabbath. The ancient Fathers never
once affirm it, much less do they ever plead
Scripture in support of it. With respect to the
sacred regard that continued to be paid to the
seventh day, after the apostolic age, I have

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 141

already referred to the earliest writers among
the Christians to prove the fact, and shall now
proceed to quote the words of Morer relative to
it, p . 187-^9. /ASt „ € £„, s

' Socrates, tells lis, that all churches over the
world, excepting those of Alexandria and of
Rome, set apart as well Saturday as Sunday for
religious uses; even the Egyptians and those
who dwelt in Thebais, borderers on Alexandria,
complied, and had on both days prayers and col-
lections. Sozomen has the same exception of
Rome and Alexandria, but (to use his own words)
all or most of the other churches carefully ob-
served the sabbath. And so great stress was
laid on keeping it, that G regory Nyssen expos-
tulates thus : ( With what eves can you behold
the Lord's day T when you d espisethe sabbath?
Do you not perceive they are s isters , and that in
slighting the one you affront the other? And as
sisters, we find them go hand in hand in the Ec-
clesiastical Canons. ' If any clergyman be found
fasting on the Lord's day, or the sabbath, let him
be suspended/ — Canon 66. ApostS And in the
Sixth Council of Trullo, the canons obliged all
people to fast throughout LenJt, except on the
sabbath and the Lord's day. And so they are
joined together in the 49th and 51st Canons of
the Council of Laodicea. But the Words of St.
Ignatius are very severe; (Epist. ad Philip.)

142 Supposed Repeal of the

' If any man fast on the Lord's day, or on the
sabbath, except that before Easter, he murders
Christ again :' and no wonder, seeing we find
it among the constitutions of the Church in
St. Clement, that we celebrate as festivals the
sabbath and the Lord's day. This is done in
memory of the Resurrection, and that of the
Creation. Elsewhere the same author makes
both days of rest, that so servants may have op-
portunity to go to church, to hear and learn the
duties of religion. 'In sum/ says Balsamon,
e the holy Fathers make the sabbath and the
Lord's day to stand on the same ground, and
they were equally respected in ancient times.'
Thus far Morer.

For upwards of three hundred years (as before
noticed) the seventh day was thus kept by Chris-
tians in general, though in conjunction with the
first day. Several parts of the extract just given
deserve particular remark. Not only fathers,
but councils, declare in favour of the old sabbath ;
and the language employed by them is not that
of concern to have its observance connived at or
tolerated, but of conviction that it was an impor-
tant duty. St. Ignatius himself, who in another
part of his writings is understood by some to
urge the celebration of the first day instead of
sabbatizing, in this part, on the contrary, enjoins
it only after sabbatizing; reprobating the neg-

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 143

lect of the latter in the severest terms. The
Apostolical Canons are not thought to he so early
as they pretend to be ; but the later the zeal was
which they express for the seventh day sabbath,
the more advantageous it is to the cause which it
advocates. The Council at Trullo which declares
on the same side, must also have been held late,
as it was the sixth which sat there. Whether
the Council of Laodicea which espouses the cause
of the seventh day was that which sat there in
the middle of the fourth century, is uncertain ;
but if it was, it is not a little remarkable that it
should venture thus to express its sentiment in
opposition to the decrees of Constantine which
enjoin the observance of the first day, without
mentioning the seventh day. Be that as it may,
Gregory Nyssen must have had that boldness,
since he lived at that time. Nor do the histo-
rians Socrates and Sozomen, both of whom lived
in that century, (and the latter continued beyond
the beginning of the fifth century,) display a
small degree of it, in stating, as they do, both
the period during which Sabbatarianism (as it is
now called) was practised, and the extent to
which it prevailed. The first of these writers
states (Lib. 5. Cap. 22.) not only the public
observance of the seventh day in almost all
the churches, w T ith the exception of those in
Rome and Alexandria, in the . fourth centuiy,

144 Supposed Repeal of the

but also that the ' holy mysteries were performed
on it.'

St. Ignatius, indeed, according to Bishop
White, exhorts the Christians to work on the
sabbath, quoting the apostle's words, 'If any
man will not work, neither shall he cat.' This,
however, is no more than what the same learned
writer shows the fathers in general to have done
relative to the first day, not only while the Chris-
tians were subject to the idolaters, but for three
centuries after the Roman empire became Chris-
tian. The exhortation of Ignatius implies, also,
that the Christians with whom he was concerned
in general abstained from working on the seventh
day.

In England, even so late as some years before
A. D. 1000,* in the reign of Edgar, the seventh
day was ordered to be sanctified from three
o'clock in the afternoon, in addition to the
whole of the first clay : and this sacred regard
for it continued, in consequence of different
canons and proclamations, till the time of King
John ; that is, for more than two hundred years.
Notwithstanding the present practice of defer-

* The short account of the Sabbatarians in the preceding
part of this Chapter contains some important particulars of
their condition abroad between Constantine's time and this
period, as well as afterward*

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 145

ring the commencement of the national sabbath
till twelve at midnight on the seventh day, I
am not aware that the laws just referred to have
ever been repealed. The Journals of Parlia- '
ment, as well as the public schools, still, I be-
lieve, call the seventh day, in Latin, Sabbath-
day, not Saturday : and it is a well-known fact
that neither of the two Houses, in general, tran-
sact any business on that day.

The religious respect shown to the seventh
day by the Christians at large during the first
ages of Christianity, has been attributed to the
reluctance of the Jewish converts to quit an old
practice, and the deference paid to them by
their Gentile brethren. At least, it is allowed
that they both kept the seventh day for the most
part at that time, notwithstanding the silence
of Luke and the apostles. There was, however,
no such deference shown in the case of cir-
cumcision. Had that been the case respecting
the seventh day, the toleration of the seventh
day would have been sufficient, without enjoin-
ing its observance; and if the latter was thought
necessary or prudent, it will* at least show that
the numbers and strength of the Sabbatarians
were not inconsiderable. But the conjecture
proceeds upon the ground that the repeal of the
seven ill day sabbath has been proved from Scrip-
ture : for if that point be not established, there is

H

1 46 Supposed Repeal of th e

a more natural way of accounting for the hanno
ny that subsisted among the Christians ; namely,
the conviction of the Jewish converts that it was
their duty still to keep the seventh day, and that
of the Gentile converts that their brethren from
among the Jews, in adhering to the old sabbath,
were doing no more than their duty, and what it
was equally the duty of the Gentiles themselves
to practise. Upon the supposition of the non-
repeal, it would have been strange indeed, had
the Jews, when they became Christians, acted
otherwise than they did ; and their abandonment
of the old sabbath would no doubt have been
brought forward as an unanswerable argument in
support of the repeal. That the converts from
the Jews should continue to keep the seventh
day was no more than what might be expected,
as the apostles gave no orders to the contrary;
and if the converts from the Gentiles did not
practise the same, they had occasion for the for-
bearance of their brethren, and not their brethren
for their's. .

There is not the least appearance, in the Fa-
thers, that the Sabbatarian Christians were a
new sect, sprung up since the time of the apos-
tles. They are never charged with innovation
in this respect ; nor was their existence or conti-
nuance in the church ever accounted for in the
way that is now under consideration, till modern

Seventh Day Weeldy Sabbath. 147

times. The churches at Rome and Alexandria,
which, the historians tell us, contained no Sabba-
tarians, so far as is known, never pleaded Scrip-
ture, if they pleaded any thing else, as a reason
for excluding them. That the arm of civil and
ecclesiastical power should afterwards disperse,
though not annihilate them, can excite no won-
der ; but Constantine and his successors, whether
acting in a political or sacred character, when,
in their decrees relative to observing the first
day, they overlooked the seventh day, did not
urge the authority of Inspiration for the omis-
sion. They even acted in opposition to the au-
thority and example of the primitive church,
without ever assigning the pretext which has
since been invented for them, namely, that there
were no longer any converts from among the
Jews to render the toleration of their preposses-
sions in favour of the old sabbath, or conformity
to them, necessary.*

To return to the subject of the present Chap-
ter. — There is a sense in which the advocates for
the repeal of the seventh day sabbath may them-
selves be said to aid the cause of those who

* This detail from Church History is given to satisfy a na-
tural curiosity, and not to strengthen the reasoning which
preceded it. The Bible is the religion of Protestants, not
the opinions and precepts of men.

148 Supposed Repeal of the

maintain that it is not repealed : I mean the ad-
herence of the first day Christians in general to
the Fourth Commandment. I am aware, indeed,
that they do not profess to retain the whole of
the commandment, or at least, if they do, that
they do not understand the expression sabbath in
it to mean £ the seventh day,' or this last to mean
the last day of the week exclusively, but the se-
venth part of time; so that though the Jews
were confined to the seventh day, Christians may
keep another of the seven without violating the
commandment. I have also shown, before, that
the seventh part of time abstractedly was not
the thing instituted, either in the command-
ment, or in Genesis 2. 2, 3., but that it was the
consequence of the institution.* The thing in-
stituted relates only to the last day of the first
week — the day on which God rested from the
work of creation, and every seventh day after-
wards in succession. f It was that day which the
Fourth Commandment ordered the Jews to keep,

* The seventh part of time was not instituted first, and the
seventh day afterwards, either in Genesis 2. 2, 3. or in the
Fourth Commandment.

t Moses and the Jews did not conceive that the first se-
venth day only was to be kept holy ; nor do the first day
Christians think that no other Sunday was to be kept except
that on which Christ rose.

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 149

the day which in fact (as has been proved) they
were keeping before the commandment was
given from Mount Sinai — the day, the week-
ly return of which they now keep. If the com-
mandment did not confine them to that day, there
was nothing else that did. No one, however,
conceives that the Jews were at liberty to keep
any other day, or that they would have escaped
the severest punishment, had they dared to keep
another in the room of it. But as there was no
other precept to bind them to the observance of
the last day of the week in particular, except the
Fourth Commandment, if that commandment
only required in general the seventh part of time,
they would have been at liberty to change the
day, by keeping two sabbaths together, or by
some other expedient.

The expression, then, in the commandment,
c the seventh day/ can only mean the last day of
the week, as it was understood to mean by the
Jews, and even by our Lord himself. So the
holy women understood it, who rested on it ac-
cording to the commandment. Of course it
means the same to all who are subject to the
Fourth Commandment. They are as much
bound by it to keep the seventh day, as the Jews
were. It never can mean a different thing after
our Lord's resurrection from what it did before
— a different thing to different bodies of people

1 50 Supp osed Repeal of the

alike subject to the Fourth Commandment — a
different thing to Christians from what it did to
the Jews. It never can mean the last day of the
week exclusively to the Jews, and to Christians
only the seventh part of time. As the former
were not at liberty to disregard the letter of the
commandment under the notion of adhering to
the spirit of it, so neither are the latter warrant-
ed in taking any such liberty.

But it will be asked, May not part of a law be
repealed, and the rest continue in force? Un-
doubtedly it may, when the repeal relates to a
circumstance, but not when it relates to the
essence. Here the supposed repeal relates to
the essence. For if the words i the seventh
day' be struck out, nothing will remain to be
kept holy. The seventh part of time will not
remain ; for since it owes its right to consecra-
tion entirely to the seventh day, when the se-
venth day goes, it must go with it.* The rea-
son, too, assigned at the end of the command-
ment for its enactment must also vanish, as re-
lating to the last day of the week, and to nothing
else. The seventh day, therefore, cannot be

* Had the seventh day sabbath been repealed before our
Lord's time, the Fourth Commandment would not have bound
the Jews to keep any day, whatever reason or a new divine
institution might have done.

Seventh Day Weekly Sabbath. 151

cancelled without cancelling the whole ; and up*
on this account, whoever retains the rest of the
precept (as Christians in general do) may be
said virtually to deny the repeal of the seventh
day sabbath.

It is true, the obligation to sanctify the seventh
part of time might exist, and consequently con-
tinue, if reason supported it, without the com-
mandment. But in that case the Fourth Com-
mandment would have nothing to do with it. It
might also be renewed by the Divine Being, ei-
ther by the institution of it abstractedly, no day
being named in particular, or by instituting a
specific day, as was done at the Creation ; and I
say nothing at present whether this last has or
has not been done in the case of the first day.
But if it be so, the Fourth Commandment can-
not with propriety, any more than any other es-
sentially amended or altered law, be considered
in its present state as obligatory upon Christians.
Before the words relative to the mode of keep-
ing holy the sabbath day can be used, ( the se-
venth part of time/ or 'the first/ for instance,
must be substituted for seventh / and instead of
the reason now given in the commandment for
the divine institution of the seventh day, the fol-
lowing, or some such words, must be introdu-
ced : — ' for the sanctification of the seventh part
of time is requisite for the purposes of civiliza-

152 Supposed Repeal of the

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 hlessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it.' ,

Whether the commandment would remain the
same in substance with either of these altera-
tions — whether the apostles have sanctioned ei-
ther — 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 im-
portant 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 clay is the
weekly sabbath according to the New Testa-
ment. 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, pri-
vate, or mental nature, which, according to the
sentiments of the pious in general, (in the Bri-
tish 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
n2

154 Claim of the First Bay

the weekly sabbath would be materially thinned.
But it will be better for me not to notice, at pre-
sent, 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 enti-
tles, or is thought to entitle it. I shall, therefore,
consider none except the Sabbatarians as denying
its scriptural authority : a denial which can ex-
cite no wonder, after what has been stated con-
cerning their denying the repeal of the seventh
day sabbath, and their reasons for so doing.

Before I enter upon the subject I wish to ob-
serve, 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 improbabi-
lity of this no more weakens the argument for
the non-repeal, than it does that for the new in-
stitution.

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

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 155

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 supernatu-
ral 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 appel-
lation given by Scripture to a day, without
naming it, and apparently implying a sacred
character, when there was another day to claim

156 Claim of the First Bay

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 reli-
gious 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 sacrifi-
ces 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 Pa-
triarchal, Jewish, or Christian dispensation, like
that of the first day sabbath, if it be one. The
case of sacrifices is not similar to it. Abraham,
Jacob, and Job, were ordered by the Divine Be-
ing to offer sacrifices. [See Genesis, chapters 15,
22, and 35. and Job, ch. 42.] The divine insti-
tution of sacrifices among the Jews is manifest.
As to the Patriarchs before the time of Abraham,

fo be the Weekly Sabbath&C* 157

\&
and the Gentiles who were cotemporary with

them, a divine institution, if not imparted fey the
blessed God immediately to themselves, could be
known to them only through the medium of tra-
ditionary revelation ; there being then no written
revelation. The apostles are never said in the
New Testament to have received a divine order
for consecrating the first day, (the contingent and
temporary act of pious benevolence, enjoined on
certain churches to be performed privately on
that day, is not an order for consecrating the day,)
and there is no necessity for trusting to tradition
on the subject, since written revelation was
then in existence. In each of these respects the
case of the first day is totally dissimilar to that
of sacrifices. It does not follow that the ancients
before the time of Abraham sacrificed without
the divine authority, from our not being inform-
ed of it, when it does not concern us to know.
But it does concern us to know the ground of the
first day's claim.

The observers of the first day, however, do not
admit universally the want of direct evidence to
prove its divine claim to be the weekly sabbath.
Some have considered Hebrews 4. 10. in the light
of a divine precept for its weekly sanctification.
But the word in the preceding verse which is
translated rest, though it signifies keeping a sab-
bath, does not mean keeping one on earth, but

158 Claim of the First Dai/

keeping one in heaven. It ' remaineth for the
people of God / it is not now possessed by them,
as it would be were the weekly sabbath intend-
ed : and they ' enter into it* now, only because
they shall as certainly have it, as if they had it
already, and because grace is the evidence, the
beginner, and the foretaste, of glory. The pro-
noun he, who is said to have 'entered into his
rest as God did into his/ is not the substitute for
Christ, whose name had never been mentioned,
but for people in the preceding verse, which in
the original is in the singular number, as well as
masculine, who, whether taken individually or
collectively, when they have entered into their
rest, will as certainly have ' ceased from their
work/ or, as the apostle John has it, ' rest from
their labour/ 'as God did from his.' This is
true in point of fact ; and as to the honour of be-
ing thus compared to God appearing to a learned
and pious writer (Dr. Owen) to be infinitely too
great for a common saint, and an objection being
made to the foregoing comment on that account,
it is no more than what is done in other passages
of Scripture, in which the apostles are represent-
ed as 'working together with him/ that is, with
God, and in which the Philippians are command-
ed to 'work out their own salvation with fear
and trembling/ it being God that 'worked in
them both to will and to do of his good pleasure.'

to be the Weekly Sabbath, . 159

In short, the inspired writer to the Hebrews
having had occasion to quote Gen. 2. 2, 3. in
order to explain a verse in Psalm 95., takes ad-
vantage of the quotation to give a new illustra-
tion of the happiness which every true believer
has in prospect. In this he does no more than
what is common with the sacred writers. There
is not the least appearance, through the whole of
the passage, of his at all having the first day in
contemplation, or of his intending to transfer the
weekly sabbath to it. Both the beginning and
the termination of the argument contained in the
first and eleventh verses show that his sole object
was to enforce on the minds of the Hebrew
Christians the necessity that there was for perse-
verance in their holy profession, in order to final
success.*

I proceed now to the consideration of the indi-
rect evidence by which the divine claim of the
first day to sanctification is attempted to be sup-
ported. It is pleaded for this purpose, that cer-
tain miraculous and beneficial events took place
on this day — such as our Lord's resurrection — his
repeated appearance to his disciples — his bless-

* In point of fact, our Lord, having * ceased from the work'
of redemption, did not enter into his- rest on Sunday, but ei-
ther on Friday, according to his words to the converted ma-
lefactor, or on Thursday, when he ' ascended on high/

160 Claim of the First Bay

ing them — and his sending down the Holy Ghost.
Now taking all this for granted, do these occur-
rences themselves render the day on which they
happened the weekly sabbath, or prove it to be
such? — Great and beneficial as they certainly
were, I confess I can see nothing in them to war-
rant such an inference, in the absence of a di-
vine declaration to that effect. Many supernatu-
ral and happy events took place among the
Jews ; and on occasion of some of them, particu-
larly that of the Passover, certain days were kept
sacred, and called sabbaths : but none of them
was thus distinguished without a divine command
peremptorily given for that purpose ; neither did
any of them supersede the weekly sabbath, or
transfer the sanctification of it to a different day.
But it has been said, that though the events under
consideration have not the sanction spoken of for
consecrating the first day, yet they ought to be
regarded as signs (hat the day Mas intended by
Christ henceforth to be the weekly sabbath, in
the same manner as soldiers fight upon their ge-
neral's giving the signal for battle, without his
actually telling them to do so. It should be re-
collected, however, that the soldiers would not
act thus, if they did not know from the general
custom of war, or from a particular communica-
tion made to them in the course of their training,
that they were to understand the sign in this

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 161

sense. Whether the expression ' Lord's day'
(Rev. 1 . 10.) is thus to be considered in the case
before us, shall be examined in the proper place.
I wish only to observe, at present, that without
such a communication from Inspiration, the
events themselves neither imply nor prove such
a design on the part of Christ.

No doubt remarkable events, especially if they
are of a mournful or joyous nature, will for a
certain period occur to the recollection of the
individuals, families, or nations, interested in
them, with the weekly and annual returns of the
days on which they happened. On these occa-
sions, the parties will remember with suitable
emotions the particulars of them, converse at
length about them with all who are concerned in
them like themselves, and, if pious characters,
' make peculiar mention of them in their prayers.'
But the weekly remembrance will soon wear
away, and the annual one will probably not
extend beyond the second or third generation,
even should children not wholly lose the im-
pressions of remarkable occurrences in the his-
tory of their parents, so feelingly and frequently
related to them. A body of people, or a nation,
deeply interested in some events, may recollect
them at a stated time for centuries : but the re-
membrance is always annual, not weekly ; it re-
lates to the day of the month, not the day of the

162 Claim of the First Dai/

week ; and in these, as also in the former cases,
the subject occupies the thoughts, the conversa-
tion, and the conduct, only a part or parts, and
not the whole of the day. The religious days of
human appointment sometimes,* though seldom,
recur weekly : but though regard is then paid to
the day of the week, and not to the day of the
month, as when they are annual, (Easter Sun-
day excepted,) yet they are not kept sacred for
twenty-four hours together, unless nominally,
and by means, perhaps, of abstinence from par-
ticular kinds of food and labour.

The apostles, as men, could not be wholly
strangers to those recollections, or to the making
those remarks among their connexions, which
are common to all mankind during a certain
period at least, on the return of days on which
singular and interesting events happened — espe-
cially since the events which happened to them
were supernatural, and of everlasting and univer-
sal concern, But how often their impressions
recurred, and how they manifested them, cannot
be known from the events themselves. Great

* Among the Roman Catholics, it is well known that Fri-
day is observed as a fast-day ; and it appears from the ■ Mag-
deburg Centuries/ and from Lucius's * Ecclesiastical Histo-
ry,' that the Greek and Latin Churches observed the seventh
day, the former as a festival, and the latter as a fast.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 163

and interesting as the events were, the apostles
were less likely to be struck by the return of the
days on which they took place than we should be
under present circumstances, because they were
used to such occurrences, were themselves fre-
quently the instruments of producing extraordi-
nary and beneficial events, and were in the daily
habit of studying, propagating, and improving,
those which are now the subject of discussion.
Be this as it may, so far as can be judged from
common experience and observation, there is
not the least reason to think that any one of these
events would lead the apostles to keep or insti-
tute a new weekly sabbath without a divine
command for that purpose, or that we ought to
understand them as having done so, in the ab-
sence of information from their writings,*

* The meeting at Troas (Acts 20, 7.) at most only resem-
bles a religious festival of human appointment, in which only
a part of the day is kept. The meeting, however, is not
said to have taken place on that day, as the weekly return of
the day on which Christ rose. There is nothing said about
the resurrection, nor any extraordinary joy or thanksgiving
on account of that event, as might have been expected, it
being the first meeting of the kind that is noticed. Nothing
more is said to have taken place at it, than what is stated
(Acts 2, 46.) to have taken place every day. No repetition
of it is ever mentioned.

164 Claim of the First Day

Were it true that any day on which a great
and good event happened ought to be kept as a
weekly sabbath by the apostles and by succeed-
ing Christians without a divine communication,
provided the day could be ascertained, more days
than the first day would be entitled to that ho-
nour. It is known that our Lord suffered on a
Friday, and that he ascended on a Thursday. His
crucifixion, though a mournful event, was no less
necessary, beneficial, and extraordinary, than his
resurrection; and his ascension was an event
which, beside being no less joyous, was more
publicly triumphant, and completed his glory.
Yet what Christian now pretends that the apos-
tles kept, or that he himself is obliged to keep,
either of them weekly, like the ancient weekly
sabbath?*

But it will perhaps be said, that riot only
one, but more than one, great and good event
happened on the first day, as also that the
meeting of Christ with his disciples occurred
repeatedly on this day; and that on these ac-
counts it merited the high distinction of sacred

* Friday and Thursday, though not necessary to be
named, as the first day was, to show the accomplishment of a
prediction, yet had religious acts as solemn performed on
them, as the first day had ; and no less publicly and fre-
quently.— See Acts 2. 4G.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 165

regard much more than the others. Could both
these particulars be proved, I can see nothing
more in such a coincidence and repetition, in the
absence of a divine injunction, than the same ten-
dency to procure for the return of the day the
recollections and notices annually rather than
weekly, for a certain period, which I have already
mentioned.* Without such an injunction, there
is nothing at all in them to suggest to the mind of
an apostle, or of any one else, the idea that the
day distinguished by them was henceforth to be
sanctified — and that wholly and weekly. With
respect to increased tendency to procure regard
for the day, the coincidence and repetition in
question could avail nothing : for though the days
on which the incidents respectively happened
went by the same name, they did not happen on
the same day, and therefore could not reasona-
bly be commemorated on the same day of the

* The Fathers describing the first day as a festival, not as
a sabbath — the canons and decrees coupling it with the
saints' days — and the partial manner in which it was gene-
rally if not universally observed before the time of the Pu-
ritans, exactly correspond with the ideas that have been
thrown out concerning recollections and celebrations merely
human. The keeping it annually rather than weekly is indeed
extraordinary, but not unparalleled, since, as before observ*
ed, the Roman Catholics keep Friday in this manner.

166 Claim of the First Day

week, but annually on the days of the months on
which they severally took place.

But I must now observe, that neither the repe-
tition nor the coincidence is so extraordinary or
so incontrovertible as is commonly imagined. No
one thinks, I believe, that the disciples met toge-
on the evening of the day on which Christ rose, as
supposing the day to have become the weekly sab-
bath, on account of that event. Considering that
it was still uncertain whether an event so ex-
tremely interesting to them had taken place, or
would take place, it would have been strange if
they had let the day on which they had under-
stood that it was to happen, pass without meeting
on one part of it or on another. As to our Lord's
visiting and blessing them on that occasion, no-
thing was more likely than that a person of his
benignity would take the earliest opportunity of
calming their solicitude, and of converting the
extraordinary sorrow they had lately experienced
into as extraordinary joy, by giving them peculi-
ar marks of his favour, and opening the most no-
ble and exhilarating prospects to their view. No
one can justly imagine that incidents so natural,
however singular and beneficial, either render
the day sacred, or prove an intention on the part
of Christ to sanctify the weekly return of it, in
the absence of all information to that effect.

to be the WeeMy Sabbath. 167

If it is asked, in reply, If there was no such in-
tention, how happened it that a second meeting
took place on the following first day? I answer
by asking, in my turn, Is it so uncommon, then,
when a meeting separates, to adjourn to that day
week? To infer any intention to attach future
sacredness to the day from that circumstance, is,
in my opinion, begging the question.* This
would be true, were it absolutely certain that the
disciples who met eight days after the first meet-
ing, met on the Sunday following. Notwith-

* Whatever day the expression (John 20. 26.) l after eight
days' refers to, however the disciples came to fix on it, or
whatever the object of the meeting was, it does not appear
that they met by the order of Christ, that he promised to be
with them, or that they expected him. To satisfy and im-
prove the doubts of Thomas concerning the reality of the re-
surrection seems to have been our Lord's sole object in
coming. Nothing can be inferred concerning the sacred
character of the day itself, from the meeting being held on
it, because there had been a meeting between that which
took place on the day Christ rose, and that which was held
' eight days after ;' at which intermediate meeting Thomas,
who was not present at the former one, expressed to his fel-
low disciples the doubts before mentioned. In short, cir-
cumstanced as the disciples were, it might be expected that
they would meet on more days than one. in a week ; and why
should it be thought extraordinary that two of these meetings
fell on the same day of different weeks, (supposing it to be a
fact that they did so,) rather than on different days ?

168 Claim of I he First Day

standing, however, the ingenuity and learning of
Dr. Wallis, and even the solidity, in some degree,
of his reasoning in defence of this interpretation,
I cannot admit that it is conclusive. It would
not have been known that our Lord was circum-
cised on the 'eighth day/ and not till 'eight
days' were literally accomplished, if the sacred
writer had not told us so. The ' three days and
the three nights' during which our Lord was to
4 be in the heart of the earth/ turned out to be
only parts of three days; but prophecy seldom
possesses the accuracy of history : and though
the Jews requested Pilate to 'make the sepul-
chre' in which the body of Christ lay ' sure' only
till the third day, it could not be known before-
hand that he would rise at the beginning of the
third day ; and it would have been imprudent,
considering their object, to remove the guard pri-
or to the complete termination of the three days.
There is no evidence that the phrase 'after eight
days* would have been exchanged for another, if
whole days of twenty-four hours each had been
incontrovertibly intended, or that this was not
the real meaning of the words in question. It
does not follow that the Jews understood certain
expressions in a way different from their literal
sense, because the Romans did, or that with the
French they would say ' eight days,' when they
meant what the English call ' this day se'nnight.'

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 169

When the evidence of a fact is merely circum-
stantial, as is the case of the first day's right by
divine appointment to be the weekly sabbath,
no circumstance that is at all ambiguous can be
admitted.

It is not certain, therefore, that our Lord met
with his disciples on the first day more than
once. But even twice or thrice would bear but
a small proportion to the number of times he
must have been seen on other days, in the course
of the forty during which he was with them after
his resurrection.

Neither was his blessing them confined to his
meeting with them on the first day ; for he bless-
ed them also on the fifth day of the week — on a
Thursday, the day of his ascension.

In fine, confidently as it has been affirmed that
the day of Pentecost, on which the Holy Ghost
descended upon the apostles, was Sunday, the
same day of the week on which our Lord rose, I
cannot say that this is my opinion, any more than
that it is the opinion of many others. The fif-
tieth day from the day of the resurrection, in-
cluding that day, would fall on a Sunday : but
the day of Pentecost in question, was the day
which the Jews called by that name; and that
being the fiftieth day after the first day of unlea-
vened bread, the feast kept on account of the
Passover must have fallen, the year our Saviour
i

170 Claim of the First Day

was crucified, on the sixth or the seventh day of
the week.

The result is, that the repetition and coinci-
dence of great and happy events on the first day
are not proved, and that that day was no more re-
markable for them than certain other days were.
Christ died for our sins on a Friday ; and though
he blessed his disciples as well as rose from the
dead on a Sunday, yet he also blessed them on a
Thursday, and on the same day e ascended on
high, led captivity captive, received gifts for men,
spoiled principalities and powers, and made a
shew of them openly/ There is no more ten-
dency in the resurrection to constitute Sunday a
weekly sabbath, or to prove it to be one, than
there is in the crucifixion or in the ascension to
make or prove the days on which they respec-
tively happened, weekly sabbaths. No doubt an
intimation from a sacred writer that this was the
will of God would amply supply the want of
tendency with respect to either of these days.
Whether or no any intimation of this kind oc-
curs in other parts of the New Testament, will
be considered afterwards. There is nothing of
that nature in the passages that have been already
examined.

The next circumstance urged in favour of the
divine authority of the first day, is Acts 20. 7.
The apostle Paul, with his companions, spent, it

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 171

seems, seven days at Troas. What they did on
the six former days, including the seventh day of
the week, is not stated. But if not passed
wholly in missionary labours, of which there is
no mention at all, they must have passed in reli-
gious meetings and acts among the Christians
themselves, in which it is incredible that the
Lord's Supper should not have been observed
more than once, considering Acts 2. 46. It ap-
pears, however, that 'on the first day of the
week/ (the last day of the seven,) 'when the
disciples came together' [the disciples being as-
sembled together] { to break bread, Paul preach-
ed to them.'* It is not said whether this ' break-
ing bread' was a common meal which they had
together as friends, the apostle being about to
take his leave of them, or whether it was the
Lord's Supper; whether the meeting was inci-
dental, f or stated ; whether they had a sermon

* On the days kept as the weekly sabbaths, when it is pro-
posed to annex the Lord's Supper to the other branches of
public worship, it is not usual to state the celebration of that
ordinance as the object of the meeting, as if it was the sole
or at least the grand one.

t' The disciples are not said to have come together as usual,
though there is no mention of such a meeting having taken
place before. In Acts 17. 1, 2. we are informed that Paul
went into a synagogue of the Jews, as his manner was ; though
it might have been presumed that he did so without such in-
formation 4

1/2 Claim of the First Bay

only because the apostle was there to preach it,
or whether they would have had one, if he had
not been there. Allowing, however, for the
present, these questions to be determined in the
way most favourable to the title of the first day,
I can admit nothing more than that every thing
done on this occasion was perfectly consistent
with such a title, (supposing the title to have
been already proved,) and that Christians are
fully at liberty, if they please, to meet and to
perform similar acts on the same day of the week.
But the facts themselves will by no means prove
that it is their duty to do so on it, or the title
in question. Acts of public worship are lawful
on any day; and they are too commonly and
even statedly performed on week days to war-
rant or even to give rise to any one's thinking
that those days are sacred, much less that they
are weekly sabbaths — even in the view of the
persons engaged in them. If the acts under
consideration had been done on the fifth day
(the day of the ascension) instead of the first
day, I imagine that no one would have thought
that the acts themselves conferred a sacred cha-
racter on the day — that the performance took
place in consequence of the day's bearing this
character — or that the performance proved that
it was intended to bear this character^ in the ab-
sence of all information to this effect.

to be the Weeldy Sabbath. 173

It is true, to celebrate the Lord's Supper on a
day different from that which is thought by the
administrator and communicants to be the week-
ly sabbath is not common in modern times ; but
there are instances of it in our time, nor did our
Lord or his apostles confine the celebration to
the sabbath. There was, in short, nothing more
done by the disciples and the apostle Paul at
Troas, than was done by the disciples at Jerusa-
lem every day, including the seventh day. [See
Acts 2. 46.] Some, however, have thought that
the sacred historian would not have named the
day when this meeting was held, had he not
meant to convey the idea that it took place on
the weekly sabbath. 'Why/ say they, 'did he
not express it, 'And on the last of these days/ if
he had not this intention?' — Whatever this in-
tention was, (if he had any in particular,) it
could not be that which has been attributed to
him; for if it had, he would have written to
this effect — 'And on the first day of the week,
being now the weekly sabbath,' &c; there having
been no notice of such a change before.* Had

* Though the apostles Paul and Barnabas staid a whole
year at Antioch in Syria, [Acts 11.] and seven days at Tyre,
[Acts 21.] there is no mention of- any religious meeting or
act, whether private or public, among the Christians, on the
first day— much less is there any intimation that this day

174 Claim of the First Day

the sacred writer expressed himself e on the last
of these days/ instead of ( on the first day/ one
of the clauses following, namely, 'ready to de-
part on the morrow/ would have been super-
fluous.

I do not see why it should be thought more
necessary to account for the historian Luke's
telling us the day of the week on which the
meeting at Troas was held, than for his telling us
the number of days during which the apostle
staid there. He assigns no reason for the latter

was now to be the weekly sabbath. This is the more re-
markable, as the change, if it took place at all, must have
been very recent when the apostles were at Antioch ; and
the circumstance of the Christians' having been first called
by that name at that place, furnished the fairest opportunity
for noticing the new sabbath, which had never yet been
noticed. The absence of extraordinary events, indeed, at the
meetings, whether at Antioch or at Tyre, might in itself oc-
casion the silence of the sacred writer concerning the first
day, as well^ as concerning the seventh day. But though
there was no necessity for noticing the observance of an in-
stitution known to have been long established, which there
was no ground for thinking would be repealed, and the re-
peal of which had never been stated, (without such a state-
ment, however, there was no reason to suppose that it had
taken place,) when nothing occurred at it but what was
ordinary, yet there was such a necessity in the case of a new
institution, (provided there was one,) which still remained to
be mentioned for the first time.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 1J5

any more than for the former. Had it been of
any consequence for us to know, he would no
doubt have told us. But the defect in the narra-
tive ought not to be supplied by a conjecture
that begs the question at issue.*

For these reasons, I cannot consider the meet-
ing at Troas, held once during a part of the first
day,f the object proposed, the transactions at it,
or the persons concerned in them, separately or
conjointly, as constituting the first day a week-
ly sabbath, or proving it to be one. To justify
such an idea, it is requisite that the sacred
writer should intimate that the incident took
place either in consequence of the day's being the
weekly sabbath, or to show that it was intended
to be so considered in future. Otherwise, how
could this be possibly known, since, as I have
shown, nothing either said or done prior to this

* Had the narrative in Acts 20. 7, &c. followed that in
Acts 2. 46. no one could have attached importance to the
mention of the first day : — why should any be attached to it
now ?

t There is no information how the disciples at Troas, and
the apostle, spent the rest of that day : much less is there
any account how the Christians in other places spent any
part of it, or how any of them employed either the preceding
or subsequent Sundays. Yet such information is absolutely
necessary in a case where a new sabbath is to be proved by
apostolic example.

176 Claim of the First Day

affair conveys any such idea; and there is nothing
in the affair itself that authorizes any such con-
clusion.* It does not follow, therefore, from
what the disciples and the apostle did on that day,
that every Christian is obliged to do the same:
it only follows that it is lawful for him to do so —
a discovery which he might have made without
the assistance of revelation. The observations
that have been made would have been true, had
the meeting and transactions, or at least religion,
occupied the whole day, and weekly ; but there
is no evidence that they occupied more than
some hours of the day, or that they ever took
place more than this single time.

The justice of the observations respecting this
celebrated passage receives confirmation from
the fact, that we should have known nothing of

* Let it not be asked, If the disciples and the apostle did
not keep the first day, what day did they keep? An answer
has been already returned to this question, in the last Chap-
ter. Were it even proved that the seventh day sabbath was
repealed, and that they did not keep that, it would not fal-
low that they kept another day. That one day in seven
must be kept is no otherwise a Scriptural doctrine, than as
the day was named by the Blessed God. If that day is re-
pealed, the obligation to keep any day ceases with it, except
there be another institution. That the first day was insti-
tuted at the time when the meeting at Troas took place, is
the point to be proved.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 177

the meeting on the first day, nor of what passed
at it, had it not been for the miracle relative to
Eutychus. The narrative is given, not on account
of the meeting, and the religious transactions at
it, but for the sake of communicating the su-
pernatural event. It is incredible that this would
have been done, had it been the design of Luke
to show by this meeting, and the religious acts
performed at it, that the first day was now the
weekly sabbath. Since nothing was either said
or done, as recorded in the sacred writings, be-
fore, to convey the idea — an idea, too, so very
important, it might be expected that he would
have told us of the meeting and transactions tak-
ing place on some other first day, when no such
miracle was performed; and instead of the mi-
racle, have informed us of the meeting and tran-
sactions having taken place in consequence of the
new institution by divine authority. A fact may
indeed sometimes be told indirectly and inciden-
tally, and the evidence of its truth be the
stronger on that account; but no wise, equitable,
and benevolent legislator would abandon his sub-
jects to chance for the discovery of any law of
his, the neglect of which might subject them to
severe penalties. Least of all ought it to be
thought that the Divine Legislator would do so ;
nor is there an instance of it to be found in any
other part of the Scriptures, or even here. The
i2

178 Claim of the First Day

facts thus indirectly communicated to us are,
that the disciples did once meet together on the
first day, for the purpose of ' breaking bread/ and
that Paul preached to them. This information
would be important, if any doubt existed that
these acts were lawful on a Sunday as well as on
other days. But the point at issue is, not whe-
ther Christians may, but whether they must per-
form and attend public worship on Sunday — on
every Sunday — and devote the whole day to reli-
gion in one way or in another. Of these new
and important facts, there is no information in
the text indirectly and incidentally, any more
than directly and purposely.

The next passage produced as indirect evi-
dence of the first day's claim to be the weekly
sabbath by divine authority, occurs 1 Cor. 16.
1, 2. In this text, the apostle Paul gives com-
mandment to the Christians composing the
church at Corinth, as he had done before to those
that composed the churches of Galatia, for f every
one on the first day of the week to lay by him
in store, as God had prospered him/ for the be-
nefit of the poor saints, ' that there be no gather-
ings/ adds the apostle, c when I come/ The act
here commanded to be done on the first day
was no doubt an act of piety, as well as of benevo-
lence. But the evidence afforded by this text of
the fact which it is brought to prove is of no

to b&the Weekly Sabbath. 1/9

weight, on nearly the same accounts as that sup-
posed to be afforded by the last text was. An
act of pious charity is as proper for a week-day
as for a sabbath, and I believe as frequently per-
formed on the one as on the other. It might be
performed only one Sunday ; at any rate, it could
not be repeated more than a limited number of
weeks. It was enjoined only on some churches,
not on all. The order through which we become
acquainted with the act, and the day when it was
to take place, would not have been given, had it
not been for the incidental poverty of the saints.
Above all, there is no intimation that the first
day was appointed for the purpose on account of
its being now the weekly sabbath, or intended to
be proved such by this injunction, though no in-
timation of the institution had been ever thrown
out before.*

Here it will be asked, What could be the rea-
son of thus performing and enjoining religious
acts on this day, and on no other, if not to inti-
mate the institution in question? Why should
they take place repeatedly on it? — I answer, that

* There is the same want of information here, concerning
a variety of particulars, most important in proving the exist-
ence of a new sabbath by apostolic example, and the prac-
tice of the first Christians, which was stated relative to the
meeting at Troas. — See Note, p. 175.

180 Claim of the First Dgy

it has already been made to appear, from Acts 2.
46., that religious acts were by no means con-
fined by Christians among themselves to the first
day, not even that act which is usually held to be
the most solemn one. The repetition, spoken of
as so remarkable, is the smallest possible; and
the pious act to be performed by the believing
Galatians and Corinthians, is very different from
those acts which were performed at Troas, and
least of all calculated to suggest the idea that the
day on which it was to be performed was the
sabbath. As to the day selected by the apostle
for this act of pious benevolence being the same
with that on which the meeting at Troas is stated
to have been held, I may ask, in my turn, Could
not such a coincidence exist, without its arising
from the day's being the weekly sabbath? Are
there no instances in which religious acts are
now performed, and ordered to be performed, on
the same day in different weeks, and for a series
of weeks, too, though the day be not the sabbath,
nor thought by any one to suggest the idea of a
sabbath? If this happens frequently in modern
times, why might it not happen for once in the
time of the apostles? There is nothing singular
in the religious acts which took place on the first
day in different weeks, except the celebration of
the Lord's Supper, if ' breaking bread' means
that, on one of them, which, though not common

to he the Weekly Sabbath. \^ 181

on a week-day in this age, might be very com-
mon in the first age of Christianity. In Jerusa-"*^^
lem, the act took place every day. (See Acts 2.
46.) In short, since the apostle has not assigned
his reason for selecting the same day of the -
week on which he preached at Troas, for the act
of pious benevolence under discussion, conjec-
ture, as I said in another case, cannot be allowed
to supply the defect, by begging the question at
issue.

I cannot, however, quit the coincidence that
has been noticed without remarking, that far
from wondering at such a coincidence happening
for once, we ought rather to wonder (it seems to
me) that the coincidence did not happen often.
The first day was the only day, I believe, at that
time, except the seventh day, that had its appro-
priate name. This distinction it probably ob-
tained in order to enable the apostles and their
disciples to name the day on which our Lord rose
(a day which they had frequent occasion to men-
tion) without circumlocution, as was always done
in speaking of any other week-day, and of this,
too, prior to the great and happy event that took
place on it. The first day, therefore was a fitter
day to be appointed for the performance of any act,
especially when it was to be performed by num-
bers, and these, too, situated in different coun-
tries, at the same time, than any other, because

182 Claim of the First Day

in the circular issued to give notice of the de-
sign, the day would be designated more concise-
ly, and with less liableness to occasion neglect of
the act through uncertainty of the time.* This
being the case, when we consider the multitude
of occasions which the Christians, as well as
other bodies of people, probably had for fixing
and giving notice of certain days for private and
public purposes, it is more surprising that the
first day is not mentioned often, than that it
should be noticed twice in the history of the
apostles.

It may now be asked, Why did not the apos-
tle appoint the seventh day for the act, since
that had an appropriate name, as well as the
other? — I reply, that as the act was to be founded
upon ascertaining the earnings of the preceding
week, it is evident that the apostle could only
choose the end of that week after labour was
completed, or the beginning of the next before

* The apostle's sole object in appointing a day for this pri-
vate act seems to have been to secure a contribution tveckly.
Were that done, it made no difference to him on which day
of the week it took place. He only named a day, lest by
leaving it to be done any day, it should not be done at all.
The weekly contributions, too, would probably secure an
amount more considerable than if they had been appointed to
be monthly.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 183

it was resumed. But before I proceed further, it
will be necessary to consider the nature of the
act more fully, as also the circumstance that
must have preceded it.

The act of pious benevolence under discussion
was merely a private one. Every one was to
May by him in store as God had prospered
him/ It is not said that individuals were to carry
their respective sums to a particular place in or-
der to their being deposited in a common recep-
tacle, as is done in our time when public collec-
tions are made in places of worship ; nor is there
occasion for such a supposition. It is not even
hinted that there was any place of worship open
for them to carry the money to ; and it does not
follow, from the disciples at Troas having met
once on the first day, that those at other places
met on every first day, or even on one. The
'gatherings' which the apostle wished to pre-
vent ' when he came' need not to be understood
of those which are made by going e from house
to house/ (a practice to which the apostle was
accustomed,) but of public gatherings which are
attended with great anxiety on the part of those
who are to procure them, and are often even de-
ficient in their amount through the non-attend-
ance of those that should contribute, or their
ignorance that each ought to do what he can,
and no more — whether there are or are not more

184 Claim of the First Bay

collections than one for the same object. There
is, therefore, no ground for supposing more than
the text states, namely, private acts by each
member of the church separately at his own re-
sidence, or in his own apartment. That the
apostolic command for these separate acts, which
related only to some churches, and which, how-
ever excellent in their nature and design, would
themselves occupy only a few moments,* and
which would be repeated but for a limited num-
ber of weeks at furthest, should be intended to
constitute or prove the day appointed for their
performance to be the weekly sabbath, when
no such idea had ever been thrown out before,
seems to me utterly incredible.. Nor will its
unsuitableness be removed, by connecting it
with the former arguments; for each of them,
upon examination, has been found equally irre-
levant.

But the circumstance most unfavourable to the
supposition just mentioned, namely, the process
that must have preceded it — the estimate to be
taken of the earnings of the preceding week,
together with the calls, both certain and contin-
gent, to be made upon them by private, domes-
tic, and other exigences — an estimate which, in

* Not the smallest hint is given that the rest of the day was
to be employed in private or public acts of devotion.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 185

the case of wealthy men of business, such as ma-
ny of the believing Corinthians no doubt were,
and such as were fittest for the apostle's purpose,
might be long and complex. A secular process
like this, notwithstanding its object and issue,
does not seem very proper for a sabbath. It has
been said, indeed, that the process might have
taken place the* preceding day, and only the
Maying by in store' be practised on the first
day; but the words of the text intimate no such
distinction of times for the two acts: it was
most natural for the individual to go and lay the
money by the moment he had made up his
mind how much it should be, and the apostle
gives him no caution against acting in this man-
ner.

To return to the question, why the apostle
should appoint the first day rather than the se-
venth. Whatever his reason was, he does not ap-
pear to have given the first day the preference
on account of his thinking that the act he was
enjoining — especially when taken in connexion
with what it was natural should immediately
precede it, and which the text affords us no
ground for supposing did not immediately pre-
cede it, was more fit for a sacred than for a secu-
lar day ; much less that it was fit for the former
exclusively. Of course the invalidity of the in-
direct evidence hitherto adduced in favour of

186 Claim of the First Bay

the first day's right to sanctification still conti-
nues. The text just dismissed is even more re-
mote from affording matter to the purpose than
the preceding one.

The only part of the indirect evidence adduced
in support of the first day sabhath that remains to
be considered, is the expression 'Lord's day/
Rev. 1. 10. It is commonly understood to mean
the first day, and that the new name was given
to it in honour of Christ, who rose from the dead
on it; whence it is inferred that the weekly
Sunday is sacred to him, and has become the
weekly sabbath.

The expression, no doubt, has an appearance
that commands respect and reverence. It seems
likewise to imply something of considerable im-
portance. But as it is new, and occurs nowhere
else in Scripture, the sense just stated to be usual-
ly given to it ought not to be acquiesced in with-
out examination. There is nothing said in the
context which throws the least light upon its
meaning, and therefore, in order to explain it,
recourse must be had to the other writings of
the apostle John, or to those of his inspired bre-
thren.

The phrase seems to indicate a day that is pe-
culiarly the Lord's, and which ought to be whol-
ly devoted to him. This sense of it, however, is
not absolutely necessary, as will be noticed here-

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 187

after; but let it be admitted for the present.
What day, then, do the other parts of Scripture
— particularly the New Testament, represent as
sacred ? 1 know of no other to which the phrase
can be applied, except the seventh day sabbath —
especially if the day called < Lord's day' occur-
red weekly, as is commonly supposed. For
though part of each of the other days appears to
have been sometimes occupied in religious exer-
cises, (publicly, too, and 'breaking bread' not
excluded,) and several hours once of the first
day, these religious acts, even if they occurred
weekly, (of which there is no proof,) do not fill
a single day ; and it is a sacred day, not sacred
hours, or a sacred part of a day, that is here
sought after.*

I know that it has been said that the Christians
in the first age or ages could not meet at any
other time of the day than in the evening after
dark, or very early in the morning, through
dread of their persecutors. This fear, however,
is never assigned in the New Testament as a rea-
son for a nocturnal meeting of Christians, except
on the day of our Lord's resurrection, when the

: Were the religious acts performed on different Sundays
to be considered as performed on one" and the same Sunday,
they would not by any means fill the hours in a day that are
usually spent in business or enjoyment.

188 Claim of the First Day

public feeling was peculiarly hostile to Christ
and his followers. The meeting at Troas may as
well be supposed to have taken place after dark,
because the Christians who attended it were not
at leisure till then on account of secular business,
as for the other reason.* No other assemblies of
Christians, several of which are noticed by the
sacred writers as meeting for religious purposes,
if not for public worship, appear to have been
at night. But admitting that the fear of persecu-
tion prevented them from worshipping publicly
on the first day, except after dark, or before sun-
rise, still this would not obstruct the meeting of
small parties in private houses for the worship
of God ; and as we are not told that they did
so meet, or how they spent the rest of the time,
there is no proof that they ever devoted the
whole of a single first day to religion. That
there is no proof of the first day's not having
been wholly spent in religion at Troas, for in-
stance, will not warrant the drawing an inference
from the unproved supposition of its having been
so spent. The notice here called for is indispen-
sably necessary to the proof of its having ever

* The nocturnal meeting for prayer which Peter came to
on his deliverance from prison by the angel was too extraor-
dinary a case to be admitted as evidence of the general cus-
torn,

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 189

been treated as sacred in a single instance, since
it is never said to have been sanctified, as the se-
venth day was.

If, therefore, the sense of Scripture is to be de-
termined in the same way that the sense of human
writings is determined, and the l Lord's day' be
supposed to mean a sacred day, or a day spent in
devotional acts, it can mean only the seventh
day, there being no other described as sacred
through the whole of the New Testament.

I have already assigned my reasons for not al-
lowing that the seventh day sabbath has been re-
pealed, or that there are no religious acts stated
to have been performed on it by Christians as
Christians, or that the notice of such instances is
requisite to the proof of an obligation continuing
or to its being regarded, in the case of an institu-
tion that is known to have long existed, and been
attended to. But were the contrary ever so
plain, it would not follow that the Scriptures had
ever represented Sunday to be a sacred day, and
that therefore it was the only day which could
be meant by the expression c Lord's day.' It
would only follow, from the disprovement of the
continuance of the seventh day's claim, that no
day now known was entitled to the honour.

It is remarkable that our Lord did once attach
his sacred title of Lord to the seventh day;
namely, when he said, c The Son of man is Lord

190 Claim of the First Day

also of the sabbath-day.' The phrase i sabbath -
day' must refer to the seventh day ; for no one
thinks that there was any other sabbath at that
time ; nor does our Lord distinguish any other
day in tin's manner. There is indeed mention in
Psalm 118. 24. of a day < which the Lord hath
made ;' but it is as uncertain what day is referred
to in that verse, as it is respecting the words under
consideration. It must not be inferred, because
the verses preceding relate to Christ, that the
verse following does the same. The day spoken
of may be that of the great and happy event in
the history of David which it is the immediate
object of the Psalm to celebrate. Or if it be one
that occurs in the history of Christ, and not of
David, yet the day on which it took place may
as well be that of his ascension, [Thursday,] as
that of his resurrection. Nor does it follow, from
the day on which the event actually happened be-
ing distinguished by some special mark of regard,
that the weekly return of it is to be distinguished
in like manner.*

* The sacred writers of the New Testament, in mentioning
the first day, never speak of it as a day that God had parti-
cularly made ; nor do they either express, or exhort others to
manifest, any joy or gladness on account of the resurrection,
or on any other account. In ecclesiastical history, St. Bar-
nabas, whoever he was, is the first person who says, ' We cc-

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 191

The exclusive right, therefore, of the seventh
day to be accounted the day referred to in Rev.
1. 10. supposing c Lord's day' to mean a sacred
day, seems to me to be incontrovertible. 1 may
add, that there is nothing evangelical said or done
on any other day of the week which may not be
said or done on the seventh day — the acts of no-
ticing and improving our Lord's resurrection in-
cluded. The seventh day, too, is as proper for
thinking of the ascension, as the day of the resur-
rection is. The only objection that can be made
to it, namely, that it was never so called before,
affects the claim of the first day, and of every
other day, as much as it does that of the seventh
day. On that very account, however, I do not
wish to assert its right to the appellation in ques-
tion ; nor does its claim to sanctification since our
Lord's resurrection, as well as before, in my opi-
nion, need any such confirmation. The reasons
have been stated.

It is indeed taken for granted that the term
'Lord,' in the disputed passage, refers to Christ,
and therefore that the day called Lord's day
must be a day on which something memorable in
his history took place, and be sacred to him on
that account* To confirm the truth of these as-

lebrate the eighth day with gladness; on account of our
Lord's resurrection'.

192 Claim of the First Day

sertions, it is urged that the epithet c Lord's' is the
same in the original as the word used in the
phrase c Lord's supper,' which is acknowledged
on all hands to be a service appropriated to
Christ, and referring peculiarly to him. But it
should be considered, on the other hand, that the
term c Lord' is not given to Christ in the New
Testament exclusively; and that therefore, for
aught that appears, it may in Rev. 1. 10. be as
reasonably applied to the Father, or to the Holy
Spirit, or to the Divine Being in general, as to the
Son. The word in the original might be used
with as much propriety in those cases as in this.*
Neither does it follow, that « Lord's day' is a day
devoted to Christ on account of something great
arid good relative to him happening upon it, from
its being expressed by the same word in the ori-
ginal that c Lord's' is in the expression ' Lord's
Supper,' which, no doubt, is owing to him, and
peculiarly his. The cases are too widely differ-
ent by far to justify such an inference. The
Lord's Supper was solemnly instituted by Christ.
The time at which, and the circumstances under
which, he instituted it, are recorded by three of
the Evangelists out of the four. The elements,

* It would not be certain that the term Lord in the phrase
Lord's supper meant Christ, were it not for the institution,
and the apostolic comment upon it.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 193

* the actions, the signification and design of both,
the persons who were to be the communicants,
and the period during which the ordinance was
to continue in force, are all stated. In fine, the
apostle Paul comments upon the institution at
large, 1 Cor. 11. In none of these important par-
ticulars does the ' Lord's day' resemble the
c Lord's Supper.' If we had only the solitary
phrase 'Lord's Supper,' 1 suppose we should
treat it merely as a figurative representation of
the gospel, with its beneficial effects on earth,
and more especially in heaven. We should ne-
ver think that any new institution was implied,
or imagine that the rites which now distinguish it
were to be performed. We should justly sup-
pose that if the phrase contained an obligation to
any peculiar observance, the obligation could not
extend beyond the believers who lived at the
time when the phrase was written, as they alone
could discover and ascertain its meaning.

The ignorance and uncertainty merely imagined
to exist relative to the expression < Lord's Sup-
per' actually attend us relative to that of ( Lord's
day.' The term 'Lord' cannot be ascertained to
refer to Christ ; and if it could, as also that the
day in question was a day memorable in his histo-
ry for some great and happy event, it could not be
known which day was intended, since Thursday
and Friday were distinguished by such events,

K

194 Claim of the First Day

as well as Sunday. There is no religious act
peculiarly relative to Christ stated to have been
done on the first day, which is not stated to have
been done on every day ; nor is any act of reli-
gion at all represented as being done on the first
day, because it was the first day, or the day of
the resurrection — much less that it was filled with
religious acts, and intended to be filled with them
every weekly return, like a weekly sabbath. It
is indeed named twice, when the others are not ;
but though the reasons I have conjectured for
that, and for the preference given to the first day
in one of the cases, may not be the true ones, the
silence of Scripture is not to be compensated by
begging the question at issue.

1 have hitherto taken the general supposi-
tion for granted, that 'Lord's day' signifies a
day sacred during the twenty-four hours. But
I must now observe, that could it even be
known that the first day was designed by the
phrase, still it would be uncertain whether it
was not merely to be called henceforth by the
name of c Lord's day' in honour of Christ, (as
the Roman months Quintilis and Sextilis were
called Julius and Augustus in honour of those
emperors,) or at most to be further distinguished,
during a part of it, by some religious acts pecu-
liarly adapted to celebrate the day, and the glo-
rious incident which took place on it. To nei-

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 195

ther of these questions do the Scriptures furnish
an answer : for the religious meeting and service
at Troas, on one Sunday evening, are not stated
to have been obligatory, or to have taken place
on any such account as that under consideration.
Much less are we told that the whole day was to
be kept sacred, like a sabbath, and that it was
to return weekly. With respect to the last cir-
cumstance, so far as can be judged from what
history, both sacred and profane, informs us was
done in cases most resembling this, the return is
annual, not weekly. -

I am aware that the term ' Lord' has been
thought sufficient to answer all these queries, and
that a day which is emphatically 'the Lord's'
must in every part be sacred to him, and sacred
as often as it returns, which it does every week.
Admitting all this, the phrase does not answer the
question which day it is. But the case before us
is an unique , and unparalleled ; and therefore it
can only be determined by comparing it with the
cases that are most similar to it in human, and
more especially in divine writings. In human
writings and practice, such an example may de-
note only a new name given to the day that is
accounted memorable ; and though in the ab-
sence of information from Scripture I know not
why Sunday should be called < Lord's day,'' any
more than the day of the crucifixion or the as-

196 Claim of the First Day

cension, yet if an act of Parliament enjoined it, I
as a loyal subject should comply, since the Scrip-
tures leave me at liberty so to do. At most man
would require only some part or parts of the day
to be devoted to religion, not the whole twenty-
four hours — except perhaps so far as relates to
abstaining from secular employment, particularly
of a public nature. The return, too, would only
be annual. With regard to the testimony of the
sacred writings on the subject, the Jews had
monthly as well as annual sabbaths, on which
they held holy convocations, and did no manner
of secular work: but sacred as these days were
to the Lord, there is no reason to think that the
Jews were required to keep them as they were to
keep the weekly sabbath, which they were to
call a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable,
and on which they were to honour God, not do-
ing their own ways, seeking their own pleasure,
or speaking their own words. — See Isaiah 58. 12.
The texts in the New Testament to which
alone the phrase * Lord's day' can be referred for
a practical explanation in favour of Sunday,
speak of religious acts during one part of the
day merely, and for a limited number of weeks
at furthest. If, however, a partial observance
seems inadequate to the apparent importance of
the expression c Lord's day,' and it be insisted
upon that the term Lord makes a weekly sab-

to be the Weekly Sabbath, 197

bath of the day to which it is applied, solemn as
it is in sound, it can be of no use in practice,
except the day be ascertained. The seventh
day alone answers to it, for which, notwith-
standing, 1 am persuaded it was never meant. If
the expression implies only partial observance,
and must mean some memorable day in pur
Lord's history, it cannot indicate a weekly sab-
bath ; and the fifth or sixth day'may fairly stand
a candidate with the first day for that honour :
for though they are not mentioned, even indi-
rectly and incidentally, by name, in the Acts of
the Apostles, or in any one of the Epistles, as the
first day is twice, (perhaps because they had no
names at that time, or no miraculous events took
place on them,) yet it appears, from Acts 2. 46.
that most solemn acts of public worship took
place among Christians upon them, as well as up-
on the first day.*

Thus total is our want of means for ascertain-
ing what day the expression refers to, — (if it be
not the seventh day, as I do not think it is, since

* I have already noticed, that the first day was universally
kept in this partial manner before the time of the Puritans,
and still is kept so throughout the greatest part of Christen-
dom ; nor do I know of any public remonstrance against the
practice in those parts by any body of pious people on Scrip-
tural, if upon any other grounds.

198 Claim of the First Day

however sacred it was to God weekly, and that
exclusively, and however fit it is to answer any
purpose of the Christian dispensation as much as
the first day is, it is never called by this name,
any more than any other day is so called,) —
why it was called so, — what use it was to be ap-
plied to, if any, — whether that use was to respect
the whole of the day, or only a part of it, — and
whether its observance was to be weekly, or an-
nual. I see not, therefore, how it can supply in
any degree or way the entire want of evidence
which attends its relation to the other passages
adduced in favour of the first day's claim by di-
vine authority to be the weekly sabbath. What-
ever obligation the words might impose on those
who were cotemporaries and companions of the
apostle John, and who therefore possessed means
of knowing their true sense and proper applica-
tion, they can impose none on Christians in suc-
ceeding ages, who are entirely ignorant of both.

The reverend and learned author Morer,
whom 1 have repeatedly mentioned, in his Dia-
logues on the Lord's day, after enumerating* the
various days to which the expression < Lord's
day' has been applied, candidly acknowledges
the utter uncertainty respecting it, of which I
have been speaking.

• Pageg 44—46,

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 199

After these remarks, my reader will be not a
little surprised, I suppose, at my saying that I
have no doubt that the phrase in question really
does mean the common Sunday, and no other
day. But 1 make the avowal on a ground which,
1 fear, will greatly shock him, considering the
opinion of people in general relative to this sub-
ject. In short, 1 am fully persuaded that the
apostle John did not write those words — that they
are an interpolation, and that a very late one —
perhaps about the time of Constant ine the Great.
I proceed to give my reasons for holding a sen-
timent so different from that of Christendom at
large.

It seems to me very strange, and contrary to
the usual practice of Holy Writ, to employ lan-
guage seemingly indicative of some important fact
or duty, as in the passage before us, at the same
time leaving us wholly uncertain, as has been
shown, what it is. There are instances in the
New Testament of this respecting a motive to
duty, but never, so far as I recollect, respecting
a duty itself. [See Matth. 18. 10.—1 Cor. 7. 14.
and 11. 10.]

Again, if the apostle John had written the ex-
pression, and had meant the weekly first day by
it, would he not have called it by the new name
in his Gospel, which, it is agreed on all hands,
he wrote after the Revelation ? There was the

200 Claim of the First Day

more occasion for this, as his fellow apostles and
the other evangelists had never done it. Vet in
mentioning the day on which Christ rose he calls
it thejirst day of the week, as they do, without
any explanatory clause, snch as, ' now called
Lord's day, and appointed henceforth to be the
Meekly sabbath, instead of the seventh day/
This would have been an effectual way to pre-
vent the Asiatic Christians, or any other, from
mistaking the day on which Christ rose, and
might have been reasonably expected from an in-
spired writer like John, who so ofteU guards us
against misconception by translating Hebrew
words into Greek, as in the instances of Cephas
and Siloam, which he tells us are, by interpreta-
tion, 'Peter,' and 'Sent.'

Further : Morer, a divine of the Establishment,
and of course a writer in favour of the first day,
informs us, [p. 46.] that c the Syriac translation,
instead of the. first day, 1 Cor.- 16. 2. saith, on
every Lord's day ; and where the apostle speaks
thus, (Chap. 11. 20.) When you come together,
therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the
Lord's body, that version alters or rather adds to
it, You do not eat the Lord's body, as becomes
the Lord's day.'

These repeated attempts at alteration or in-
terpolation failed respecting a book, the divine
authority of which was never questioned : but is

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 201

there not too much reason to think that the at-
tempt was renewed with success in a book which,
after having been received into the canon of the
New Testament, has, though without just cause,
since the third century, been the occasion of
much controversy and division in the Christian
Church?

The same valuable writer indeed tells us, in the
same page, that Beza declares that in an ancient
Greek copy of the New Testament he found, after
6 the first day of the week,' these words, c the
Lord's day,' as exagetical. But the abruptness
of the parenthesis in which the explanatory clause
is mentioned, gives it very much the appearance
of the copyist having added it to the manuscript
he was transcribing, solely by his own autho-
rity.

I cannot doubt the fact of the interpolation in
Rev. 1. 10. when I consider that St. Ignatius,
the most ancient of the Christian Fathers, who
urges the Christians in the strongest terms to show
particular regard to the first day in honour of
Christ's resurrection, though the cotemporary of
the apostle John for thirty years, and his disci-
ple, in calling Sunday < Lord's day,' (if he ever
calls it so,) never once pleads the authority and
example of his master for this practice. It is
perfectly incredible that this celebrated man,
whose talents, learning, and piety, were thought
k2

202 Claim of the First Bay

so much of, as to be the means of exalting him to
a bishopric in the ecclesiastical sense of the term
— this holy martyr — should call the first day
< Lord's day,' and the 6 Queen of days,' without
ever mentioning the words as a quotation from
the Revelation, which he must have known to
be there, had they been there-in his days.* if he
had, after quoting the words, commented upon
them, in his master's name, in the manner usually
done, the comment could not have been received
or treated as equivalent to Inspiration by any
consistent Protestant; but it would at least have
tended to promote his design far more than all his
eulogies and vehemence. There is no modern
writer that agrees with him in his view and aim
relative to the first day, who does not quote the
passage in Rev. 1. 10., and in whose work, far
from being omitted, it does not exhibit a conspi-
cuous and splendid figure.

No writer, except St. Ignatius, even mentions
the expression c Lord's day' till towards the close
of the second century : much less quotes it from
Rev. 1. 10. : for as to the Epistle of St. Barnabas,
and the Ecclesiastical or Apostolical Canons, the
last of which works contains the words i Lord's

* Either St. Ignatius had no occasion to plead as he did, or
he had occasion to use a much stronger plea, provided he
knew of one.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 203

day,' (though not as quoted from the Revelation,)
the first would have formed a part of Revelation,
had it been really written by the apostle Barna-
bas ;• and the latter work is by no means so an-
cient as the title imports. Justin Martyr calls the
first day * Sunday,' and never intimates that it did
or ought to go by another name. He says nothing
about the passage in the Revelation, nor produ-
ces it in support of the divine authority of that
religious regard, which, according to him, was
paid by the Christians at Rome to a part at least
of the first day. Had the passage existed and
been known to hirn, he would most likely have
thought it as much to his purpose to quote it, as
to tell us that 'the Sun of righteousness arose on
Sunday.' The Fathers and Councils subsequent,
to that time call the first day 'Lord's day' as
well as 'Sundaj',' and by its appropriate name,
and are as solicitous as St. Ignatius for its obser-
vance ; but are equally silent with him respect-
ing the words attributed to the apostle John.
The most learned advocates among the moderns
for the first day, in applying Rev. 1. 10. to that
day, never refer to any writer earlier than the
fourth century that quotes it ; which they would
have done, if they could have found any : and

* Barnabas, according to Mr. Wright, (p. 110,) who has
been noticed before, calls it merely the eighth day.

204 Claim of the First Day

therefore I suspect, as I mentioned before, that
the interpolation, as I think it is, was made after
or about the time of Constantino the Great,* pos-
sibly with a view to support the edicts of that
prince in favour of the first day, whicli take no
notice of the religious regard hitherto paid to the
seventh day as much as to the first clay, in all the
Christian Churches, except those of Rome and
Alexandria.

Of course, those in the early ages who rejected
the divine authority of the Revelation itself, do
not cite the passage in question ; nor can their
silence be produced as an argument against its
authenticity. To this number belong many of

* ' It is very likely/ says Morer, p. 57, ' that the more so-
lemn and public use of the words [Lord's day] was not ob-
served till about the time of Sylvester II, when, by Constan-
tino's command, it became an injunction. It was afterwards
more generally noted in conversation and writing, religious
and civil. Till the time of that emperor and that prelate, it
had never commenced an Ecclesiastical Constitution. This
agrees with the notion of the present Church, looking on it a*
a very decent and laudable custom, yet still a custom, conti-
nued from universal tradition, and not a divine ordinance.
Isidore and Hesychius call it an apostolic tradition, and an
instance of the authority of the Church/ This custom would
have been general, and even sole, from the beginning, had the
phrase Rev. 1. 10., together with the sense now affixed to
it, been known and received.

to be the WeeMy Sabbath. 205

the Greek Churches, Gregory Nazianzen, and
the Council of Laodicea, held about A. D. 364 ;
[Morer, p. 47.] the two last leaving it out of
their catalogues of canonical books of the New
Testament. But it at least follows, that whatever
reason they all had for calling Sunday ' Lord's
day,' and for consecrating any part of it, the au-
thority of the apostle John was not that reason.
Whether the Christian world at present would
think the New Testament afforded sufficient
ground for styling the first day c Lord's day'
with a view to its sanctification, were the pas-
sage in the Revelation wanted, I am wholly ig-
norant.

Perhaps it will be asked, How came the an-
cients by the phrase l Lord's day,' if they did
not get it from JRev. 1. 10. ? — And may it not be
a quotation, though the book, the chapter, and
the verse, whence it was taken, be not mention-
ed? — I answer, that when people are disposed to
distinguish a day in a particular manner on ac-
count of some remarkable person or event, they
are not at a loss for an appropriate name, as the
Popish Calendar abundantly proves. Lord's day,
or Christ's day, (which some have preferred,)
seems a very natural appellation for the ancients
and their successors to select, for the first day in
the case supposed. With respect to quoting
without naming the authority, the moderns do it

206 Claim of the First Day

because they have a sign for a quotation : but the
ancients had none ; and therefore whenever they
wished to be understood to quote, it was absolute-
ly necessary that they should at least mention
their author. This was the more indispensable
in the situation of those who wished to impose a
new obligation on the Christians, since the quo-
tation, together with the comment upon it already
stated, tended to add considerable weight to the
exhortation. Their neglect, particularly that
of St. Ignatius, proves that it was out of their
power to do either, and that the name and appli-
cation, by whomsoever introduced, were merely
of human invention.

The manuscripts to which we have access are
not older than about the sixth century. Their
containing the passage in question, therefore, by
no means convinces me that the apostle John
wrote it.

Such are the grounds on which I do not consi-
der the words c on the Lord's day,' Rev. 1. 10.
as authentic, or as following the phrase c I was in
the Spirit' in that verse, any more than it does
the same phrase, chap. 4. 2. But were it ever so
certain that the apostle John did write them, I
have already shown that they can be of no use or
importance to any except those who had access
to him or to some other inspired person ; since

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 20/

without this, there are no means of ascertaining
their true sense and proper application.

Were all the pious acts recorded to have been
done or ordered to be done on different first days
transferred to one and the same first day, they
would not sanctify that one day to an extent suf-
ficient to entitle it to the appellation of 'Lord's
day/ supposing the phrase to mean a day wholly
sacred.

Thus have I gone through the whole of the in-
direct evidence offered in support of the first day's
Scriptural claim to be the weekly sabbath. I
shall now give a brief summary of it, as also of
the remarks that have been made upon it.

The expression ' first day' cannot be' proved to
be used or implied in the New Testament more
than three times; the words c after eight days'
being at best ambiguous, and therefore inadmis-
sible in a question of evidence. Of the three
times that are incontrovertible, in one of them
the mention of the day was natural and necessa-
ry, it being the day of the resurrection. Ano-
ther — that relative to the meeting held once at
Troas, does not seem to be mentioned with any
particular view, more than noticing the number
of days during which the apostle staid there : but
if it was mentioned with a particular design,
the design not being disclosed, cannot be conjec-
tured in favour of a new sabbath, without sup-

208 Claim of the First Bay

posing that to be fact, the truth of which remains
to be proved. Neither the day nor the ser-
vice are mentioned for their own sake, but for
the sake of the miracle connected with them.
As to the remaining mention of the first day, that
of its appointment by an apostle for individual
believers, in some churches, for certain weeks,
' laying by them in store' for a pious act o( bene-
volence, as God had prospered them through the
week; the first day of the week following, or the
seventh of that which preceded, was the only al-
ternative for the appointment : and except the
old sabbath was repealed, which I do not admit,
the seventh day was unfit for the appointment,
on account of the religious duties which left no
time for the secular act (supposing it to be law-
ful, considering the intent) that would naturally,
if not necessarily, be performed at the time (on
whatsoever day) the appointment took place, and
against which association there is no caution.

The notice, then, of the first day at Troas is
the only one of the three notices that cannot be
accounted for.* Is this repeated notice, then, so

* Supposing the meeting at Troas to have taken place at
Jerusalem instead, and the account of it to have immediately
followed Acts 2. 46., would if then have been thought that
the meeting, &c. proved the first day to be the weekly sab-
bath? If so, every day must have been a weekly sab-

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 209

wonderful as to entitle the day to a sacred cha-
racter ? Were it even certain that the expression
' after eight days' implied an additional mention
of the first day, it ought not to appear so singu-
lar that people should come together on the same
day of the week on which they met the preced-
ing week, as to justify any other inference than
that the time suited them. On the other hand,
should the want of any extraordinary circum-
stance among Christians have occasioned the se-
venth day not to be mentioned in the sacred nar-
rative more than any other day, it ought not to
create a suspicion that it had lost the sacred cha-
racter which was conferred upon it at the Crea-
tion. The absence of such a circumstance will
undoubtedly be thought by every observer of the
first day a sufficient reason for the silence of the
sacred writer respecting that day, when he tells
us that Paul and Barnabas were a whole year at
Antioch, and that Paul was seven days at Tyre;
though it cannot be pleaded on behalf of the first
day, as it can of the seventh, that it had been of

bath. As to the injunction (1 Cor. 16. 2.) relative to a religi-
ous act on several other first days, it would seem that the
daily acts of public worship at Jerusalem were by no means
confined to one week. Had the supposition been a fact, the
mention of the first day, and not of the rest, would have beeu
attributed solely to the affair of Eutychus,

210 Claim of the First Bay

universal obligation from the commencement of
time up to that moment.

That extraordinary and beneficial acts took
place on the first day repeatedly and exclusively,
either cannot be proved, or is not true; and
were they both true, as also capable of being
proved to be so, however calculated they might
be to impress the minds of the apostles on the
recurrence of the day of the week or of the
day of the year when they happened, no effect
on their conduct in consequence can be known
to us, or lay any obligation upon us, as nothing
is said in the inspired writings on these sub-
jects; the pious acts which they record as hav-
ing been performed or enjoined on the first day,
not being stated by them as so performed or en-
joined on account of the supernatural and bene-
ficial events that had distinguished it.

No religious act was performed at Troas,
which the sacred narrative does not declare to
have been performed on other days likewise, as
well as on the first day; the performance was
only once, so far as is known ; and we should not
have known of that, had it not been for the affair
of Eutychus, which would not have been the
case, had it implied, or been designed to imply,
a law; no law — particularly not a divine one,
being ever promulgated indirectly or incidental-
ly. Each of these acts (as also the private act of

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 211

pious benevolence, 1 Cor. 16. 2.) has been per-
formed repeatedly, and even statedly performed
in modern times, on week days, without any
one's supposing that the performance indicated
that the day was considered as a sabbath, or
that it rendered it one. The act of pious bene-
volence just mentioned (1 Cor. 16. 1, 2.) to have
been enjoined, was confined to certain churches;
it was contingent, temporary, and probably in-
tended to last but a few weeks at furthest — even
if a caution had been given against perform-
ing on the same day the secular act which pre-
ceded it.

Neither Acts 20. 7« nor 1 Cor. 16. 2. informs
us how the rest of the day (by far the greater
part) was employed, or intended to be employed.
That was not the case with the seventh day ; for
God is said at its institution to have sanctified it :
and in the Fourth Commandment it is ordered
to be kept holy. The expression • Lord's day/
Rev. 1. 10. cannot prove the whole of the first
day, in the two instances already referred to, to
have been devoted to pious acts, much less that
this was to be the case with every succeeding
Sunday; on the contrary, the sanctification of
the first day must be proved from these passages,
before * Lord's day' can be referred to that day —
even admitting that the expression 'Lord's day'

212 Claim of the First Bay

necessarily means a day to be wholly devoted to
religion.

Could this difficulty in the way of applying the
phrase ' Lord's day' (on the supposition of its im-
porting what has just been stated) to any day ex-
cept the seventh day be surmounted, still the day
of our Lord's ascension, if not that of his crucifix-
ion, has as good a claim to the appellation in a case
that is left to conjecture, as the day of his resur-
rection ; and acts of public worship, both ordina-
ry and extraordinary, are in the sacred narrative
(Acts 2. 46.) stated to have taken place on those
days, as well as on the first day. There are even
strong reasons for suspecting that the words
themselves are an interpolation, as I have before
observed.

Such is the purport of what has been said for
and against the Scriptural obligation to sanctify
the first day. What is the result? This — that
we have the example of the first Christians and
of an apostle, for doing that on the first day,
which it would have been lawful for us to do on
that or on any other day without such an exam-
ple -, namely, the performance of public worship,
and the celebration of the Lord's supper. But
this is not the same with their doing these acts on
the day because it was the sabbath. We have
no example of their doing them for that reason.
The acts themselves imply no such reason. We

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 213

have no right to ascribe them to that cause in the
absence of Scriptural information ; and there are
instances in our own time, not only of public wor-
ship, but also of the public celebration of the
Lord's supper, on a week-day: which day, not-
withstanding, no one would imagine to be a sab-
bath in the view of the worshippers on account of
these transactions, even if the cause of selecting
the day was unknown, since experience and ob-
servation show that a variety of causes may oc-
casion it, each of which is wholly unconnected
with that of a sabbath . The precedent, therefore,
at Troas, authorizes that which would have been
lawful without its authority ; but it enjoins no-
thing. The words in 1 Cor. 16. 2. enjoin some-
thing, it is true, to be done on the first day ; but
the injunction is not attributed by the apostle to
the sacred character of the day : it may easily be
accounted for without such a supposition ; it was
given only to certain churches, and it was to last
only for a time.*

* In appointing a day, and that weekly, the apostle's sole
object seems to have been to render the private sequestra-
tion more easy, certain, and productive. With these results,
the day for the act was probably indifferent to him. He says
nothing about public worship ; and it does not follow, from
the Christians at Troas having had it once on the first day,
that those elsewhere had it always on that day, or evefl
once*

214 Claim of the First Bay

Is it possible that circumstances so ambiguous
and so inconclusive, as those in the texts which
mention the first day, should be able to establish
the fact of a divine institution, when every one of
that character which the Scriptures record, ex-
cept that of sacrifices, which existed before there
were any Scriptures, is stated so expressly, clear-
ly, pointedly, particularly, and repeatedly ?

I have already proved, from Acts 2. 46., that
there were no religious acts performed on the
first day, which were not performed among
Christians on the seventh day, and on every day,
though none of them except the first day is men-
tioned by name. But no one thinks that these
acts make or prove any of the other days to be a
sabbath. Nor would they make or prove the se-
venth day to be the sabbath, even were it men-
tioned by name, if nothing else could be said in
support of its divine right to sanctification.
There is, however, an account of its institution
both in Genesis 2. 2. (before there were any
Jews,) and in the Fourth Commandment, and
for a reason which relates to all mankind as
well as to the Jews. Its institution was not
mentioned before it was wanted, being wanted
for civil, moral, and religious purposes, (if
wanted for them at all,) as soon as man and
human society existed. Nor can its repeal be
proved, without making it, like the ceremonial

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 215

law of the Jews, a shadow of which Christ
was the body, which it never was, and also
without the destruction of the Fourth Command-
ment. The change of dispensation did not make
the repeal of the seventh day sabbath necessary,
it being as adequate to evangelical purposes as
any other day; and the gospel history, except the
resurrection, relates as much to the seventh day as
it does to the first. The reason given for its in-
stitution continued the same as ever, and will
continue as long as the world stands — nor is
there any instance of its secularization ; on the
contrary, it is invariably called sabbath after
our Lord's time as well as before, without any
warrant for prefixing the epithet Jewish. The
institution, therefore, must in fairness be sup-
posed to continue in force, were there no ex-
ample at all of its observance, or could no rea-
son be assigned for the want of one — neither of
which is however the fact. But to prove the
existence of an institution that was never yet
heard of, there must be an example of something
said or done in consequence ; and that which is
said or done ought necessarily to imply such an
institution, and not be such words and acts as
those that have been discussed ; which might
have been, whether the institution existed or not.
The texts which I have been discussing are
almost always read with a prepossession that the

216 Claim of the First Bay

first day is the sabbath. If that appeared from
other sources to be the fact, the text relative to
Troas is certainly very consistent with such a
fact. But the fact is not yet proved ; and mere
^consistency with an assertion is by no means a
proof of its truth.

But it is asked, Do not these passages, taken
together, amount to a probability, if not to a cer-
tainty, of the divine institution they are brought
forward to prove ? — I cannot say that, in my opi-
nion, they do. Far from resembling any of the
institutions recorded in Scripture in ' pomp and
circumstance,' the case they compose does not
exhibit the slightest appearance of one. There ,
is no leaning whatever in the meetings of the
disciples together, even if they did meet on the
first day more than once before Christ's ascen-
sion ; in Christ's visiting and blessing them at
these meetings ; in the day of Pentecost falling
that year on a Sunday (if it had been so, which I
do not believe to have been the fact) ; in the reli-
gious acts performed or ordered to be performed
on that day ; or, lastly, in the expression
'Lord's day:' whether these circumstances are
taken singly or conjointly, there is, I repeat, no
leaning in them towards the institution in ques-
tion. No individual would think of drawing
such an inference from them, in the absence of
some other reason. To warrant such an instance,

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 217

a divine intimation that the incidents took place
either because the first day was now the weekly
sabbath, or because they were meant to prove it
such, is absolutely necessary. Much less can it
be reasonably thought that they have such a lean-
ing, when it is recorded likewise that the disci-
ples met on other days; — that Christ met with
them on other days; — that he blessed them on
another day ; — that great and beneficial events
took place on other days ; — that religious acts,
even the most solemn, were performed on other
days; — and that only some hours of the first day
were ever spent in religious acts, admitting that it
is that which is called 'the Lord's' day. As to
the injunction of the apostle, (1 Cor. 16. 2.) it
could only be fixed for the end of one week or
the beginning of the next ; and if the secular act,
which was a prerequisite to the pious and bene-
volent one to be performed in private, immediately
preceded it, (as 1 think it naturally if not neces-
sarily did, and against which there is no caution,)
the injunction seems to me to be fitter for a week-
day than for a sabbath. There is at least no hint
that the secular act took place on the day pre-
ceding.

The singular circumstances, therefore, are re-
duced to these : that the day should be named on
which the meeting at Troas took place — and the
expression ' Lord's day.' There are no means, I

L

218 Claim of the First Day

admit, of accounting for either. But total uncer-
tainty is no proper ground for inference.* No-
thing can be inferred from the transactions at
Troas taking place on the first day, any more
than from the apostle's staying there seven days,
which is equally unaccounted for. I may add,
that were similar transactions to take place on a
week-day in our time, and the reason for one day
having been preferred to another day for that
purpose be unknown, it would not be inferred
that the worshippers did it on account of the
day's being their sabbath, since it would be
known that a variety of causes might have occa-
sioned it. Respecting the 4 Lord's day,' were it ad-
mitted that it must mean a day devoted to Christ,
on account of its being memorable for something
in his history, still it would be as likely to be the
day of his crucifixion or of his ascension, as that
of his resurreetion ; or if the latter be most likely,
as the first day only is named, still it would claim
religious acts only for a part of the Lord's day,

* The first clay probably obtained its appropriate name, as
I have before hinted, from the circumstance of the inspired
missionaries having frequent occasion to notice the day on
which our Lord rose, and from their wish to mention it with-
out circumlocution. After having thus obtained its appro-
priate name, it is easy to conceive that it was used on other
occasions, especially where a circular notice was required.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 219

as that is the utmost which is ever recorded con-
cerning the first day.

The circumstances, therefore, which constitute
the indirect evidence in question, turn out to be
not twigs, which, though weak in themselves,
when tied up in a bundle will be found sufficient-
ly strong; but mere ciphers, which, however
powerful they might prove to be with a signifi-
cant figure, without such a figure cannot amount
to more than nothing. The significant figure
wanting in the present case is, that Christ has
sanctified and blessed the first day, on account of
his rising upon it.

To conclude these remarks on the Scriptural
claim of the first day to be the weekly sabbath ;
the friends of it cannot justly affirm that the con-
sequence of disproving its divine authority will be
the superseding of the weekly sabbath altogether,
till the non -obligation or repeal of the old sabbath
is proved. That, in my opinion, for the reasons
already given, still remains to be done. Till
that is done, the arguments of the Sabbatarians
against the right of the first day to consecration
must be considered as tending to prevent the se-
rious inconvenience of keeping two sabbaths, not
to release the Christian world from obligation to
keep any.

The dissatisfaction here expressed with the
evidence produced from Scripture in support of

220 Claim of the First Bay

the first day sabbath, is by no means confined to
the Sabbatarians. The observers of it who ac-
knowledge that it possesses no divine claim
to sanctification, are numerous and respectable.
Grotius, and the Reformers in general, consider-
ed the sacred regard paid to the first day as per-
fectly optional. Tindal [See Morer, p. 216.]
says, in his answer to Sir Thomas More, ' We
are lords of the sabbath, and may change it to
Monday or to any other day, or appoint every
tenth day, or two days in a week, as we find it
expedient : Calvin is said to have once designed
to transfer it to Thursday, 'as an instance of
Christian liberty;' especially being the day
whereon might be contemplated the most tri-
umphant and glorious act of our Lord, his ascen-
sion into heaven.' These great and good men
could not have expressed themselves in this man-
ner, if they had believed the first day to be the
weekly sabbath by any precept or example in
Scripture, Luther himself could not have re-
garded it in this light upon the ground of Rev. 1.
10., since he, as well as Calvin, (according to
Morer, p. 47.) had little esteem for the Revela-
tion as belonging to the sacred canon.

Bossuetj the famous Bishop of Meaux, in
France, in the time of Louis XIV., charges the
Protestants with inconsistency in rejecting the
orders of the Church as not being founded on

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 221

Scripture, while they retained the first day sab-
bath, which was no more founded on it than the
other. Morer tells us, (p. 58.) that the Royal
Martyr, Charles the First, on the same principle
thus argued for the observance of Easter with
the ' new Reformers' in his reign : • I conceive
the celebration of this feast was instituted by the
same authority which changed the Jewish sab-
bath into the Lord's day. For it will not be
found in Scripture where Saturday is dischar-
ged to be kept, or turned into Sunday ; where-
fore it must be the Church's authority that
changed the one and instituted the other. Where-
fore my opinion is, that those who will not keep
the feast, may as well return to the observation
of Saturday, and refuse the weekly Sunday.
When any body can show me that herein I am
in an error, I shall not be ashamed to confess and
amend it.'

But those among the professed observers of the
first day who virtually deny its divine authority
to be a sabbath, are far more numerous, and be-
long to Christians of various descriptions. 1
consider in this light the whole of the Christian
Fathers, Councils, Emperors, and Kings. For
though they strongly recommend, and even en-
join, the observance of the first day, I do not re-
collect, in the extracts made by the advocates of
the first day from their writings, decrees, or procla-

222 Claim of the First Day

mations, a single appeal to Scriptural authority*
They aver that it ought to be kept on account of
our Lord's rising on it, but they never pretend to
say that this is the judgment of Revelation as well
as their own. They call the day a festival, but
they never call it sabbath, (except metaphorical-
ly, according to Bishop White,) as the Scrip-
tures call it the seventh day, or by any other
name which necessarily implies that the whole
day was kept; for i Lord's day,' as has been
shown, does not necessarily imply that,* nor in*
deed is it so considered by numbers of its pious
observers themselves, whether in ancient or in
modern times.

How can this universal silence on the part of
the Fathers and Councils relative to the Scriptural
right of the first day to sanctification be account-
ed for ? Was it because this right was universal-
ly acknowledged and respected by the Chris-
tians ?t This was not the case during the three
first centuries, when the regard paid to it did

* As the days of the week are not of divine origin, either
Thursday, Friday, or Sunday, might have been denominated
* Lord's day/ (if the phrase had not occurred in Rev. 1. 10.)
by human authority, as being memorable in Christ's history,
and only a part of it kept, if any at all.

t There is reason to believe that during the apostolic age
the Christians universally observed the seventh day, since the
Jews never charge them with not keeping it.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 223

not exclude the seventh day sabbath from any
of the churches, except at Rome and Alexan-
dria, and when it was found necessary to issue
fresh recommendations, exhortations, and in-
junctions for its observance, whatever might be
the extent to which that observance was carried.*
It is true, we hear little, comparatively speaking,
of the old sabbath, between the time of Constan-
tine and the Reformation; but concern on ac-
count of the notorious secularization of the first
day occasioned numerous orders from the civil
and ecclesiastical authorities : still these orders
are never enforced by any appeal to Scripture.
Would they have neglected a measure so highly
conducive to their object, had it really been,
or had they thought that it was, in their power ?
Yet anxious as the authors of many of the pro-
clamations and decrees that history records ap-
pear to be for the strict observance of the first
day, they usually associate other days with it,
and never once attempt to found its right on Scrip-
ture, any more than they do that of the others,
which are acknowledged on all hands to derive

* The observance of a day publicly and externally,
merely, or partially, though it be done weekly, and though no
other day is kept better, is not keeping a weekly sabbath ac-
cording to Scripture, nor any proof that the observer intends
it for 6uch, without a declaration to that effect.

224 ' Claim of the First Day

their sacred character solely from the Church. I
can in no way account for this neglect, but on
the ground that though they all thought the ob-
servance of the first day to be highly reasonable,
and highly important to the interests of piety and
good morals, yet it never once entered into their
imaginations that it was founded on Scripture,
or supported by divine authority.*

* The silence of the ancient Fathers and Councils respecting
every text that is now produced in support of the first day's
claim, may he thought sufficient to account for the omission to
quote'Rev. 1. 10. by St. Ignatius and others, without having
recourse to the supposition that a part of it, namely, * on the
Lord's day/ is an interpolation. But it should be recollected,
that this omission was only one of the arguments adduced to
prove that supposition. Nor is it without considerable force.
St. Ignatius ought to have quoted that text, if he omitted the
others, to justify his calling the first day ' Lord's day,' (if he
ever called it so, or thought that the Scriptures warranted
and enforced the use of the phrase,) since he is the first
writer who does so call it. A consistent Protestant could
not indeed have received his interpretation and application
of the words as infallible, and equivalent to inspiration ; but
his quotation would at least have proved the authenticity of
the passage. The same may be said of those writers who
lived between his time and that of Constantine. Their
omission of the only words that give even the supposed ap-
pearance of divine authority for conferring this new appella-
tion on the weekly Sunday, or for keeping a new sabbath, is,
in my opinion, a strong proof that they were not in the text
during that period.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 225

During the three first centuries, the Fathers and
Councils, as before proved, St. Ignatius himself
included, strongly recommended and even en-
joined the observance of the seventh day as well
as that of the first. Would they have done this,
had they believed the first day to have been sub-
stituted for the seventh day by any inspired
writer ? Would any one who now keeps the first-
day as the Christian sabbath by divine authority,
recommend, much less enjoin, the observance of
the preceding day ?

The moderns, indeed, endeavour to account for
the conduct of the ancient Christians, on the
ground of the Jewish converts among them : but
the latter make no such apology for themselves,
nor does the New Testament make mention of any
such complaisance, though there must have been
as much occasion for it in the time of the apostles
as afterward, since it is well known that the Jews
in general were never more attached to their sab-
bath, than they were during that period; and
those of them who became Christians cannot rea-
sonably be supposed to have abandoned it them-
selves, even if they quietly acquiesced in the non-
observance of it by the Gentile converts, which,
considering 1 their conduct relative to circumci-
sion, is not very likely, had their tempers been
ever tried. Till it be proved that the old sabbath
is repealed, and that the new sabbath is of divine
l2

226 Claim of the First Day

appointment, nothing ought to appear more natu-
ral, than that the commandment of man did not
altogether set aside for three centuries a divine
commandment.

In fine, I do not recollect that there was any
attempt to found the first-day sabbath upon the
Scriptures, either in England or elsewhere, till
about A. D. 1618, in the time of the Puritans :
yet, according to the testimonies of Brerewood,
White, and the Sabbatarian church-books or tra-
ditions, it appears that the state of the Sabbatari-
ans in Germany, France, and England, from Lu-
ther's time, was such as to give abundant occasion
for searching the Scriptures upon the subject, had
the search appeared likely to prove favourable to
the first day. The learned and pious writer, Mo-
rer, distinctly and candidly acknowledges (p. 56.)
that he i cannot imagine the first day sabbath a
divine institution.'

The next class that I shall mention of indirect
objectors to the divine authority of the first day
among its observers, consists of all those who
maintain principles incompatible with that idea.
This class is likewise numerous and respectable.
Bishop White and Dr. Wallis belong to it ; and
in general all those, who, notwithstanding their
attempts to prove the obligation to observe the
first day from Scripture, assert that the Divine
Being cannot have appointed any particular day

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 227

for the weekly sabbath, because it is impossible
for all mankind to observe it during the same por-
tion of absolute time, or in a distant age, and un-
der other circumstances, to ascertain the weekly
return of it. If these arguments have any force
in them, the first day never can have been divine-
ly instituted any more than the seventh. The
like may be said of all those (and they are not
few either in the Establishment or among the Dis-
senters) who say, with Dr. Wallis, that if the na-
tion should change the weekly sabbath from Sun-
day to Tuesday, they would change with it. —
Could men of conscience and piety do this, if
they believed that the apostles appointed the first
day to be the weekly sabbath, because our Lord
rose upon it? — Nor is the opinion substantially
less hostile to the first day, that the seventh part
of time only is, set apart for consecration by the
Blessed God. I am aware, indeed, that this ex-
pression is by the advocates for the first day em-
ployed merely for the purpose of interpreting that
of the seventh day in Genesis 2. 2, 3. and in the
Fourth Commandment. But 1 do not know why
it should not be employed also for the purpose of
interpreting the expression < first day' in the texts
usually brought to prove the sanctifi cation of that
day by divine appointment. For those texts do
not more definitively and exclusively point out the
first, than those in the Old Testament do the last

228 Claim of the First Bay

day of the week. The consequence of such an
extension and application will be, that Christians
are at liberty to transfer the weekly sabbath from
the day of the resurrection to some other, when,
and as often, as they please, provided the change
may be so contrived as to take place after six
days' labour; whicli may easily be done by
keeping the new day as well as Sunday in the
first instance. A real and consistent friend of the
first day sabbath, therefore, ought to dismiss the
idea of the seventh part of time having been or-
dered to be sanctified, and confine himself to that
of the first day having been ordered to be sancti-
fied. To secure its exclusive and permanent
consecration, he should say, as the Sabbatarians
affirm concerning the day of God's rest in the
parts of the Old Testament already alluded to,
that it was the first day on which the important
event of the resurrection happened — that no other
day could claim the honour of that event — that
the institution of Christ and his apostles relates
not to the seventh part of time first, and to the
first day afterwards, but solely to that day — that
the appointment of the seventh part of time was
only the necessary consequence of the institution,
not the institution itself — that the first day must
continue to be the sabbath till it be repealed by
divine authority — and that whenever it was re-

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 229

pealed, the seventh part of time would inevitably
be repealed with it.

I notice next as hostile to the opinion of the first
day's being a Scriptural sabbath, a class of peo-
ple who, though they publicly and externally
keep it, yet do not regard it privately and men-
tally, as thinking that there is now no day, the
twenty-four hours of which ought to be sacred to
God, as the seventh day was formerly. I believe
that there are many among the truly godly who
thus think and act, and that, owing to certain cir-
cumstances, their number does not appear to be
near so great as it really is. As the observance
of another day does not render it inconsistent
with their worldly convenience to regard the first
day, so far as the laws of the land, the good opi-
nion of their religious connexions, and facilities
for promoting spiritual objects in the world and
in the church require, they need not risk the dis-
covery of their real sentiment by any act or neg^
lect in their public conduct ; and in what manner
they employ themselves privately or mentally,
not even their own families can tell, except they
please to reveal it. These disclosures, however,
I suspect, are not often made in private conversa-
tion, and much less openly : whence it happens
that there are perhaps numbers who possess the
reputation of sanctifying the first day without de-
serving it. I have reason to think that there

230 Claim of the First Day

are evangelical ministers, as well as private Chris-
tians, in this class ; and that they are to be found
both among the Dissenters and in the Establish-
ment.

The next class of indirect adversaries to the
divine authority of the first day sabbath is nume-
rous indeed, as it comprehends almost the whole,
if not the whole, of its serious observers. I refer
to those who found the obligation to sanctify it, in
part at least, upon the institution in Genesis 2.
2, 3. and upon the Fourth Commandment. This
they do, as supposing that the institution, with its
repetition, relates solely to the seventh part of
time ; and since, in their opinion, this part is now
determined by the New Testament to be the first
day of the week, they think that the obligation
contained in the institution to sanctify the seventh
part of time, is transferred and confined to the
first day. But I have already shown, that in
both the passages of the Old Testament alluded
to, it is the seventh or last day of the week, not
the seventh part of time, that was sanctified by
the Deity. He set apart for devotion the day on
which he rested from the creation, and no other
day of the week ; and neither our first parents,
nor any of their posterity, were at liberty to alter
the sabbath to another day, on account of having
laboured the six preceding days, or under any
other pretence ; which they would have had a

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 231

right to do, had only the seventh part of time ab-
stractedly been instituted. The same may be said
of the Fourth Commandment, which is merely a
repetition of the institution, as appears from the
reason assigned for the precept at the close of it.
By the expression in it, ' the seventhday,' the se-
venth part of time abstractedly is not meant, but
the seventh or last day of the week. It was that
day which the Jews were in the habit of observ-
ing at the time the Decalogue was given ; the rea-
son assigned for it will not suit any other day of
the week than that which was the weekly return
of the day on which God rested in Paradise : nor
were the Jews at liberty to change it for any
other, as they would have been had it related
merely to the seventh part of time in general ; for
there is no precept which confines them to the
observance of the last day of the week, if the
Fourth Commandment does not : nor would the
commandment have obliged them to keep any
other day, had the seventh day been repealed be-
fore Christ's time, whatever reason or the New
Testament may do. Whether in Paradise or at
Sinai, the seventh part of time was instituted
merely as the necessary consequence of institu-
ting the seventh day ; it was not instituted itself:
in both the cases 1 am speaking of, its sacred
claim rests entirely upon that of the seventh day ;
and whenever the latter terminates, the former

232 Claim of the First Bay

terminates with it, so far as Genesis 2. 2, 3. and
the Fourth Commandment are concerned.*

If, then, the seventh day is repealed, as the pi-
ous observers of the first day suppose, the institu-
tion in Genesis, and the Fourth Commandment,
are repealed with it ; and then the seventh day,
the only time they refer to, being deprived of its
sacred claim, nothing remains in them to be sanc-
tified, notwithstanding the morality of the term
itself; and the precept having ceased, there is no
further occasion for the reason that was assigned
for it. Christians have no more to do with these
parts of Scripture, than they have with the insti-
tution of sacrifices, or with that of circumcision.
They must look to the New, and not to the Old
Testament, as well for the obligation to sanctify
one day in a week, as for the particular day
which they are to sanctify.

Nor do I see why this should not suffice them,
if they really think that the New Testament insti-
tutes the first day. Why should they have re-
course to passages that are either made void, or

* Those who observe Sunday on the ground of Acts 20. 7.
and 1 Cor. 1G. 2, 3. would think it strange to be told that
first day in those texts meant only the seventh part of time,
and that any one of the seven days would do as well as Sun-
day. Neither in Genesis 2. 2, 3. nor in the Fourth Command-
ment, was the seventh part of time first instituted, and then
the seventh day.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 233

that order a different day to be sanctified ? These
passages could not avail the new sabbath, if it
wanted their help. But if the first day be really
appointed by Christ or his apostles to be the
weekly sabbath, it needs no such help. The ob-
ligation to sanctify it follows of course. Not on-
ly is the sacred character of the seventh part of
time which was lost by the repeal of the seventh
day (if it was repealed) revived and restored by
the new institution, but, what is far more, the
very day is designated, and is no more alterable
by man than the seventh day was.

I shall, no doubt, be asked whether a law may
not be repealed and altered in part, without re-
pealing and altering the whole ? Certainly it may.
Both in Genesis 2. 2, 3. and. in the Fourth Com-
mandment, the Divine Being, if he had pleased,
could have substituted ' the seventh part of time'
for \ the seventh day,' without altering the part
relative to sanctification ; but the reason for the
latter must have been struck out, as being irrele-
vant. Or, retaining the part relative to sanctifi-
cation, the words substituted might have been
'the first day,' and the reason assigned for it
might have been, 'for the Lord Jesus Christ,
having died for the sins of men, rose on the first
day,' instead of the present reason. But as the
Blessed God has not thought fit to name any of
these changes himself, no one can be warranted

234 Claim of the First Day

in making them even mentally.* There is at
present no alternative but that of retaining or re-
jecting the whole of the Fourth Commandment. t
I have heard it said, that when reference is
made to the Fourth Commandment on behalf of
the first day, it is made not to the letter, but to
the spirit, the morality, and the equity of it ; and
that these are confined to sanctifying the seventh
part of time. But proper as the distinction be-
tween the letter and the spirit \ of a law may be,
when circumstances only are concerned, that is
not the case when the essence is concerned. The
spirit of a law is synonymous with its essence ;
and in the present case is this, that God has ap-

* To justify these mental alterations, the first day's claim
should have heen mentioned in the New Testament, with
some reference there to Genesis 2. 2, 3. or to the Fourth
Commandment. The first day is not mentioned at all in
Hebrews 4. much less any right that it has to be a day of holy
rest. Our Lord did not enter heaven, the only rest there
spoken of, on the first day, upon finishing the work of re-
demption. The mental alterations in the old institution of
the sabbath, were they justified by the New Testament,
would amount to a repeal both of Gen. 2. 2, 3. and of the
Fourth Commandment.

t Were the purport of law subject to mental alterations,
transgression would be impossible.

X The Roman Catholics pretend that they use idols, not as
the objects of devotion, but as helps to it; as if the former
only was the spirit or essence of the Second Commandment.

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 235

pointed a certain day to be sanctified weekly for
a particular reason, which reason is specified,
and which is applicable to no other day. The
'seventh day,' therefore, is essential to the
Fourth Commandment, as the reason given for
it at the end of the commandment shows. It is
not a contingency, like the case put in the com-
mandment of a man's having children or servants ;
and if a Jew had presumed to treat the seventh
day as a circumstance, by transferring the sanc-
tity of it to another day, the daring act would
have cost him his life. But if a Jew was not war-
ranted in treating it so, how can such a treatment
be warrantable in a Christian ? No law can mean
one thing to one subject, and another to another.
A Christian may possibly not be subject to the
Fourth Commandment, as the commandment is
positive, and therefore repealable, if God pleas-
ed ; but if he be, he must put that construction
upon it which it has always borne among the
Jews, which it bore in our Lord's time, and
which it bore in the opinion of the holy women,
and of the evangelist Luke, (ch. 23. 56.) many
years after the ascension. With respect to the
claim of the seventh part of time to sanctifi-
cation, could that be proved, it would be a dic-
tate of reason ; it would not bind us, apart from
the institution either in Genesis 2. 2, 3. or the
Fourth Commandment. But 1 have before shown

236 Claim of the First Dai/

that its claim is no better than that of the sixth or
eighth part, and that the equity of either of them
would appear as great as that of the seventh part
of it, if God had been pleased to institute it, and
thus to have made the week consist of six or of
eight days, instead of seven. The precept is
wholly positive. The reference, therefore, of one
who observes the first day to the Fourth Com-
mandment, for proving or enforcing its right to
sanctification, is useless, and injurious to his
cause. He may allude to it by saying that the
first day has as good a claim to sanctification by
means of the New Testament, as the seventh day
had by means of the Old, if he can prove the
position ; but he cannot prove its claim by
means of the Old Testament. He will only
show, by the attempt, that the seventh day is
Unrepealed, and that therefore he ought to keep
it; thus making good the words of Bishop
White, that whoever attempts to prove the right
of the first day to sanctification from the Fourth
Commandment, is a Sabbatarian. He who thus
acts, betrays his doubts concerning the sufficien-
cy of the evidence by which the claim of the first
day is supported, by stating, in order to supply
the defect, its resemblance to the seventh day, in
being, like that, the seventh part of time : for
such a resemblance is no more necessary to its
being a divine institution, (provided such a re-

to be the Weekly Sabbath. 237

semblance existed,) than that of baptism to cir-
cumcision would be, in order to prove the divine
authority of the former. Suppose the New Tes-
tament had appointed two sabbaths in a week (as
Tindal wished to have) instead of the original
one, would the contrariety of this to the appoint-
ment of the Old Testament hav-e proved that it
was not of God ? By no means. On the other
hand, no resemblance between a supposed newr
institution and an old one can prove that the for-
mer is divine, notwithstanding the divine autho-
rity of the latter.

In fine, to the number of those who indirectly
agree with the Sabbatarians in denying the divine
institution of the first day sabbath, must be added
all who, professing to observe Sunday, perform
secular work on it without necessity — all who in
foreign countries, whether clergy or laity, see a
part of it at least publicly devoted to business or
amusement, without remonstrating openly in a
body against the profane encroachment — all ma-
gistrates who decide that secular occupation in
private on the day is lawful, provided it be exer-
cised for amusement, and not for gain — all who
travel on it unnecessarily — in short, all who spend
the parts of it that are not wanted for public wor-
ship in reading that which is not religious, in
conviviality and frivolous discourse, or in slum-
ber.

238 Claim of the First Day

The facts that have been considered separately,
united together show, that though the repeal of
the seventh day sabbath is acquiesced in very ge-
nerally in Christendom, the acknowledgment of
the first day as the Scriptural sabbath never has
been, nor is at present, any thing near so gene-
ral.

CHAPTER VIII.

Differences of Opinion concerning the supposed
Authority of Apostolic Tradition to render the
First Day the Weekly Sabbath,

Whatever conviction may be felt by individu-
als who observe the first day respecting the evi-
dence which the New Testament affords of its
divine claim to sanctification, the conviction is
very far from being general in the Christian
world. No one can doubt this, who recollects
the proof contained in the last Chapter not only
of the indirect and virtual, but also of the positive
and avowed disbelief of that position. The ear-
liest Fathers and Councils, stron gly as they recom-
mend and enjoin the celebration of the first dfo
as~a festival in honour of our Lord's resurrection,

Supposed Authority, fyc. 239

never once plead the example, any more than the
precept, of the apostles for it. They distinguish
the day sometimes by the title of < Lord's day,'
as well as by the appellations of c first day'
and 'Sunday;' but they never tell us that they
derived the expression from the Revelation, and
jjnich less attempt to justify the application of it
to the weekly Sunday by quotations from the sa-
cred writings, notwithstanding the general associ-
ation of the seventh day with the first day during
that period in the weekly observances of Christen-
dom, proves the doubts that prevailed concerning
its exclusive right to sanctification. This prac-
tice was reserved for the modern advocates of the
first day ; it has not, I believe, existed much
more than two centuries — many ages later than
the time when the right of the Revelation to be
received into the sacred canon was denied by so
many eminent observers of the first day. \y

The decrees of councils, the edicts of princes,
and the laws of nations, in favour of sanctifying
the first day, both before and since the time of
Protestantism, proceed chiefly, if not solely,
upon the opinions and practice of the first Chris-
tians after the apostolic age, derived, as they sup-
pose, by tradition from the apostles. The most
eminent writers on the side of Sunday, such as
White and Morer, take the same ground. They
seem to think that though the apostles never in*

S

240 Supposed Authority of

stituted the first day sabbath in their writings,
nor ever did or directed to be done any thing on
that day, assigning its sacred character as the rea-
son, or any thing which they might not have
done, had it been another day, yet that they rec-
koned it to be the weekly sabbath, and kept it as
such — that their disciples, acquaintance, and co-
temporaries, knew these particulars to be facts,
and observed the day accordingly — that from
them the tradition passed to the Christians in the
next age — and that from them it passed to the
ages following in succession.

Whether or not the observers of the first day
would acquiesce in this tradition, if they did not
think that it was wanted to cover a defect in the
title of the first day to consecration from written
revelation, or if it did not at least coincide with
and confirm that sense which they give to the
texts usually adduced in support of the first day's
claim, I am unable to say. But they cannot
justly blame the Sabbatarians for reminding them
on this occasion of the old maxim, the soundness
of which they in general admit, that < the Bible,
and that only, is the religion of Protestants.'* As

* Tradition may possibly convey truth, as appears in tht-
instances of the ' angels that kept not their first estate ;' of
the name borne by the evil spirit who tempted our first pa-
rents in the form of a serpent; of the prophecy delivered by

Apostolic Tradition, Sec. 241

Protestants, they themselves maintain the Scrip-
tures to be a perfect rule of faith and practice.
They cannnot consent to the association of Tra-
dition with Revelation ; persuaded that, however
it might be the duty of the Thessalonians to « hold
fast the traditions they had received,' by word as
well as by epistle, from an apostle, it was not the
duty of those to do so, who had received them
merely from one that said or wrote that he re-
ceived them from an apostle ; since the contrary
practice would open a wide door to all manner of
error and superstition, whether arising from
weakness or from wickedness. They insist also
that it is the duty and the right of every one to
determine the meaning of Scripture for himself —
provided he does not injure the civil rights of
his neighbour or of his country. Accordingly,
they deny that the l rock on which was to be built
the Church of the living God, the pillar and
ground of the truth, ' was the person of Peter, and
his pretended successors, the Popes : nor can

Knoch ; of the names of the magicians who withstood Moses
in Egypt ; and of the contest between Michael the archan-
gel and the devil concerning the body of Moses. But their
troth could not have been ascertained, if they had not re-
ceived the sanction of Revelation. It is upon that authority
that we receive them, and not upon the authority of tradi-
tion ,

242 Supposed Authority of

they admit that the Church of Rome has a right
to impose its sense of Scripture upon the common
people, under the pretence that the unlearned and
unstable, who < wrest the Scriptures to their own
destruction,' are to be found only among them.

Upon the same principles, which both reason
and revelation strongly inculcate, the Sabbatari-
ans act, when they reject the sense usually given
of the phrase 6 Lord's day,' Rev. 1. 10. even ad-
mitting that it was written by the apostle John.
The phrase, indeed, though sometimes used con-
cerning the weekly Sunday by the ancient Fathers,
is never quoted and produced by them as from
the Scriptures. But if they had quoted it and
applied it in this manner, their authority ought
to avail nothing with Protestants against the rea-
sons before assigned for the impossibility of de-
termining its meaning and use by the help of any
other part of Holy Writ. Of these Fathers, St.
Ignatius is among, if not the earliest. The editions
of the epistle written by him to the Megarenses,
which is most frequently referred to by the first
day writers on the sabbath, differ so much from
each other respecting the precise words of the
author relative to this subject, and commentators
differ so much concerning the sense of the words
which they all agree that the author did write,
that it seems to be wholly uncertain whether he
is speaking of Judaism, or of the seventh day

Apostolic Tradition, 8?c. 243

sabbath; of the Lord's day, or of the Lord's life ;
of celebrating the first day instead of, or after,
keeping the sabbath* [See Morer, p. 206.] I
have already quoted his injunction in another part
to keep the seventh day. At the same time, there
certainly are passages in which he strongly urges
the Christians to observe the first day as a festi-
val in honour of Christ's resurrection, though
without ever reminding them of the passage in
Rev. 1. 10. much less applying it to his purpose.
Yet if he had quoted it, and explained it in fa-
vour of the first day, — if he had even told them
that his cotemporary and master, the apostle
John, called the first day of the week by this
name — that he kept it himself— and that he
strongly inculcated the observance of it both in
conversation and preaching, as being part of the
will of Christ, (all which it was natural for St.
Ignatius to do, and which he doubtless would
have done had the things been true, considering
his object,) neither the Christians of his time, nor
any in succeeding ages, could, consistently with
the Protestant maxims, have received his testi-
mony as supplementary to Scripture, or as infalli-
bly interpretative of it. Much less could they be
justified iu receiving any opinion or practice as

* According to Morer, (p. 88,) he calls Sunday ' Lord's
da/ in his Epistle to the Philippiana,

244 Supposed Authority df

apostolic from any Father or Council that was
not cotemporary or acquainted with the Apos-
tles. To treat the Fathers and Councils fairly,
however, they no more profess, than St. Ignatius
does, in sometimes recommending or enjoining
the observance of the first day under the name of
the Lord's day, to be quoting or commenting
upon the words of Scripture.

But in opposition to these remarks, an idea
prevails on the subject of tradition, which will
require some discussion. It has been said that
though the Protestants object in general to the
introduction of tradition to supply any supposed
defect in the matter of Scripture, or to ascertain
its sense, yet they do not deny its use in religion
altogether. They think it lawful and even neces-
sary in certain cases to admit its authority. The
ancient Patriarchs and the Gentiles knew the di-
vine institution of sacrifices, and observed it, on-
ly in consequence of tradition. From the same
source the Protestants derive the knowledge of
the books which they consider as composing the
canon of the New Testament, as also of their ge-
nuine contents. It is held by many Protestants,
that early and universal tradition is a sufficient
ground for receiving any religious doctrine or
practice whatever.

I cannot say that the sentiments just stated ap-
pear to me to be correct, or at least useful in

Apostolic Tradition, &c. 245

practice. I admit, indeed, that there must have
been many things said and done by the apostles,
as well as by our Lord himself, which are not re-
corded in the New Testament — that they must
have been known to certain people— that many of
them were communicated by speech, and perhaps
writing, to cotemporaries — that from them they
passed to the next generation — and some of
them, at least, from that to a third, without the
possibility of determining with precision the time
when the transmission would wholly cease. I ad-
mit, further, that certain of the particulars might
be communicated and handed down with accura-
cy. But since it is impossible to tell which of
these particulars contained in human writings are
truly stated, and which are not, there is no safety
but in rejecting them all without exception, in
estimating what God would have us believe and
do. There is the more occasion to act in this
manner, as the apostle tells the Thessalonians that
the ' mystery of iniquity* was already working.
If speeches and actions were falsely attributed
to a divine origin, when detection was possible,
how much more might the practice be expected
to exist, when detection was impossible ? It was
not even every thing that ah apostle said or did,
which, could it have been verified, would be
binding on our faith and practice : and it is rea-
sonable to think that whatsoever the Holy Spirit

246 Supposed Authority of

intended to have such an effect, would be thus
represented by Inspiration in writing", and pre-
served.

Antiquity, therefore, cannot be a sufficient
proof of purity in a tradition; for no tradition re-
lative to the first day can possibly be more ancient
than the ( mystery of iniquity' just referred to. Its
spread^ too, notwithstanding its odious nature,
might be sufficiently extensive to give it the ap-
pearance of universal — especially after the time
of the apostles.

With respect to the regard shown during the
patriarchal ages to the custom of sacrificing, as to
a divine institution, though known only by tra-
dition, it will afford no justification, proper as it
was then, to the reception of a doctrine or duty
as divine on such a ground, since the Christian
era. Tradition was the only revelation then in
existence. It could be better relied on then than
now, on account of the opportunity afforded of
access to the origin of it, and of the few indivi-
duals through which it passed. In the case of
sacrifice* it is difficult, if not impossible, to con-
ceive how the idea of such a practice could ever
have entered into the mind of man, if the Divine
Being did not introduce it himself. The Patri-
archs, both before and after the flood, who offer-
ed sacrifice, were themselves inspired, and there-
fore did not rest their idea of the divine will re-

Apostolic Tradition, Sj-c, 247

specting this matter upon tradition, but upon
their own knowledge. The other ancients in-
deed, not having the same advantage, might be
liable to mistake a matter of indifference for a
duty: but they were not liable in doing so to
abrogate or misinterpret a written command of
God, by adopting a custom that was merely com-
manded by man. I may add, that though there is
no instance on record in which the authenticity or
genuineness of the tradition was suspected, yet if
a doubt on the subject had arisen, there is no rea-
son to think that the entertainer of it would not
have been excused for non-compliance. In each
of these particulars, the situation of Christians
since the days of the apostles is completely the
reverse.

The case of the books received or rejected,
wholly or in part, as sacred, is somewhat like that
of sacrifices. The canon of the New Testa*
ment (and consequently of the Old, the divinity
of which is acknowledged by the New) is ob-
tained through tradition ; but necessarily so, and
not unaccompanied by corroborative circumstan-
ces. Since not every one that lived in the age of
the apostles, and much less in a succeeding age,
could have access to them to learn the authenci-
ty of a book, and the genuineness of its contents,
miraculous interposition must have taken place
universally and perpetually, if tradition had noi

248 Supposed Authority of

been employed. In consequence of this, no
doubt, the just claim of some books was not ad-
mitted without hesitation, and not even with it,
by all who bore the Christian name. There was
danger, on the other hand, of receiving some that
had no right to be in the canon ; and all, in be-
ing copied, were liable to defect, to interpola-
tion, or to various readings. But no serious evil
has arisen, or could arise, from these disadvan-
tages.

Examination of the evidence for and against a
book will enable every one to judge for himself
of the justice or injustice of its claim to a place
in the sacred canon. By comparing the manu-
scripts and the versions in different languages
with others, the text may be corrected or im-
proved.* But in cases where neither of these
expedients can take place, the substance of Scrip-
ture will remain, whether particular books, pas-
sages, or readings, be received or rejected. The
phrase 'on the Lord's day/ (Rev. 1. 10.) whether
interpolated or not, can, in my opinion, throw no
light, and consequently can have no influence,
on the question relative to the Scriptural weekly
sabbath.

The sacred canon, therefore, is necessarily re-

* Human writings of high antiquity pass current, not-
withstanding their various readings and obscurities.

Apostolic Tradition, fyc. 249

ceived on the ground of tradition ; Hut not whol-
ly so, nor without peculiar pledges for its purity.
It was not requisite, for the divine character of
the New Testament, that there should be a tra-
dition in favour of each book, and each text or
reading in each book, that is as ancient as the
time of the apostolic age, or that is universal ;.
neither of which- is true. The harmony among
the different books with respect to their con-
tents — the comparative insignificance of the
doubts which have arisen relative to particular
texts, readings, and even whole books, whether
received into the holy canon or not — and their
beneficial effect on the hearts and lives of men,
afford essential aid and support to tradition. But
none of these circumstances can be pleaded in fa-
vour of any new article of faith or of duty being
conveyed by tradition. The article of faith or the
duty in question might easily have been made a
part of Revelation; and its not being so, is a
proof of its being no tradition from an apostle.
With respect to the sense of a text, had it con-
tained any new doctrine or duty, the Scriptures
themselves would have furnished means for as-
certaining it, and would not have left us to seek
it from men no less deficient in judgment, in-
tegrity, and diligence, than ourselves. Where
such means then are wholly wanting, the text
can be of no use to us. Human writings can
m 2

250 Supposed Authority of

oHty illustrate ah article of faith or a duty, the
general meaning" and reality of which are known
and acknowledged without them. They can add
no explanation or proof that enlarges the system
of faith and practice. Their sense, too, is as lia-
ble to be contested as that of Revelation. In
fine, oral tradition might give an interpretation
of the text quite different from what appeared to
us to be the tine meaning, and in that case, it
not rejected, would render written revelation
useless. Tradition, therefore, was not wanted
for conveying a new sabbath, much less for ex-
plaining a passage of Scripture supposed to con-
tain such a notice; as the phrase e Lord's day/
for instance. Nor is there any circumstance that
tends to confirm a tradition of such a sabbath, as
there is to confirm the traditions relative to the
divine institution of sacrifices before the time ot
Moses,* the variety of the books contained in the
sacred canon, and the truth of the things con-
tained in those books. There is no more rea-
son in the nature of things for a weekly celebra-
tion of our Lord's resurrection, than for one on

* There is no way of accounting for the ceremony, but by
the supposition of a divine institution. It is rendered credi-
ble, both by the measure which the Divine Being adopted for
clothing our first parents, and by his order to the Patriarch*
I* sacrifice.

Apostolic Tradition, fyc. 251

account of his ascension; nor is any more notice
taken of the resurrection on the first day by the
observers of it, than may be taken, and in fact is
taken, of it by the Sabbatarians on the seventh
day. No social or public act of religion is record-
ed to have taken place on the first day, which
did not take place eveiy day among the earliest
converts. It nowhere appears that the whole of
it was ever kept sacred ; and though Sunday was
very early, and after some centuries extensively,
called 'Lord's day/ yet Rev. 1. 10. is never
pleaded as an authority for so doing. The words
*■ Lord's day' are never mentioned by the ancient
Fathers as a quotation from Scripture, but as
Good Friday, &c. are mentioned. It is wholly
uncertain whether they ever intended Sunday to
be the weekly sabbath, or kept it like one — es-
pecially as they kept the seventh day in the same
manner. The same services (the Lord's supper
included) were performed by them on both days \
and the performance of them any day, even
weekly, gives no proof of keeping a sabbath,
without saying so.

The case, then, of the first day is wholly diffe-
rent from that of the sacrifices in patriarchal
times, and that of the books comprehended in the
canon of the New Testament, together with the
purity of their contents in substance, since the
divine claim of the former might have been con-

252 Supposed Authority of

veyed without tradition; nor has the asserted
tradition of it from the apostles any confirmatory
circumstances, as the latter cases have. These
objections to its reception as an apostolic tradi-
tion would be solid, were it ever so ancient and
universal. But it is neither one nor the other so
considerably or exclusively as it is thought to
be.

; Though St. Ignatius certainly recommends the
observance of the first day as a festival, there is
no proof that he meant by it a sabbath like that
which is described in Isaiah 58. 1 3. ; nor is there
any proof that it ever was kept so till A. D. 1618,
about the time of the Puritans, by any considera-
ble number of people, or, indeed, that it has
been kept to that extent since, except by the
Presbyterians (between whom and the Puritans
there was originally no great difference) in the
British dominions, in Holland, and in the United
States of North America that were formerly sub-
ject to Great Britain. The divine claim of the
seventh day under the Christian dispensation is
not founded by its votaries on apostolic tradition,
it being enough, in their opinion, that the apos-
tles never repealed or secularized it. But if it
had needed such a support, its claim on the
ground of antiquity would have been as good as
that of the first day; for St. Ignatius (as has
been shown) does not recommend or enjoin one

Apostolic Tradition, Src.

of the days more strongly than he does
With respect, indeed, to universality of pi
lence, the first day has the advantage of the se-
venth day, since, according to ecclesiastical his-
tory, it was regarded at every place in Christen-
dom ; whereas the seventh day was not observed
either at Rome or Alexandria: and after the
fourth century, we hear little more comparative-
ly of it till the time of the Reformation.* But
the errors of Popery, though equally ancient and
once as extensively prevalent as the observance
of the first day can be, are not for these reasons
to be considered by the Protestants to be aposto-
lic traditions.

To represent the case accurately, the earliest
Fathers and Councils in general never plead apos-
tolic tradition in favour of the first day, any more
than they plead apostolic precept or example.
St. Ignatius produces no authority for celebra-
ting the day on which Christ rose as a weekly
festival, except his own : he does not even tell us
that the generality of Christians concurred with
him in his view and wish. The Fathers and Coun-
cils, the ecclesiastics and princes who pursue
the same object, urge only their own opinion, or
that of their predecessors, as recorded in the his-
tory of the Church. The Protestants alone who,

* See the account of the Sabbatarians in Chap. vi.

254 Supposed Authority of

like White and Merer, admit the insufficiency of
the evidence adduced by them to prove the first
day to be the Scriptural weekly sabbath, attempt
to supply the defect by apostolic tradition ; and
many of them, as Charles the First did, found the
claim of the first day to sacred regard entirely
upon the authority of the Church, without the
smallest reference to the apostles.

To return to the supposed tradition from the
apostles concerning the substitution of the first
day for the seventh day sabbath, and the attempt
to authenticate it in modern times by the plea
of antiquity and universality.

There are cases existing, in which the oppo-
nents of the Sabbatarians are as little influenced
by considerations of this nature, as the Sabbatari-
ans themselves. The history of the Church notices
no power that was exercised over the faith and
practice of Christians, except that of ecclesiastics,
till the reign of Constantine ; and even that prince
did not exercise it till toward the close of his
reign, (for he only presided in the Council of
Nice,) except in his decrees concerning Sunday,
issued, it is probable, solely by the advice and
under the influence of Pope Sylvester. [See Mo-
rer, p. 57.] The tradition, therefore, relative to
supremacy, if from the apostles, is plainly in fa-
vour of ecclesiastical authority; and no doubt both
the Popes and the popish councils avail themselves

Apostolic Traditioriy 4'c. 255

of the circumstance. But will the Protestant
states admit this plea? Will they not say that the
tradition owes its existence and continuance mere-
ly to the want of a Christian prince, and that as
soon as there was one, it became proper that the
tradition should cease and determine? I shall not
examine the solidity of this reasoning, but shall
only observe upon it, that it is manifest, from the
opinion of the Protestant states, that tradition
supposed to be apostolic on account of its anti-
quity and universality, is not in all cases and for
ever binding upon Christians.

Again: — will the Protestant Dissenters allow
the fasts and feasts of the Church to have origin-
ated with the apostles ? Some of them, however,
(particularly Easter,) occur as early in history as
the sacred character of the first day, and were
regarded no less universally by Christians for ma-
ny ages. — Will the Dissenters allow the ancient
and universal tradition concerning the appella-
tions c saint* and 'bishop/ as used in the Chris-
tian Church, to be apostolical ? Convinced as they
may be that St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, got
his idea of ' Lord's day/ and that of celebrating
it as a festival on account of our Lord's resurrec-
tion, from the apostle John, they are not equally
convinced, I believe, that he obtained his title
of c saint/ (if he ever used it,) together with his
diocese, from the same source: yet I think it

256 Supposed Authority of

would be difficult for them to prove that there is
better reason to credit the one than to credit the
other. They will not deny that 'saint* and * bi-
shop* are in the New Testament, as well as ' first
day* and ( Lord's day' itself (supposing it to have
any right to be there) ; and if tradition has au-
thority to fix the sense and application of the
latter words, why not to fix those of the former
also ?

Among the instances of doctrines and practi-
ces which Bishop White enumerates as proper
to be received upon the ground of tradition
from the apostles, are the ( Lord's day/ (in the
sense of the weekly Sunday, with its application,
in part at least, to sacred purposes,) and * infant
baptism.' My Baptist brethren in general will,
I believe, more readily acquiesce in the first,
than in the last of these instances. I know not,
bowever, upon what ground, except upon what
I admit to be a very substantial one ; namely,
that there is no case of infant baptism in all the
New Testament. But, in my opinion, it is quite
as easy to show, that in the different texts where
'households' are said to have "been baptized, in-
fants must have been included, as to show that
the disciples could not come together to ' break
bread,' nor an apostle preach to them, or order
money to be laid up in store by individual Chris-
tians for an act of pious benevolence, on the first

Apostolic Tradition, Sec. 257

day, without converting it into a sabbath, or
proving that it was so considered and meant to
be so considered.

Here it will probably be asked, If the custom
of treating the first day as sacred did not origin-
ate with the apostles, with whom did it originate?
I have no objection to give a direct answ r er to the
question : but before I do so, I must observe, that
the conclusiveness of the reasoning against the
sacred character of the first day does not in the
least depend upon the possibility of discovering
and proving its origin to be elsewhere, and not
with the apostles. Errors in doctrine and practice
may exist, though their origin be utterly unknown :
as the invocation of departed spirits, and the cus-
tom of mingling water with the wine in the sa-
crament, which were introduced before the end
of the second century, and the sources of which
can only be conjectured. If the ' mystery of
iniquity worked' in the days of the apostle Paul,*
notwithstanding our ignorance of its particular
nature, as well as of its source, .why should not
innovations and conniptions be supposed to arise
immediately afterwards, though their origin be
equally concealed ? It is reasonable to suppose
that they may have even sprung up and abound-
ed much more, however mysterious their cause.
It does not follow, therefore, from an opinion or a
practice existing in the age next to that of the

258 Supposed Authority of

apostles — perhaps in the apostolic age itself, and
its origin being unknown, that it cannot be an
error, but that it must originate with the apostles :
and if this be possible of an error that is nameless,
why not also of one that has a name ? It may
likewise not be trivial, but such a one as is
wrought by ' the mystery of iniquity/ most gross
and injurious. Of course the transfer of the
weekly sabbath from the seventh day to the first
may be an error, and no tradition from the apos-
tles, were it absolutely impossible to account for
its origin.

I proceed to state my conjecture concerning
the circumstance that gave rise to celebrating
the first day as a holy festival. It originated, as 1
think, in the wish and proposal of some Christians
to distinguish the day by some religious service,
(including the Lord's supper, perhaps,) and a
love-feast, in commemoration of our Lord's rising
upon it. Whether this was or was not done
in the time of the apostles, it is impossible to
say. I see nothing, however, against the possi-
bility of its taking place during their time; for
surely if ( the mystery of iniquity' began to work
in their age, it is not incredible that a service
which contained nothing in it that might not
be done innocently, and which had not actually
been done [Acts 2. 46.] on every day, might not
be performed for a purpose, which, though unne-

Apostolic Tradition > Sec. 259

cessary, had nothing criminal in it. But there is
certainly nothing in the texts usually produced
in favour of the first day, which indicates the ex-
istence of such a custom so early— much less
that the apostles authorized or participated in it.
The account of the meeting held at Troas (Acts
20. 70 mentions nothing of its having taken place
in consequence of our Lord's resurrection, or of
any particular notice taken on that occasion of
this great and good event that occurred on it, or
of any uncommon thanksgiving and rejoicing of
the assembly present, either at that time, or on
any former occasion — all which would naturally
have existed in the case supposed, and which, no
doubt, did exist for some time, when the custom
was actually introduced.

The expression 'Lord's day/ indeed, in Rev.
1.10. has in modern times been thought to prove
that the apostle John not only knew of the cus-
tom, but that he sanctioned it, and even com-
manded the whole day weekly to be kept as the
sabbath in the room of the old one. But I have
already shown that this does not appear from
Scripture; and therefore if St. Ignatius had really
quoted the expression as from the Revelation,
and commented upon it agreeably to its modern
sense and application, notwithstanding his oppor-
tunities for knowing the opinion and practice of
the apostle John on the subject, his interpreta-

260 Supposed Authority of

tion could not have been received according to
the Protestant maxim, which admits of no new
doctrine or precept upon the ground of tradition.
But he never uses the expression c Lord's day' as
a quotation, (if he uses it at all,) and his not quo-
ting and arguing from it, I have stated to be one
of my reasons for thinking the words to be an in-
terpolation. As to the question how he or any
other came to call the first day 'Lord's day/ if
he did not take it from the Revelation, I answer,
as before, that when the authors of the custom
(whoever they were, and whether they lived in
the time of the apostles or afterwards) agreed to
distinguish the first day in the manner that has
been mentioned, nothing was more natural for
them than to give the day a new name, as they
did that of the crucifixion; and considering their
object, what name was more appropriate than
'Lord's day/ or e Christ's day?'*

Whether the day was observed so often as
weekly at the beginning, or whether it was con-
fined to ' Easter Sunday/ which is noticed by St.
Ignatius with equal zeal, cannot be known. The
love- feast seems to have quickly given way to an
entertainment more sumptuous and luxurious, if

* The day, however, was not exclusively or generally
called * Lord's day,' till the fourth century; which is an ob-
jection to its divine origin and present application.

Apostolic Tradition, 8fC. 201

any judgment can be formed of it from the na-
ture of a festival by which the day was called for
ages, and the repeated prohibitions issued against
fasting on it. As to the sanctification of the
whole day in the manner of a sabbath, (Isaiah
58. 13.) the term f festival/ even a religious one,
neither usually implies any such thing, nor does
it appear to have existed till after many centu-
ries.

No one can wonder at the origin I have assign-
ed for the custom in question, who recollects the
number of days that are accounted sacred, in
part at least, in the Latin and Greek churches,
and how many anniversaries are distinguished
from other days among Protestants in our own
time, by abstinence from secular employment,
attendance on public worship, and festivities.
There are reasons given for them all; but Scrip-
tural authority neither is nor can be pleaded for
any of them, as enjoining them. According to
Grotius, these public manifestations of thankful-
ness and joy on the first day were at first option-
al : but the instructions of Fathers, and the de-
crees of Councils, soon made them obligatory.
Their proving injurious to the sacred regard paid
to the seventh day agreeably to the Fourth Com-
mandment, with which regard they were associ-
ated till the time of Constantine, and their final
triumph over it in the Christian- Roman empire,

Supposed Authority of

are not the only instances in which human tradi-
tions have superseded a divine precept. The
persecutions every where raised against the Jews
after the destruction of their city and temple by
the Romans, and the risk run by the Christians of
being confounded with them and of being treat-
ed like them, on account of their keeping the
same sabbath, tended greatly to facilitate and ex-
tend the observance of the first day festival, as it
was called. The festival being weekly, as well
as the seventh day sabbath — its services being the
same — the respect it apparently showed to
Christ — and the inconvenience of keeping two
days together, strengthened this tendency. To
the decrees of Constantine, however, in favour of
this day exclusively, in opposition to the Fathers
and Councils that had preceded, and, so far as is
known, without even taking the sense of any
council as he did at Nice, is chiefly to be attri-
buted, in my opinion, that prevalence throughout
Christendom which it has ever since possessed.

If this account of the origin whence proceeded
this regard paid in the early ages of Christianity
to the first day be objected to as resting on con-
jecture, I reply, that I do not pretend to state the
precise fact, of which history gives no informa*
tion. In a case where (as I have shown) I am
not obliged to give any account at all, conjecture
is quite sufficient. The supposition is not like

Apostolic Tradition, S?c. 265

that by which the prevalence of Sabbatarianism
in the ages before Constantine has been attempted
to be accounted for, namely, the accommodating
spirit of the Gentile converts toward their bre-
thren from among the Jews, about which the
New Testament and the Fathers are equally si-
lent, and which, till the repeal of the old sabbath
be proved, may be accounted for much more na-
turally and satisfactorily. The conjecture I have
hazarded is possible, and even highly probable,
considering the numerous declarations made by
individuals and public bodies of the greatest re-
spectability who kept the first day, that its claim
rested entirely on the authority of the Church.
In short, the Scriptures were never appealed to
on the subject till the time of the Puritans. St.
Ignatius, as already noticed, states his recom-
mendation of it only as an idea of his own ; and
the subsequent writers either express their own
opinion in like manner, or follow his.

I wish to remind my Baptist friends of the ac-
counts given, by them, of the origin of Peedobap-
tism, and the Dissenters in general of the sources
whence, in their opinion, Episcopacy, together
with the fasts and feasts observed in the primitive
Church, particularly Easter Sunday, had their
rise. They are mentioned as early in Ecclesias-
tical History as the first day is. I perfectly agree
with my friends respecting the probability of these

264 Supposed Authority ', $c.

accounts: but they are as incapable of being
proved, as my hypothesis concerning the origin of
sanctifying the first day.

I observe, finally, that my pious friends in the
Establishment no more approve than I do of the
corruptions of Christianity in the second and
third centuries noticed by Justin Martyr, Tertul-
lian, and others : such as carrying the Eucharist
to private houses after it had been consecrated at
Church ; mingling water with the wine used in
the Holy Supper; and the invocation of departed
saints. But their modes of accounting for these
abuses, though extremely probable, can no more
be proved to the satisfaction of an opponent, than
my conjecture relative to Sunday.

CHAPTER IX.

Differences of Opinion concerning the Commence-
went and Termination of the Scriptural Weekly
Sabbath.

It has already been noticed, that in England, be-
tween the time of Edgar (before the Norman
conquest) and the reign of King John, that is, for
more than 200 years, the weekly sabbath began

Commencement and Termination, 8?c. 265.

at three o'clock on the seventh day afternoon,
and continued till twelve o'clock on Sunday
night. [See Rapin's History of the Church.] In
Scotland, during a part at least of this period, in
the reign of William the Lion, cotemporary with
Henry the Second of England, the sabbath ended
at the same time that it did here : but it began
earlier, namely, at twelve o'clock at noon, on the
seventh day. [See Morer, p. 290.] With these
exceptions, so far as I know, all Christians who
observed the first day have ever included it be-
tween the seventh day at midnight and the mid-
night following.

The Sabbatarians begin and end their sabbath
differently ; observing it from the evening of Fri-
day, till the evening of the day following. They
do not agree with the modern Jews in this point,
if what is reported of them be true, that they
keep their sabbath from six on the former of
these evenings, till six on the latter of them.

I propose to make a few remarks on the argu-
ments adduced by the different parties in favour
of their respective practices. Whatever reason
our English ancestors and the Scots had for com-
mencing their sabbath so many hours before the
time of its present beginning — whether it was a
relic of the ancient practice among Christians
in general till the fourth century of keeping the
seventh day, as well as the first day* or whether

N

266 Commencement and Termination

the extraordinary hours were intended to be em-
ployed in preparing for the sabbath rather than
to be a part of it, it is now agreed by all, I be-
lieve, who think the seventh day sabbath is re-
pealed, that the custom has no foundation in
Scripture.

I proceed to examine the grounds for the ge-
neral practice among Christians for keeping the
sabbath from midnight to midnight. The cause
must be looked for, I suppose, in the civil mode of
reckoning the beginning and ending of the days
among the Jews and in the time of the apostles,
which appears to be the same as that used chief-
ly in the civilized world at the present time.
Thus in John, chap. 20. what is called the even-
ing of the first day when Christ visited his disci-
ples who were assembled together, was precisely
the portion of time that would now be called the
Sunday evening. At first view, therefore, it
would seem that the observer of the first day
acted rightly in beginning and ending his sabbath
at the times when, according to the civil account,
Sunday is reckoned to begin and end. If, how-
ever, the seventh day sabbath was reckoned by
the divine command from evening to evening,
and if this time of keeping it was founded not on
any custom peculiar to the Jews, or on the cere-
monial law, but on the order in which it pleased
the Blessed God to reckon the parts of the natu-

of the Scriptural Weekly Sabbath. 267

ral day at the creation, it will then be for the
person who keeps the first day, as being substi-
tuted by the divine command for the seventh, to
consider whether his sabbath should not be kept
in like manner from evening to evening, that is,
from the evening of the seventh, till the evening
of the first day.

But Dr. Wallis does not accede to either of
these sentiments. He denies that the Jews did
keep the sabbath from the Friday to the seventh
day evening. He denies also that the divine
command required them so to keep it, whether
it be taken from the passage 'from evening to
evening ye shall celebrate my sabbaths/ or from
the account given by Moses of the day at the
creation. He will have it, that the term evening
signifies midnight.

I do not agree with him in either of his asser-
tions. The first of them, namely, that the Jews
did not keep the sabbath partly on Friday and
partly on the seventh day, according to the civil
reckoning, is founded on the narratives of the
evangelists relative to the interval between our
Lord's expiring on the cross, and the first visit
paid to his sepulchre by the women on the morn-
ing of the first day. Dr. Wallis thinks that the
women had not time to prepare their spices after
the body of our Lord was taken down from the
cross and laid in the sepulchre, without trenching

268 Commencement and Termination

on the sacred season, if the sabbath commenced as
soon as it became dark. He also thinks that the
expression, ' in the end of the sabbath, when it
began to dawn toward the first day of the week/
implies that the sabbath did not end till just be-
fore day-break, if not broad day-light, the next
morning. But though one of the evangelists says
f the evening was come' before Joseph went to
Pilate, the phrase might not be intended to be
understood literally, as if day-light was quite
gone, but as when we speak of taking a walk in
the evening ; neither is it likely that the applica-
tion to Pilate was delayed so long after three
o'clock, when our Lord died — indeed it was so
soon after his death, that doubts were entertained
whether he was really dead : so that there was
abundance of time afterwards, at that season of
the year, for the women to perform the benevo-
lent but secular act recorded of them, before it
was dark. As to the sabbath seeming to have
ended just before day-break the next morning, in
that case the sabbath must have continued much
longer than midnight on the seventh day evening,
and consequently long beyond the time that Dr.
Wallis himself assigns for its termination. But
the evangelist does not say how long the sabbath
was past, but only that it was past; and the visit
not having been paid the evening before, might

of the Scriptural Weekly Sabbath. 269

be owing to a cause very different from the con-
tinuance of the sabbath.

Dr. Wallis's opinion, therefore, that the Jews
kept Jie sabbath from midnight to midnight, re-
ceives not that support from the narratives just
considered, which he thinks it does. Nor is he
more correct in his judgment concerning the
meaning of the expressions c from evening to
evening/ and ' the evening and the morning were
&c.' They do not signify from twelve o'clock
one night to twelve o'clock the next night after.
The account of the first Passover is the only au-
thentic illustration given us of the sense in which
the former of these phrases is to be understood 5
and this mentions many acts that would occupy
much time prior to midnight, when the angel of
destruction went forth throughout the land of
Egypt; such as the choosing the lamb, killing it,
sprinkling its blood outside of the house, dressing
it, and partaking of it ready equipped for the
journey in prospect. With regard to the latter
phrase, nothing can be clearer than that in the
account of the creation by the inspired writer,
the expression evening and morning signffies the
dark and light parts of the twenty-four hours, the
former of which begins several hours before mid-
night, and the latter as many hours after mid-
night. The middle of a thing, and consequently

270 Commencement and Termination

of night, never can be its beginning, any more
than its end.

As a Sabbatarian, therefore, being of opinion
that the seventh day sabbath continues in force,
and that it is inseparable from the Fourth Com-
mandment, I keep it as the Jews were ordered to
keep it; that is, from the commencement of dark-
ness on the sixth day, to the termination of light
on the seventh day. I do not agree with the mo-
dern Jews, if they keep it all the year round from
six o'clock in the afternoon on one day, to the
same hour in the afternoon on the day following.
This may or may not be from evening to evening.
Lawful as it may be in estimating the natural day
to alter in various forms the original order of
darkness and light on a civil account, it does not
appear to me that leave has been granted by the
Divine Being to do this respecting the sabbath.
The expressions se J ?inight and fortnight in our
language, derived from the Saxons, seem to me
to be remains of the custom introduced by the
Divine Being himself at the creation, of reckon-
ing the darkness before the light in the account
of a day, which the dark division and the light
division, added together, compose. The Saxons
appear to have derived it from tradition, as they
did also their customs of dividing time into weeks,
and of worshipping Sat-ur or Saturn on the se-
venth day — the deity who, according to the Greek

of the Scriptural Weekly Sabbath. 271

language, denoted Time. There would be no
way of accounting for the expressions alluded to,
that were in use among the ancients, if the day
had always been reckoned from midnight, as it is
at present in the civil account — at least in many
countries.

Mr. Wright, whom I have mentioned before,
thinks that Moses took his estimate of the natural
day from the Egyptians, who began their account
of it in the evening. I think it far more proba-
ble, on the contrary, that the Egyptians derived
their custom by tradition from what passed and
was introduced at the creation. It is not very
likely, nor very consistent with the sacred cha-
racter and dignity of Revelation, that Moses, an
inspired writer, however e learned in all the wis-
dom of the Egyptians,' would in his account of
what happened before the existence of any nation,
be guided and influenced by the opinion and cus-
tom of a particular nation, and one that was no
less idolatrous, than hostile to himself and his
countrymen. The same writer notices that there
are nations who begin their account of the day
neither in the evening at the commencement of
darkness, nor at midnight, but at noon. I do not
see how this observation ought to affect the ques-
tion when the sabbath should commence, any
more than that of the possibility of confining the
sabbath itself by a divine institution to a par-

272 Commencement and Termination

ticular day of the week for mankind in general;
whether the day be the seventh or the first. Our
first parents certainly knew on what day of the
week they were created, whether they came into
being in the dark or in the light part of it. They
knew that those parts composed the whole day,
and probably knew not at first any other divi-
sions, or any subdivisions of it. They doubtless
knew the first sabbath, and that it was sanctified
or set apart for them to devote to God, not be-
cause they, but because God had worked the six
preceding days. They knew also when the se-
venth day came again which was to be their se-
cond sabbath, and which they were to keep, not
because they had worked the six preceding days,
but because, whether they had done so or not,
it was the weekly return of the first sabbath.
Thus they themselves could neither be ignorant,
nor forget, without incurring guilt, either the day
that was to be sanctified, or its commencement,
which was the commencement of darkness the
day before, according to the civil account : nei-
ther were they at liberty to transfer the sabbath
to a different day, by the expedient of keeping
two sabbaths together, and working six days af-
terwards; and yet if they could not, where is the
propriety of saying, as Mr. W. does, that the se-
venth part of time only was instituted ?

The observations just made relative to the day

of the Scriptural WeeMy Sabbath. £j8

kept by our first parents, and the time when it
began, apply to their posterity while they lived
on or near the same spot with them. Nor would
emigration to the east or west make any diffe-
rence with regard to their keeping the day, which
was the seventh, except they lost their reckon-
ing; and it would be their own gross fault if they
did. As to the time of beginning their sabbath,
it would be their duty to begin it when darkness
began to usher it in at the place where they were,
whatever might be the state of some other peo-
ple at that moment with respect to light and
darkness. Supposing even any of the nations to
have lost their reckoning of days, there is every
reason to believe, as already shown, that the an-
cient Patriarchs and the Jews did not lose their's,
and that their's is the source of, or at least was
the same with, that which is prevalent among the
modern Jews and among Christians. The time
when a nation chooses to begin its civil day, whe-
ther midnight, noon, or any other, need not, and
ought not, to affect the Scriptural sabbath day,
nor the time of its commencement.

Mr. Wright thinks, with some others, that the
three first days of the first week differed from the
four following days, and perhaps from each other,
in length, because it was the fourth day before
the sun was made. I know not what purpose is
to be answered by the hypothesis, except it be to
n 2

274 Commencement and Termination

show that the successive seventh days had shorter
or longer intervals of time between them than
existed between the beginning of the first day
and the first sabbath, and that therefore there
could be no institution at the close of the crea-
tion that confined the sabbath to a particular day
of the week. But the ground of this conjec-
ture fails. It was as easy for the Great Creator
to make each of the three first days, consisting
of darkness and light, of the same length as that
of any day that followed, without the sun, as
with the sun; and as the three first as well as
the four last are called days^ there is no doubt
that he did.

Once more : — Mr. Wright, as well as Dr. Wal-
lis, speaks of the uncertainty respecting the time
of day when the sun made his appearance for the
first time; that is, I suppose they mean, it is un-
certain whether it was noon at the time in Para-
dise, the sun being on the meridian of that place,
or whether it was there at what is now called
sun-rising or sun-setting, or at any time between.
Be it which it might, there is no reason why it
should affect the time of the commencement, con-
tinuance, or termination of the light and darkness
which existed during the three preceding days,
any more than it would, had the sun been only
behind a cloud during the whole of the enlight-
ened part of those days. All the difference would

of the Scriptural Weekly Sabbath. 275

be this, that what existed before without any di-
vision, or distinction of names, perhaps without
any to be named, except those of darkness and
light, would henceforth consist of night, mid-
night, morning twilight, sun-rise, forenoon, noon,
afternoon, and evening twilight, though it is un-
certain which of these the meridian of Paradise
had when the sun appeared in the sky for the
first time.*

* Had there been any people to the east or west of Para-
dise at the time the sun was ' made/ the darkness which
had hitherto marked the beginning of a new day, and of a
sabbath, would have happened at the same time that it would
have taken place if there had been no sun, however diffe-
rently they might have named the hour if the different civil
accounts of days now existing had been then established.
The times, indeed, in which darkness would take place in
these opposite directions, could not of course correspond
with the moment of time at which it would take place in
Paradise, on account of the difference of meridians. But it
would be the business of each to regard the time of its hap-
pening in the country where he lived, unmindful whether it
took place sooner or later, and how long, (supposing him to
know,) in another, with which he would have nothing to do
till he removed to that country, any more than the man has,
who has obligations to fulfil on a particular day of the month
towards one who lives in a remote part, east or west. This is
all the difference that could happen to the descendants of the
first human pair, without their own fault, in removing from
Paradise ; and it furnishes no excuse for changing the origi-
nal order of the day, or the original time for commencing the

276 Commencement and Termination, tyc.

sabbath, whatever civil account of a day's commencement
may have been instituted in a particular country. I do not,
therefore, agree with Mr. Alright in the Note on p. 10 of the
Work already referred to, if he means that the ancients and
moderns under different meridians might keep the sabbath
on what day of the week they pleased, and begin it when
they pleased.

If the reader should think that either here or elsewhere I
have entered into discussions too minute or profound, I re-
quest him to recollect, that I am not the appellant, but the
respondent.

CHAPTER X.

Differences of Opinion concerning the supposed
Lawfulness of Man to transfer the Scriptural
Weekly Sabbath to another Dai/,

Strange as the idea may seem, at first view,
that God would under any circumstances permit
his laws to be dispensed with by his creatures,
there are many who act as if they thought he
would do this, and some, I believe, that really
think he will, whether they venture to say so or
not. All those who refuse to search the Scrip-
tures on the subject, though they are totally un-
acquainted with the argument, or who, though
they are secretly and sometimes avowedly con-
vinced that God has appointed a certain day t*

Supposed Lawfulness, ftc. 277

be kept, live in the habit of substituting another
for it, appear to me to act upon the principle just
mentioned. With regard to supposing any per-
sons to think so who do not distinctly avow the
sentiment, unjust as it may seem, at first view,
to affirm this of them, it is not unjust to attribute
an opinion to one who avows it virtually, though
not explicitly. What other judgment can be
formed, for instance, of Dr. Wallis's sentiment,
who first takes pains in the usual way to prove
the sanctification of the first day obligatory upon
Christians by divine authority, and afterwards en-
deavours to show that no particular day can be
thus binding upon all men, because on various
accounts they cannot all keep it at the same mo-
ment of absolute time, or know for certain that it
is the weekly return of the resurrection- day, and
professes his willingness to keep as a sabbath the
day that the nation appoints, be it what day it may ?
Reluctant, however, as individuals may feel to
avow an opinion which evidently manifests such
irreverence of the Deity as that of supposing that
he would allow a Scriptural sabbath to be dis-
pensed with by any one, there are not wanting
excuses for entertaining it. The Divine Being
allowed the Jews, by means of Moses, to put
away their wives, though ' from the beginning it
was not so ;' and if he dispenses with his law in
one instance, why should he not, it is asked, in

2J& Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

another ? But it does not follow, because he al-
lows an inspired person to do this, that he will
allow an uninspired person to do it.

Again :— it is urged that the Blessed God * will
have mercy, and not sacrifice.' But this passage
of Scripture does not mean that he would dis-
pense with offering sacrifice, when it did not in-
terfere with the exercise of benevolence : nei-
ther does our Lord's application of it to the case
of his disciples, when on the sabbath day they
plucked the ears of corn, and ate to appease
their hunger, imply that the observance of the
sabbath may be dispensed with in favour of
works that are required neither by necessity nor
mercy. Whether such works ever exist, will be
seen in the course of the Chapter.

There are, however, reasons assigned for the
credibility of the Divine Being's willingness to
dispense with his law in the case of the Scriptu-
ral sabbath, which will require a more particular
examination. It has been urged, that as one day
is as good as another for the weekly sabbath, pro-
vided it be after six days' labour, it cannot be a
material object to the Deity what day is kept,
even if he has appointed a day in particular, so
that one be kept. But if it was so immaterial to
him which day of the week was sanctified, why
did he fix on one in particular for sanctification ?
Why did he not leave it to man to sanctify which

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, tyc. 279

of the seven he pleased? Some, indeed, are of
opinion that he actually has done so. Whether
or no that be the fact, may be collected from the
foregoing Chapters.* At present, I suppose my
opponents to admit that there is a Scriptural sab-
bath. To them I answer, then, that indifferent
as it may appear to man which of the seven days
in the week be kept, provided one be kept, it may
not appear so to the Deity. It evidently does not
appear so to him, not only by his appointing one
in particular, but by his assigning a reason for
it. He appointed the seventh day originally,
because on that day he rested after the creation.

* It does not follow that God means the seventh part of
time to continue sacred, on account of his having once con-
secrated a particular day. Had that been his design, he
would either have continued the day, or substituted another
for it. It is incredible that he should first appoint the day
himself, and afterwards leave it to be appointed by man. A
day of his appointment would surely answer the purpose as
well as any day of human appointment, and could as easily
be kept by man. It does not follow, from the possibility of
man's changing God's day through accident or design, that
God will acquiesce in the error. It was as easy for God to
have instituted one day in seven generally, as to have named
a particular day ; and he would no doubt have done so, had
that been all which he intended. Nations might have con-
curred in any day, as they do now, if God did not prescribe
a particular one.

280 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

He appointed the first day, (according to the"
general opinion, though not that of the Sabba-
tarians,) because our Lord rose from the dead on
it. Neither of these reasons is transferable to
another day ; and therefore as another day would
be improper for commemorating either of those
events, however proper it might be in itself for
answering moral and religious purposes, it is not
likely that he would sanction the change. Yet
without his favour and blessing, it cannot reason-
ably be expected that the mere suitableness of a
day to a purpose, especially of so exalted and dif-
ficult a nature as that of religious benefit, would
with human skill and endeavour be available to
that purpose, in the absence of divine power ef-
fectually concurring, or that it would be grant-
ed in such a case as I have supposed. If the de-
gree of success that it seems warranted to expect
on a Scriptural sabbath, should without warrant
for such expectation attend the day, it would
no more prove that the Divine Being authorizes
it, or that he will ultimately bless it, than the
prosperity of the wicked proves that God loves
them, or than the extensive spread of Popery
for many ages, proves that the Reformation was
either unnecessary or improper. The utmost
that the success of the day would prove is, that
the regard due to the day of God's appoint-
ment was not so predominating a consideration

transferring the Weekly Sabbath , Sec. 281

with him, as that he should, for a while at least,
not suffer the tendency of leisure afforded week-
ly for waiting upon him, and of embracing that
leisure, though to the neglect of a divine institu-
tion, to fail of its natural effect, or that he should
deviate from the usual course of providence, in
order to transfer the circumstances which possess
this tendency to his own day. But no conscien-
tious seeker after divine truth, or observer of it
in small things* as well as in great ones, can on
this account think that the Divine Being is him-
self willing to dispense with, or that another
should dispense with, any of his laws.

The reader will easily perceive, that I allude to
the long and widely- extended course of spiritual
prosperity which has accompanied the observance
of the first day. I certainly think it possible that
such prosperity might exist, notwithstanding
many who kept the day were conscious that they
neglected the Scriptural sabbath, as appears from
their own confessions, and notwithstanding there
are numbers more, who, though they have op-
portunity for seeing the light, if they choose, yet
come not to it. If, then, the prosperity just men-

* The expressions, l Prove all things ; hold fast that which
is good :' * Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind :'
and l Whatsoever is not of faith is sin f refer to no authority
exclusively.

282 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

tioned may exist under such circumstances, how
much more may it exist, where the observer of
the first day, after honest inquiry, thinks that he
is in the right, whether he be really so or not, or
where suspicion has never been awakened by
suggestions to the contrary ? There can be no
doubt that there are instances of both these cases,
and that those belonging to the last case are very
numerous.

Spiritual prosperity attending a different day,
therefore, from that which may or may not, in the
opinion of the observer, or only in his opinion, be
the Scriptural sabbath, affords no proof that the
Divine Being sanctions it.

Were the first and seventh days to exchange
situations relative to human policy, their success
would most probably be reversed with their situ-
ations, though their state with respect to the
Scriptures would remain just the same. No Pro-
testant thinks that Popery and Protestantism are
alike approved of by the Deity, on account of the
immense number of instances in which Roman
Catholics were doubtless converted and edified,
during ages of involuntary ignorance and of mis-
taken conviction, though cases of wilful disobe-
dience to the truth were far from being want-
ing.*

• Were the contrary sentiment just, the necessity for in-

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, fyc. 283

But the strongest argument in favour of a
power lodged with man of dispensing with a di-
vine law remains to be considered. It has been
asked, Supposing a day to have been appointed
by the Legislature for consecration in a particu-
lar country — ought not that appointment, if it
does not dictate the sense of Scripture, at least to
warrant a departure from that sense by the coun-
try and by individuals in it, especially when the
appointment is no other than that which has long
prevailed and still prevails in every country where
the divine authority of the Scriptures is acknow-
ledged ?

The question to be answered is of peculiar ha-
zard : but I feel confident that it will admit of an
answer consistent not only with conscientiousness,
but with loyalty and obedience to the laws, with
the love of peace, with attention to social order,
with respect for public opinion, and with esteem
for the truly pious of every description. I begin,
then, with asserting, that though the laws of the
country and of Christendom order the first day in
every way to be kept to that extent which human
wisdom and power can take cognizance of and

quiring into the will of God respecting the non-essentials of
religion would be superseded. It would be merely requisite
to consider which description of religious people had thft
greatest number of the truly pious in it. ■

284 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

enforce, they nowhere pretend, in this nation at
least, to interfere with the right of individuals to
determine the sense of Scripture for themselves,
and to act upon it so far as is compatible with the
rights of others — particularly those of the public.
Whatever claim the National Church may make
to the power of ( decreeing rites and ceremonies,
and to authority in matters of faith/ it expressly
specifies that its determinations are not to be
contrary to the word of God ; nor does it assume
a right to decide in what cases such a repugnan-
cy takes place in opposition to the rights of private
judgment. In the late Toleration Act, [A. D.
1812,] which reflects such honour upon the Le-
gislature, the Government, and all who were
concerned in drawing it up and in contributing
to its passing through the two Houses of Parlia-
ment, the utmost attention is shown to that so-
lemn declaration of the apostle, a declaration of
universal concern, ' Every one of us must give
account of himself to God.'

I shall not now show the consistence of holding*
and acting upon this principle, in determining
the Scriptural sabbath and observing it each one
for himself, with obedience to the laws, and with
deference to public opinion. There will be occa-
sion to discuss this topic in the course of the
next Chapter. In the mean time I request leave
to avow my fullest and firmest conviction of then]

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, tyc. 285

perfect consistency ; and I add, with respect to
ttie practical effect of it on the part of the Sab-
batarians, notwithstanding the repeated convic-
tions of transgressing the law relative to the first
day by professed observers of it, there has not
been a single instance for these fifty years at least
of a Sabbatarian being charged with the same
offence, whatever privations and disadvantages he
is required to labour under.

To proceed. — It certainly does not follow that
the nations of Christendom, or that this nation in
particular, mistake the day they should keep as
the weekly sabbath, because some in a country-
are of that opinion. But supposing, for a mo-
ment, that this nation, for instance, were to dis-
cover itself to be in an error in this respect,
would the nation be justified in thinking that it
might dispense with what, upon the present sup-
position, it deems to be the law of God? With
all proper respect for my native country, I feel
myself compelled to reply, that I do not con-
sider a nation as possessing a license wilfully to
transgress a command of God under any circum-
stances whatever. Happily, my country is in no
such predicament. It does not profess to believe
that the Scriptural sabbath day is different from
the day it observes ; even if it did think that the
first day was no sabbath by divine appointment.
For except in the case relative to the restraint

286 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

laid upon the Sabbatarians on the first day,
(which, whether it be right or not, it is the duty
of the Sabbatarians to submit to,) I am not aware
that the country has enacted any thing relative to
that day which is at all contrary to Scripture, as
I propose to show in the next Chapter. It does
not appear to me that the country would be
chargeable with the sin before mentioned, except
it were to forbid or to neglect the observance of
the seventh day in opposition to conviction that
this day was still the weekly sabbath by divine
authority.

It may be asked, however, whether the country
would not be warranted, were the case last men-
tioned ever to be realized, in acting contrary to
its conviction, in order to shun the serious incon-
venience, either of keeping two sabbaths, or of
effecting a transfer which would materially in-
terfere with the habits of private individuals and
families, the transactions of one part of the country
with another, and the intercourse subsisting be-
tween this nation and foreign nations. I answer,
that it is not very probable that the Conviction
supposed will take place soon, if ever; and that
it will be time enough for the country to consider
what it would be its duty to do in such a case,
when the case occurs. But if a reply is required
for the sake of argument, I confess that it strikes
me, that any inconvenience ought to be submit-

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, 8?c. 287

ted to, rather than that the law of God should be
wilfully neglected or violated; and that God
would in the end cause the good arising from
self-denial to exceed the evil. In my opinion,
the observance of the seventh day could not pos-
sibly be dispensed with by the nation in the case
just stated. With respect to the regard at present
paid by it to the first day, I shall have occasion to
show that the utmost regard which a nation is
able to take cognizance of or to enforce, even in
the case of a single individual, falls far short —
infinitely short — of that regard which, according
to the First Chapter of this Work, is included in
the Scriptural notion of sanctifying the weekly
sabbath. If, however, the regard claimed by the
law of the land for the first day, uncommensurate
as it is to sanctification according to the Scrip-
tures, sufficiently interrupts the course of business
and pleasure through the nation, to merit the
name of sanctification, I do not see how the na-
tion, in the state of mind supposed, could avoid
either transferring the interruption to another
day, or submitting to a similar one on that day,
without gross injury to piety. It was not the
Divine Being who brought the nation into the di-
lemma here supposed. The seventh day, which
the nation is now supposed to consider as still the
Scriptural sabbath, is as well adapted in itself to
the exercise and improvement of devotion, of

288 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

practical piety, and of morality, as the first day.
It is true, he permitted the ancient Fathers and
Councils of the Christian Church to associate the
first day with the seventh in observing the weekly
sabbath, as also the Emperor Constantine (who
probably wished to gratify Home and Alexandria,
which were hostile to the seventh day, and who
acted under the influence of Pope Sylvester) to
confine by several edicts the weekly sabbath to
the first day, in opposition to the sense and prac-
tice of the Christian Church before his time, and
without so much as calling a council on the oc-
casion : but the divine permission of evil (if it be
evil) is no excuse either for its introduction or
its continuance.

I am supposing, I repeat, the mass of the dif-
ferent orders of people in the country, and par-
ticularly those in whom the elective franchise is
legally invested, the Legislature, and the Go-
vernment, to feel a conviction which it is not
likely that they will feel — namely, that the day
which the nation sanctifies is different from that
which the Scriptures have appointed to be sanc-
tified. In that case I have affirmed that there
would be no occasion for the country, except it
chose, to alter the laws relative to Sunday :
(hough the obligation to keep the other day would
be indispensably necessary on a religious ground.
The inconvenience which individuals and families .

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, S?c. 289

at large would sustain, are no other than those
which the Sabbatarian individuals and families
have uniformly experienced since the indiscrimi-
nate prohibition of secular employment in an ex-
ternal and public manner, and that in times and
places when there was a considerable number of
them.* But if the inconveniences attending such
a partial regard would appear intolerable to the
nation, were it called upon to feel them in conse-
quence of sanctifying, from a sense of religious
obligation, a different day for the sabbath, the
total abandonment of religious regard for the first
day which would be requisite to shun them, how-
ever great and widely extended the change, it

• The convenience and benefits resulting to a country
from its inhabitants keeping the same day for the weekly
sabbath, cannot confer a right on the nation to disregard a
day which in its own opinion the Scriptures may have enjoin-
ed. The nation might have had the advantages referred to
by keeping that day, as well as by keeping another. The
Divine Being is under no obligation to alter his law, in order
to continue the advantages to the nation, that is now supposed
to be convinced of having unhappily fallen into the erroT of
keeping a wrong day, and that finds it extremely inconveni-
ent to transfer its regard to the right one : especially as it is
at liberty to continue sanctifying the wrong day as much as
it has it in its power to enforce the sanctification of any day,
and as much as is sufficient to answer every end it can pro-
pose to itself, whether it thinks proper to keep the right one
in addition, or not.

O

290 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's ' *'

would not be so totally unparalleled in history,
as to furnish it with an excuse for supposing it
lawful to prevent the occasion for this change, by
wilfully disregarding a divine law. I will not
plead the conduct of Revolutionary France, when
it substituted its impious decad for the week
which mankind received from the Deity at the
creation, thus transferring the national sabbath to
a different day, though it remained uncertain for
several years whether the course of events would
not have given permanency to the change, not-
withstanding the serious inconvenience it brought
upon the whole of France, and upon certain other
countries that had been conquered and enslaved
by the French Republic. No — the Sabbatarian
was not the least forward of his Majesty's sub-
jects, when he heard of the success of the British
hero, in conjunction with that of the allies, and of
its happy consequences, to exclaim, with admi-
ration, joy, and gratitude, ' What hath God
wrought V I wish for no change, either about the
day for the weekly sabbath, or for any tiling else,
to be effected by revolutionary means — by any
coercive power acting upon the Legislature or
upon the Government. The historical instances
I allude to in which a nation has sacrificed con-
venience to a sense of duty, are those which took
place at the alteration of the style, and above all
when the Reformation was substituted for Popery,

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, #c. 291

as the national religion, in different countries. No
one can doubt that this last mentioned change
must have caused alterations in domestic econo-
my, in different branches of the home trade, in
foreign commerce, in the system of public devo-
tion, and more especially in the state of various
religious bodies, that were sorely felt by multi-
tudes for many years.

Let it not be said, that there is an incompara-
ble difference between a nation's submitting to
inconvenience for conscience sake in a case of
error so gross, complicated, and widely extended
as that of the Roman Catholic religion, and in
the case of error in a single point, supposing it
to be convinced that the day appointed in Scrip-
lure to be the weekly sabbath has been unhappi-
ly mistaken. 1 submit, however, that the latter
error, were it really one, would not be a trivial
one. Can any one imagine that a pious Jew, and
much less Jehovah himself, would have account-
ed such an error a trifle, had the whole nation in
Judea, or afterwards when resident in many other
countries as well as in Judea, substituted another
day for the seventh day ? Would the presump-
tuous transgression of the Fourth Commandment
by one who believed in his conscience that the
expression in the commandment, 'seventh day J
always and still means exclusively the day com-
monly called Saturday, and yet did not keep it,

292 Supposed Lawfulness of Maris

appear to be a trifle to any real Christian? Or
would any observer of the first day, who is anx-
ious for its being sanctified by others that ac-
knowledge the divinity of its claim, be satisfied
-with their sanctifying Monday in the stead of it?
The error of neglecting the Scriptural sabbath, if
the country believed itself to be in an error of
that kind, would not be more venerable or veni-
al than Popery, on the ground of antiquity and
universality, being very little if at all more an^
cient than the religious errors of Popery, accord-
ing to Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and not a
jot more extensive than those once were. Nor
do these errors relate to the essence of religion,
any more than an error relative to the Scriptural
sabbath does. For with all the absurdity, super-
stition, and idolatry, that attached to the Roman
Catholic religion at the time of the Reformation,
there was still a considerable mixture of truth in
its creed, of propriety in its observances, and of
genuine piety in the devotion, spirit, and man-
ners, of many of its votaries. Yet other nations
as well as our's thought proper, (and justly so,)
upon conviction, to exchange it for Protestant-
ism, notwithstanding the serious inconvenience
of the measure. The holy matter connected with
the supposed error under consideration is far
greater certainly than in the former case: still
if the frequent violation of the Fourth Command*

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, $rc. 293

nient were wilful and national, the sin would be
far too great and extensive to dispense with for-
saking it for fear of inconvenience, even were a
nation justified in dispensing with obedience to
the law of God in any instance whatsoever.*

But, as was said before, the nation is hot at
present convinced that it is dispensing with the
divine law in this particular, if it ever will be of
this opinion. It only remains to be considered*
therefore, whether individuals who are Sabbata-
rians in judgment, or those who ' hate the light,
neither come to the light/ lest they should prove
such, may dispense with conforming to the dic-
tates of conscience on the ground of the serious
inconveniences they would sustain in conse-
quence of differing from the national practice*
Though it may appear self-evident that if the
rights of conscience cannot be dispensed with
by a country, much less can they be so by an in-
dividual or even a family, yet it will be proper
for me to make some remarks.

I wish to premise, that in the remarks I am
about to make, I am not addressing those who
upon just grounds are convinced that the day
they observe weekly is the Scriptural sabbath,

* The enactment and infliction of punishment for sabbath-
breaking would come with an ill grace from a nation so
situated.

294 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

whatsoever day it be. I say upon just grounds *,
because I do not consider their having been bred
to it ; their relations, friends, and connexions, be-
ing of that way of thinking; the countenance and
example of the pious at large, as well as of the
nation, being on that side ; and, in short, not only
their worldly, but also their religious comfort
and advantage being most promoted by it; — I re-
peat, I do not consider these, if they are the only
grounds, to be just ones for the conviction in
question. No one can be said to be truly con-
vinced, who is not conscious to himself that he
l ias carefully examined the word of God on the
s abject, praying earnestly to be led into the
truth, and for grace to withstand the powerful
prejudices which naturally arise from the circum-
stances just enumerated; as also that he is ready
to treat with candour and consideration whatever
may be suggested on the contrary side. It is not
easy to answer to the character I have been de-
scribing, whether the party be a Sabbatarian, or
differently minded. I am, however, far from
supposing that my opponent, whoever he may be,
does not answer to it. I only say, that if he does,
he is not concerned in the remarks that follow.

I address those only who are convinced that
they do not keep that which they think is, or
which may be, for aught they know, God's day.
Let them belong to what religious body, or move

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, $?c. 295

in whatsoever sphere, they may, I affirm, that no
worldly or religious inconveniences can warrant
their dispensing with obedience to a command of
God. Here I shall be reminded, no doubt, in the
case of a Sabbatarian in principle only, of the in-
roads made by my doctrine on the order and peace
of families every week — of the difficulties attend-
ing in this case the training up and providing for
children — of the obstacles thrown in the way of
acquiring or retaining respectability and afflu-
ence — of the detriment occasioned to the wealth
and prosperity of the country — the injury suffered
by the poor on account of diminishing so consi-
derably the number and resources of their em-
ployers — and, finally, the very great reduction that
would take place respecting the means of pro-
moting charitable and pious objects. The pic-
ture certainly contains no small portion of the
sombre and the terrific, but not more of it than
that drawn by our Lord when he tells the multi-
tude that the effect of his gospel would be to ex-
cite dissension in private families, to make the
nearest and dearest relations hate one another, to
Occasion to believers the loss of all things, and to
send a sword upon the earth. Are these ideas
antiquated ? — Not wholly so : for I verily believe
that even in the present times and country, who-
ever will ' live godly in Christ Jesus,' and in all
good conscience toward God as well as toward

296 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

men, must suffer persecution many ways, with'
respect both to the acquisition of fortune or
honours, and enjoying them— even members of
the Establishment, as well as Sabbatarians. Let
it not be said, that however Christ may require
such serious privations and sufferings for the
sake of essentials in religion, it is incredible that
he should require them for a non-essential. The
Lollards did not think so in the time of Henry
the Fourth, nor did the Protestants think so in
the reign of Mary II. ; and yet, important as the
questions undoubtedly were between them and
the Papists, no one, I suppose, will deny that
there are truly godly people, and * heirs of salva-
tion/ among the Roman Catholics.*

The idea, therefore, that God will dispense
with his law for the sake of domestic conveni-
ence, worldly aggrandizement, or riches, must
not be endured for a moment. Let the pious, in
forming matrimonial and other connexions, pro-
vide for their spiritual as well as for their tempo-
ral interests. Let the ruling members of families

• The Protestant Dissenter cannot but recollect, that in
times less liberal than the present, his ancestors submitted to
evils little short of those that have been glanced at, though
the points of difference between them and the Establishment
were far less important than those between the Protestanti
and the Papists.

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, $?c. 297

choose only such domestics as will be willing to
accommodate them for conscience sake. Let
them remember, that Christians are to let their

* moderation be known unto all men/ and not
to * seek great things for themselves/ If it be

* righteousness that exalteth a nation/ the people
must take no measure to exalt it which implies
unrighteousness. There are always too many
who are ready to serve their country and the poor,
regardless of a religious motive, to make it ne-
cessary for any to serve them at the expense of
a good conscience. Piety itself ought not to be
promoted by any act or neglect that is unsuit-
able to piety.*

If the Divine Being could be supposed willing
to dispense with his law relative to the sabbath in
any case, it would be in the case of the pious in
the lower classes of life. Individuals in these
classes want for themselves and their families not

* The evil of dispensing with the law of God relative to the
sabbath would be peculiarly great in the case of a Sabbata-
rian in principle who is * rich in this world ;' because his ex-
ample, encouragement, and support, on the contrary side,
would tend greatly to prevent or remove the excuse for dis-
pensing with it in regard to his inferiors. All, therefore, that
duty allows him is, the same leisure for effecting the requisite
changes in this case, that is not uufrequently wanted for
making alterations with a view to some considerable object
of a worldly nature.

o2

298 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

great and splendid things, but conveniences bor-
dering on necessities — perhaps really such. They
would ' learn and labour truly to get their own
living/ provided they could but live. If they
want any thing further, it is to give their chil-
dren a common education, and to fit them for
such employments as may enable them to make
provision for their own subsistence when grown
Up, or to meet the probable contingencies of a de-
clining business, of sickness, and of old age. I
have known various instances in which the ap-
prehended impossibility of accomplishing these
moderate and reasonable objects, has proved
the unhappy occasion of not adopting or of
abandoning the day which was verily believed to
be the Scriptural sabbath. I cannot, however,
approve of such conduct. Whether the Legis-
lature would think it proper, upon application,
to allow the Sabbatarians thus circumstanced to
work i six days/ agreeably to the Fourth Com-
mandment, I know not. But should the propo-
sal not be acceded to on public grounds, I do
not think that the case, extreme as it is, would
authorize a Sabbatarian in principle, on account
of it, to neglect or violate the dictates of his
conscience. Works of necessity, indeed, are,
according to our Lord, allowed on the sabbath
by the Commandment. He must not suffer
either himself or his family to starve; but he

transferring the WeeMy Sabbath, Src* 299

must not, on the other hand, neglect to seek
after and to embrace the earliest opportunity that
presents itself of keeping holy the day that he
believes to be God's sabbath, without regarding
how mean, laborious, or scantily productive, the
employment may be that is offered to him,
provided he can live, and live honestly by it.
Industry, frugality, patience, and contentment,
are seldom wholly unaccompanied by genius,
ability, and favourable situations for exerting
them, in one way or in another. If one mode
of life is inaccessible, or fails, another may be
discovered. The conscientious, and those who
* suffer for righteousness sake/ are not the class
of people which Providence may be the least
expected to bless.

Such are the reasons for which I think that
no case of worldly inconvenience can excuse
any one for withholding obedience to, or with-
drawing it from, what in his opinion is the di-
vine will relative to the sabbath. I have stated
the very worst that can happen, and which I
know to be the principal occasion of the very
low state in which the Sabbatarians of Europe
are at present — a state by no means the most
favourable to proper inquiry into the will of
God respecting the circumstantials of religion,
and conforming to it in opposition to secular
convenience and interest. I must^ however,

300 Supposed Lawfulness of Man's

observe, that adverse as the principle of the
{Sabbatarians under their present circumstances
is to prosperity in the world, there are not
wanting instances of rich inheritances and va-
luable endowments among the Sabbatarians,
any more than among other bodies of religious
people.

It only remains to be noticed, that no religious
disadvantages attending compliance with a duty,
or adhering to it, can supersede the obligation to
regard it. The Sabbatarian in judgment may pos-
sibly find no multitude who J! keep holy day,' and
whom he may accompany to the house of God
with the voice of joy and praise. He may see
little more arouud him at a place of worship on
the seventh day than a dreary solitude. He may
hear the word addressed to almost empty benches,
and may see little prospect of an increase, with
regard either to audience or members. Not-
withstanding, however, all these discouragements
that attend the discharge of duty in the present
instance, a man is not to be personally irreligious
in order to enjoy the comforts of social religion*
It is better to be in this forlorn state with an
approving conscience, than to exchange it for
union with the 'great congregation' which, free
as it may be from any cause for self-reproach
itself, cannot exempt from it any one that has,
cause for it. The general prevalence of an,

transferring the Weekly Sabbath, Sec. 301

opinion has no authority to supersede the oppo-
site conviction of a single individual. The
situation of the patriarch Noah with respect to
fellowship in religion was far worse, and that of
the prophet Elijah not much better, than the one
under consideration. He who would possess evi-
dence that he regards religion itself rather than
its appendages, must learn to enjoy it not only
when those appendages give it pomp and splen-
dour, but when they are scarcely sufficient to
bestow comeliness and dignity upon it. If the
King of kings deigns to lift up the light of his
countenance upon a few in public worship, and
pours joy into their hearts, the uninviting if not
revolting appearance of the place and of the peo-
ple will be a matter of comparative insignificance.
He will soon terminate the inconvenience, by
removing them to the general assembly and
church of the first-born. Let it be recollected,
that he has sanctified and blessed the day of his
Own choice, and that he < meeteth every one that
worketh righteousness, and rejoiceth in his
ways.*

In fine, I may remark, that there are parts of
the world where no extraordinary temporal or
spiritual disadvantages attend the conscientious
observer of the seventh day,. and also that there
have been times when that was the case in this

302 Supposed Lawfulness, 8?c,

country : nor can any one tell that it may not
at a future period be so again.*

CHAPTER XI,

Differences of Opinion concerning the supposed
Authority of Man to institute a Weekly Sab-
bath,

<One man,' observes tbe apostle Paul, c esteems
one day above another ; another esteemeth every
day alike : let every one be fully persuaded in
his own mind. He that regardcth a day, regard-
eth it to the Lord ; and he that regardeth not the
day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.' — No one
who thinks that there is a Scriptural sabbath,
whether he considers it to be the seventh or the
first day, or even the seventh part of time ab-
stractedly, without reference to any particular
day, can suppose Jhat this celebrated passage re-
lates to the weekly sabbath, as well as to any
other day; because the inspired writer of it no

* As no circumstances whatever can warrant any one'»
dispensing with what he 'believes to be a divine law, so
neither have they a right to influence his judgment of the law

itself.

Supposed Authority, fyc. 303

more censures him who keeps no day, than him
who keeps a day — except indeed he thinks that
keeping no sabbath could in no case follow from
a man's being < fully persuaded in his own mind :*
but of that every one must be left to judge for
himself.

But I believe it to be the general opinion, (and
it certainly is mine,) that the words in question
no way relate to the weekly sabbath or to the
testimony of Scripture about it, but to days re-
specting which the Scriptures are silent, every
one being at full liberty to consult his own
judgment and inclination whether he should ob-
serve them or not ; and if the former, in what
way, and to what extent, he pleases. The same
liberty is granted respecting animal food that is
wholesome, to eat it or not. Every individual,
and every society, whether religious or civil,
ought to allow and to be allowed this liberty.
St. Ignatius, for instance, had a right to call the
first day c Lord's day/ (if he ever did call it so,)
to keep it as a religious festival himself, and to
recommend it to others, in honour of our Lord's
resurrection, without the authority of any apos-
tle, which indeed he never pleads. At the same
time, neither he nor any other of the Fathers, nor
any of the Councils, nor all of them put together,
had any right to enjoin the observance of that
day, or of Easter, or of any fast or feast not

304 Supposed Authority of Man

commanded in Scripture, upon a single Chris-
tian that did not own their supremacy, and was
differently minded; or in case of non-compliance
to inflict any ecclesiastical censure or penalty
upon him.*

The same might have been said of all the sa-
cred days that have been instituted in the Chris-
tian Church since the Roman empire became
Christian, if the civil power had not adopted
them. However, when that power ceased to
sanction any of them, they were of course no
longer obligatory upon those who maintained
the right of private judgment in opposition to
ecclesiastical usurpation and tyranny. Hence
the termination in this country of that sacred
regard which the black letter days once pos-
sessed, and which they still possess wherever
the Roman Catholic religion retains its sway.

I come at length to the principal subject of
this Chapter, namely, the difference of sentiment
among Christians concerning the divine right
of the civil power to institute a weekly sabbath.
The question is manifestly of uncommon delicacy

* A Christian community has a right to keep any day to
the Lord, and that weekly, which it pleases ; but it has no
right to make the observance of it as a sabbath a term of
church-membership, except it thinks that the observance »»
enjoined in Scripture.— : See Rom. 14. 1, &c.

to institute a Weekly Sabbath. 305

as well as importance and difficulty. It will
require nice discrimination in discussing various
parts of it. With proper care, however, I hope
that it will not be found impossible to treat it in
a manner that may be satisfactory in general
to opposite parties. I do not recollect that the
case has frequently come under discussion, pro-
bably because it has been for the most part
supposed either that the day appointed by the
civil power for the weekly sabbath coincided
with the Scriptural sabbath, if there was one by
divine appointment, or necessarily took place of
the other, even if there was a difference between
them. But a Sabbatarian cannot possibly acqui-
esce in either of these propositions, without the
admission of certain modifications and distinc-
tions.

The ancient Fathers and Councils never, as I
have already observed, refer to the New Testa-
ment at all in support of the first day, but rest its
right to observance solely upon their own opi-
nions, wishes, and authority. The edicts of Con-
stantine and of the other princes, as also the ca-
nons of Councils between his time and the Refor-
mation, while Christendom was governed by the
Roman Emperors, and after it was divided into
separate states, founded their regard for the day
entirely upon what iiad been done by the Chris-
tians under the heathen emperors. Most of the

306 Supposed Aul hority of Man

Reformers, too, if not all of them, consider the
practice of the primitive Church as the sole
ground of the first day's claim; affirming at the
same time that the sanctification of it is optional,
and that the Church has authority to transfer the
weekly sabbath to a different day, or to have two
in a week instead of one, if it pleases. The
later writers, those in England at least, such as
Bishop White* Dr. Wailis, and Mr. Morer, do
for the first time urge in favour of observing the
first day the passages in the New Testament that
have been considered, but show themselves suf-
ficiently distrustful of this evidence to make it
appear that they rely chiefly upon the practice of
the primitive Church; admitting that what they
say concerning Christ's authority and apostolic
tradition in support of the first day's claim is
only conjecture, though they think it probable.

However, therefore, it may have been thought
by the Puritans, and some of their cotemporaries,
or may be still thought by many pious individu-
als both in and out of the Establishment, that the
obligation to keep the first day chiefly stands
upon the ground of Scripture, I am persuaded
that the civil power rests it chiefly on the same
ground on which it retains certain fasts and feasts
that were observed in the primitive Church.
Nor do I wish to dispute the right of human au-
thority thus to exercise itself. On the contrary.

to institute a Weekly Sabbath, 307

I have already expressed my full conviction of its
perfect consistency with Scripture, as well as
with reason. A nation has undoubtedly a right,
as well as any particular society, or an indivi-
dual, to keep any day and as many days as it
thinks proper or convenient, though not to dis-
pense with its own observance of any day which
it may think to be enjoined in Scripture, or to
forbid its observance by any of its subjects who
may think so.

But it may be asked, Has the nation a right,
with the provisos just stated, to impose the day
or days it accounts sacred, whether upon Scrip-
tural considerations or otherwise, upon individu-
als in it who think differently of them, and who
conceive themselves to be required by the Deity
to consecrate a different day weekly ? Here it
will be necessary for me to distinguish between
one case and another. Were the laws relative to
Good Friday or Christmas-day, for instance, to
order an extent of observance, though annually,
and not weekly, as great as that which it requires
on the first day, those of the community who do
not belong to the Establishment, might perhaps
think them rather unreasonable. If they were
to do so, I, however, though a Protestant Dissen-
ter, should think myself bound to obey them, so
far as relates to abstinence from public business.
Happily, they enjoin little more upon the people

308 Supposed Authority of Mart

than abstinence from business of that sort oil
those days, and that chiefly during the time of
divine service. With these restrictions it is the
duty of all to comply, whatever their private
opinions may be about the sacredness of the days
detached from the events commemorated ori
them, since the loss or inconvenience is not
greater to one than it is to another.

But the chief point for discussion, is the right
of the nation to impose the observance of the day
it consecrates weekly, on any who may happen
to think themselves called upon by Scripture to
keep another day. Here I am obliged to make
an important distinction between that degree of
sanctiflcation which human authority proposes
or has power to enforce, and that regard which
the Scriptures mean when they speak of sancti-
fying the sabbath day. The nation confines the
idea (so far as relates to enactment, whatever it
may recommend) of keeping the day to the
showing it respect in public, or at furthest in
the external conduct. The Scriptures, howe-
ver, require the observance of it likewise in pri-
vate, and in the thoughts ; in conversation, as
well as in the actions ; in the wakeful hours of
night, as well as in the day-time. The laws of
man could not take notice of, or enforce by the
exaction of penalties, a sanctiflcation of this ex-
tent, even if they had a right to impose it«

to institute a Weekly Sabbath. 309

Without, however, such a sanctification, in my
opinion, (and the pious in general, in this country
at least, agree with me,) there is, according to
the Scripture, no sabbath kept ; notwithstanding
the day that is merely sanctified according to the
requisition of human laws, and their power of
enforcement, may be called by that name, and
notwithstanding no other except that may be
sanctified weekly by it at all. There are, indeed,
numbers belonging to the Established Church,
and to other religious bodies, who sanctify the
first day Scripturally, and not merely so far as
to satisfy the laws : but they act upon the idea
of human authority enforcing divine authority.
They think either that the national day of rest
coincides with the Scriptural one, or at least
that the Scriptures, contenting themselves with
enjoining one day in seven, have invested the
legislature and the government of every coun-
try with authority to determine the day. They
cannot, therefore, do otherwise, consistently
with their principles, than annex the additions
made by Revelation to the enactments of the
civil power respecting sanctification. They are
not urged to the opposite conduct by the calls of
secular duty ; as conscience does not compel
them to abstain from it on another day. But this
Scriptural enlargement and completion of civil
tanctification cannot be expected from those who,

Supposed Authority of Man

though equally unable to plead the sacrifice of
interest on a former day, do not believe that there
is any weekly sabbath by divine authority, whe-
ther exercised by God himself, or delegated by
him, in this particular instance, to the state ; and
of these I suspect that the number is far from
inconsiderable, even among the pious themselves :
though they doubt not the repeal of the old sab-
bath, they by no means feel satisfied that the
divinity of a new one, whether generally or
particularly, is sufficiently proved. Least of all
can it be justly thought that the Sabbatarian,
who has already, agreeably to the conviction of
his own mind} sanctified, in obedience to the
Fourth Commandment, the seventh day which
God has appointed, will on another day refrain
from worldly thoughts, reading, discourse, or
actions, further than the laws of the country
profess to take cognizance of, and to enforce.

t feel confident that in thus denying to the
civil magistrate, respecting the weekly sabbath,
the right and power of Him who alone ' sees in
secret and searches the hearts of the children of
men/ I shall only appear to withhold from him
an authority which he never thought of claiming.
With respect to my pious brethren of every de-
scription who think differently from me concern-
ing the day that is the Scriptural sabbath, they
eaunot reasonably wonder or take offence, that I

to institute a Weekly Sabbath. 311

Will not, in my meditations, studies, private pur-
suits, and conversation, sanctify a day which it
does not appear to me that God has sanctified,
any further than is compatible with my secular
duties ; or that I do not in my habitation, retire-
ment, and secret thoughts, treat the first day
with more religions respect than they show to
the day called Saturday.

What I have further to remark, will, I hope, be
received with warm approbation by every mem-
ber of the community, whether a ruler or a subject,
that hears of it. I have already intimated the
hardship under which the Sabbatarians labour,
who are reduced to the necessity either of violat-
ing their consciences, or of working only five days
in the week instead of six — a liberty which is al-
lowed by the Fourth Commandment, and en-
joined by their fellow Christians of every name.
This is a grievance which persons who acknow-
ledge no Scriptural sabbath at all, or at least no
day determined by Scripture, have by no means
an equal right to complain of: for though they
are restrained on the first day from secular la-
bour, when they could exercise it without scru-
ple so far as relates to their own consciences, yet
they do not lose more time in a week than the
rest of the nation. But this is not the case of the
Sabbatarians. Notwithstanding this, while the
Legislature thinks proper to extend the restrict

312 Supposed Authority of Man

tion to them, they will always think it their duty
to be subject to the magistrate in this particular
as well as in others, not only for f wrath sake/ or
to avoid his displeasure and vengeance, but also
for * conscience sake/*

Having premised these observations, I proceed
to avow my full conviction that the degree of
sanctification which the civil power requires for
the first day, under pain of civil penalties, is no
more than it has a right to exact, and that it is
the incumbent duty of all its subjects to grant it.
Lawful, therefore, as secular pursuits on the first
day are for me in a conscientious view, I engage
in none that would offend the eye or the ear
of a first day observer. I converse on no topic,
I transact no business with him, which he would
decline were I not present. I will not, indeed,
promise to accompany him to a place of public
worship as regularly and statedly as I frequent it
on the day I keep holy. Whatever the laws of
the country may recommend or wish me to do in

* The non-observance of Sunday, however, according to
taw, is a civil offence: it is an offence against God only in
common with other civil offences, except the offender believes
the day to be the Scriptural sabbath, or does not know to the
contrary for want of searching the Scriptures. In these two
cases alone can he be guilty of the sin of sabbath-break-

to institute a Weekly Sabbath, 313

this respect, they do not enjoin this upon any
one since the era of civil and religious liberty.
But I can truly say, that when I have occasional-
ly visited a pious first-day family on the first day,
I have repeatedly gone with them to their church
or to their meeting house; that I have conversed
with no member of the family, whether young or
old, but upon subjects that either were religious
in themselves, or at least received a religious im-
provement 5 and that when called upon to take
the lead in family prayer, I have poured out my
heart before God as fervently for the people and
ministers who keep the first day, as ever I did for
the Sabbatarians. Often have I preached on the
first day, in the course of the day and in the even-
ing too, as the apostle Paul did once to the dis-
ciples at Troas, though it never once entered into
my mind that in doing this I was giving a pledge
that I kept the day myself and expected that
every one else would do the same : and though 1
never * broke bread' with the disciples as Paul did
at the time just referred to, yet 1 have no objec-
tion to partake of the Lord's supper with baptized
believers on the first day or on any other day, if
they will allow me, and I can spare the time.
Nor do I object to comply with the apostle's
contingent and temporary injunction on some of
the churches, being ready on the first day, as
well as on another, to devote what I can spare of

314 Supposed Authority of Man

my property for a religious or benevolent purpose,
though it would probably be attended, in my case,
with an act which my pious brethren of the first
day would perhaps not approve of, notwithstand-
ing it seems naturally if not necessarily immedi-
ately to precede the other, and respecting which
there is nothing prohibitory or cautionary in the
apostolic injunction. Certainly I do not call the
first day c Lord's day' as those do in general who
keep it ; because if I believed the words Rev. 1.
10. to be the apostle John's words, (which I do
not,) and if they do not refer to the last day of the
week, which is the only day stated in the New
Testament to be sacred, I know not what day is
meant by the expression, whether it be Sunday,
Thursday, or Friday, or whether it be a week-day
or the day of a month ; and if I did, I know not
whether the whole of the day was to be kept like
a sabbath, or only a part, like a religious festival,
or a thanksgiving day ; or whether, in fine, it was
merely a new appellation given to it in honour of
the great and happy event which is commonly
thought to have given occasion for it. But not-
withstanding these objections, 1 would call the
first day 'Lord's day,' instead of Sunday, if
the Legislature were to pass an act to that ef-
fect.

Whomsoever else, therefore, the respectable
* Society for the Reformation of Manners' may

to institute a Weekly Sabbath. 3J5

think it their duty to prosecute for profaning the
< Lord's day,' I suppose that they would not con-
sider me and my Sabbatarian brethren who think
and act with me (if they should ever hear of us)
obnoxious on that account.

I hope 1 have fully redeemed the pledge I
gave for the truth of my assertion, that though
I cannot consider any day as sacred, except
that which it appears to me is enjoined by the
Fourth Commandment, much less consent to sub-
stitute another for it, yet there is nothing in my
sentiment or practice that is at all inconsistent
with the obedience I owe to the laws of my coun-
try. I should not wonder, indeed, if those of the
observers of the first day who are most anxious to
secure and to promote its sanctification, having
become acquainted with the statement just made,
were to wish that there were no worse profaners
of the national day among the people who ac-
knowledge its divine authority, than there are
among the Sabbatarians.

Still my pious opponents will be apt to tell me,
that though I take care not to offend the laws, yet
my way of thinking puts it out of my power to
make those exertions, both by precept and exam-
ple, in the cause of religion and benevolence,
which I might make, were ihe day 1 keep the
same as that which is kept by the nation. I ac-
knowledge the fact, and lament it : but I must

316 Supposed Authority of Man

not do evil that good may come, in a religious
any more than in a civil view, for the benefit of
others any more than for my own. 1 could wish,
if it pleased God, that it suited a greater number
of people to come and hear me, when it suits me
to preach : but though more extended means of
doing good have been hitherto withheld from
me, I endeavour to embrace every opportunity
of promoting the cause of the Redeemer, and the
best interests of men, both high and low, whatever
day it be ; and especially on the day whicli fur-
nishes me with the best excuse for speaking on a
subject that is unhappily not popular, and them
with the most leisure for hearing ; and though I
have comparatively but few opportunities for
< teaching publicly and from house to house' on
the first day, would the labours of the preceding
day admit of my doing this frequently, yet I
have written many a line on that day, which I
hope, having issued from the press, may, with the
divine blessing, be of service to the souls both of
c the wise and of the unwise.'

After these explanations, it will not be very
difficult for me *o reconcile my way of thinking
relative to the weekly sabbath with the will of the
Legislature on that point. The civil and spiritual
interests of mankind require that there should be
a weekly sabbath, or God would not have ap-
pointed one. But as there is a diversity of senti-

to institute a Weekly Sabbath. 317

ment concerning the day appointed by Scripture
for consecration, it is perhaps necessary for se-
curing both these ends, and for general conveni-
ence, that public authority should interfere in the
way it does; and it is highly proper that its
enactments should be obeyed by all classes of
people, whatever may be the opinions of indivi-
duals on the question. If permitting the Sabba-
tarians to work six days be thought materially
incompatible with decorum, and with the dignity
and the solemnity of public appearance on the
first day, or if the rigid and universal observa-
tion of these be thought essential to the attain-
ment of the important ends proposed, be it so.*
But any further interference on the part of the
country is neither possible, nor wanted for the ge-
neral convenience, or for the civil and the spiritual
interests of its inhabitants. Its sense of Scripture
cannot dictate a sense of it to those who are con-
trary minded. It cannot supersede the sense of
Scripture that is in the mind of any of its sub-
jects, or dispense with obedience to that which
may appear to be a divine law, either in the case
of another, or even its own. It can, in short,
plead no authority from Scripture to appoint a

* Supposing the law to have appointed the seventh day
instead of the first, what would the observer of the latter
think of a similar restraint ?

318 Supposed Authority, S?c.

sabbath binding upon conscience ; or show the
credibility of its possessing a right to enact an ex-
tent of sanctification of which it can take no cog-
nizance, and which consequently it cannot en-
force.

The sanctification of a day of which a nation
can take cognizance, and which it is able to en-
force, though it by no means amounts to Scrip-
tural sanctification, is amply sufficient for all the
civil, moral, and religious purposes for which the
right of constituting a national sabbath is claimed
for the civil power ; and the Sabbatarian will
cheerfully forward its views to the extent I have
before stated, while at the same time he withholds
from the first day that private and mental regard
which he thinks are due only to the seventh
day, and which conscience obliges him to pay
to it, even if he has no means of worshipping
God in public, in opposition to all worldly and
religious disadvantages whatsoever.

319

CHAPTER XII.

Differences of Opinion concerning the Import'
ance of the Grounds on which Sanctification is
claimed for a Day as the Weekly Sabbath, and
its obtaining that Sanctification,

There have been many excellent pieces written
by pious observers of the first day in this coun-
try, both Churchmen and Dissenters, concerning
the mode in which the weekly sabbath ought to
be sanctified. I most cordially agree with them
in their ideas on this subject ; and can truly say,
that it is my desire and aim thus to keep the day
which, I believe, the Blessed God has set apart
for sanctification. $

With respect to the first day, it is easy to see
that the efforts of the writers just alluded to to
get it sanctified in the manner in which the
Scriptures direct the sabbath to be kept, are cal-
culated to succeed with those only who admit the
first day to be the Scriptural sabbath . That indeed
seems to be the case of all who profess the Chris-
tian religion — except the few whose sentiments on
the subject accord with my own. Nothing more,
therefore, seems necessary to be done by the re-
prover or admonisher who wishes to extend the
sanctification of the first day beyond what the

320 Connexion between the Grounds, ftc.

civil power proposes, or is even able to effect,
than to point out the defects and faults with which
too many are chargeable relative to sanctifying
the day they acknowledge to be the sabbath, to
paint in the strongest colours the heinous sin of
sabbath-breaking — and if they cannot allure them
by representing the pleasures and advantages of
real religion both here and hereafter, at least to
aim at working on their fears, by menacing them
with the awful judgments of God upon them
for their profanity.

But I wish to ask whether these means, suita-
ble as they appear to be to the end, are, when
used, (as they frequently have been,) in a consi-
derable degree, if at all, successful ? If they are
not, (as the answer will possibly be,) is the failure
to be ascribed wholly to the obduracy of the of-
fenders and to the power of temptation, or in part
at least to the deficiency of the means themselves ?
Should not the very proper address made to the
understanding and to the passions just stated, be
accompanied by a powerful appeal to the judg-
ment, respecting the nature and the adequacy of
the evidence by which the day that so loudly calls
for sanctification is proved to be the Scriptural
sabbath ? It may be said that there is no occasion
to prove that which is admitted to be true, and
that an attempt to remove doubts where none ex-
ist, is the ready way to produce them. This ac*

Connexion between the Grounds, #c. 321

quiescence; however, on their part, may be owing
to carelessness, obsequiousness, and credulity, ra-
ther than to knowledge and conviction ; and
though it may be as operative in the former case
as in the latter on the practice, when unopposed
by inclination or interest, yet where it is so
strongly opposed by them as in the instance of
not keeping the sabbath, the acquiescence will
produce no effect at all, if it does not receive sup-
port and strength from arguments tending to
evince its justice. The divinity of the Scrip-
tures is admitted and unimproved by multitudes.
If, however, any of this description were to be
warned to < flee for refuge from the wrath to
come to the hope set before them in the gospel,'
they would soon ask, c What sign' do the Scrip-
tures 'show, that we may see and believe V To
this question, (which, when put with a serious
view to information and spiritual improvement, is
not unreasonable,) a solid answer must be re-
turned, if it be wished that the result, with the
blessing of God, should be happy. The like, I
imagine, must be done in the case of the man
who does not sanctify the first day, though he
does not openly question whether it be the sabbath
by divine appointment.

I shall now suppose that enough has been said
to show the propriety and importance of stating
clearly and strongly, though briefly, the evidence
p2

322 Connexion between the Grounds, S?c.

of the day's being the Scriptural sabbath for
which sanctiiication is claimed, notwithstanding
the general acquiescence of the country in the
justice of the claim. Let the advocate for it ad-
vert to this evidence, as well from Scripture as
from other quarters, and to the tendency of its
different parts to produce the sanctification in
question. The following enumeration will, I be-
lieve, comprehend them : the great and good
events that happened on the first day — particu-
larly that of our Lord's resurr ection ; the reli-
gious acts performed by the apostle Paul, in con-
junction with the disciples at Troas, on that day,
and his injunction relative to it ; the appellation
of Lord's day in the Revelatio n ; the encom iums
of the ancient Fathers and Councils on it, and
their recommendations of it both by precept and
example, as highly proper for a festival ; the so-
lemn opinions of learned and pious men among
the moderns in favour of its sanctity ; the observ-
ance of it by Christendom in general, particularly
since the beginning of the f ourth century ; the
reasonableness, utility, and necessity, of the na-
tion's appointing a weekly sabbath, and its hav-
ing appointed that, as well as the seventh day.
and enforced its enactment by penalties; and,
finally, the first day's coincidence with the se-
venth part of time as well as the seventh day,
which day was ordered by the Divine Being to

Connexion between the Grounds, S?c. 323

be sanctified, both at the close of the creation,
and in the Fourth Commandment.

These are, I believe, the principal, if not all
the arguments adduced in favour of the first
day's claim to sanctification ; and some, if not
all of them, have been brought forward by each
advocate in modern times for its sanctification,
though for the most part not so distinctly, fully,
and forcibly, as 1 think the case required. But
let me proceed with their natural bearing on the
minds of the profane.

Of the arguments just enumerated, those that
are least likely to impress the thinking as well as
the irreligious, are the sentiments and exhortations
of wise and pious writers of the two last centuries.
With all their wisdom and piety, they were not
more infallible than the persons whom they ad-
dressed. Some of them, indeed, filled high
offices in the Church, and in those oftices were
eminently honourable and useful : but the vene-
ration attaching to their characters does not enti-
tle them to implicit credit ; and their authority as
spiritual pastors of a superior order is adapted
to influence those only who acknowledge it.
The proofs from Scripture produced by such
men are entitled to peculiar care in examining
them, but not to reception . without examina-
tion.

The plea for the first day founded on the opi-

324 Connexion between the Grounds, <Src.

nions and practice of the ancient Fathers and
Councils, derives its chief strength from their
antiq uity, and from their proximity to the aposto-
lic age. But the plea is more fit for a Roman Ca-
tholic than for a Protestant. It sounds strange in
the ears of one who professes the Bible to be his
religion, to be referred to Tradition, to Fathers,
and to Councils, for any part of his religious faith
or practice. The Fathers were men of sense and
learning ; but in general they indulged their fancies
more than they exercised their intellectual pow-
ers. They excelled in rhetoric more than in lo-
gic. They were good men rather than great men,
and are more entitled to our esteem as martyrs
for divine truth, than as searche rs into it. They
knew better how to enforce the Scriptures than
how to explain or defend them, and will answer
our purpose much better as exampjes in practice,
than as guide s in theory.

The judgment of such men would not be very
valuable concerning the sense of Holy Writ on the
subject in question, were it professed to be found-
ed on Scripture, and decidedly in favour of sanc-
tifying Sunday exclusively and wholly. How
much less must it answer the purpose for which
it is brought forward, when it as strongly recom-
mends and enjoins the seventh day as it does the
first ; when its language relative to the first im-
plies only that a part should be kept ; and when

Connexion between the Grounds, Sec, 325

it never appeals to Scriptural authority even for
this partial sanctification !

The united sentiments and conduct of Chris-
tians in general on behalf of Sunday for so many
centuries, and those of real Christians also, di-
vided as they have been in opinion on a variety
of other topics, are certainly calculated to make a
deep impression upon 'the many,' who are apt to
think more of a custom's existence, continuance,
and widely-extended reception, than of the causes
to which it owes its origin and prevalence. It is
no new thing for human tradition, when made of
equal authority with the divine law, at length to
supersede it. By observing the first day as well
as the seventh, the Christians in the first ages
stood a better chance of not being mistaken for
Jews in the persecution every where raised
against the latter, than if they had kept the se-
venth day alone. No one can justly think it any
great recommendation of the first day that Rome
and Alexandria should have constantly kept it
exclusively, or that they should in a course of
time influence the other cities of the Roman
Empire to do the same, when he recollects, that
neither a great, wealthy, and splendid metropo-
lis, nor a distinguished seat of learning, is the
best place in the world for preserving or propa-
gating religion in its purity.

But that which completed the triumph of the

326 Connexion between the Grounds, #c.

first day through the whole civilized world on its
becoming Christian, was, the edicts of Constan-
tine and his successors, in conjunction with the
decrees of Councils, which ordered the observ-
ance of the first day; from which time its f< sister/
though hitherto regarded almost as extensively as
itself,* suddenly disappeared, and was never more
heard of, in Europe at least, till the era of the
Reformation.

Can the general concurrence of Christians in
favour of the first day, obtained by the same
means by which it was obtained for the errors
and superstitions of Popeiy, render its claim
to sanctification unquestionable ? Ought their
tame acquiescence in the justice of this claim
during the blindness and torpor of the dark ages

* So it has been generally supposed: but in reality it disap-
peared, as already shown, very gradually. Beside the sacred
regard mentioned in a former note to have been paid for many
centuries (and which perhaps is still paid) to the seventh day
in the Latin and Greek Churches, Mr. Robinson, in his * His-
tory of Baptism/ speaks of a sect of l Jewish Christians'
among the Waldenses : and Mosheim speak* of a similar sect
among them in the 12th century. Benedict, (an American,)
in his ' History of the Baptists/ vol. ii. p. 414, speaks of
Seventh-day Baptists in Transylvania when Sigismund was
king — I suppose in the 14th century. Dr. Buchanan, in his
1 Researches/ p. 158, 160. speaks of the Armenian Christians
as observing the seventh day as their sabbath.

Connexion between the Grounds, &>c. 327

■ — an acquiescence which began to be power-
fully attacked as soon as ever the corruptions of
that period were attacked, and that with con-
siderable success in the course of the two late
centuries — to go by the respectable appellation
of rational conviction ? Or can it reasonably cre-
ate surprise, that public opinion should be more
reluctant to seek after and to comply with divine
truth in a minor point, than in an essential of re-
ligion — especially when a sentiment or practice
that has long and generally prevailed not only
holds out the most flattering lures to its adhe-
rents, but threatens those who quit it with the
most serious inconveniences ?

Were it, therefore, less certain than it is, that
the purit y of a fountain cannot always be inferred
from the length of the stream issuing from it, nor
the excellent q ualit y of the water from its abun-
dance, there is too much reason to suspect that
the general concurrence of fallible and imperfect
beings, (however worthy the character or consi-
derable the talents of many of them may be,) in
the case of the day observed by them as the Scrip-
tural sabbath, is not so unquestionably the result
of a careful, diligent, and impartial examination of
the word of God on the subject, as to exempt any
one from the obligation to search it each one for
himself.

The necessity for keeping some day or ano-

328 Connexion between the Grounds, S?c.

ther in a week, for civil, moral, and religious
purposes, and of a nation's fixing on the day
for the general convenience, and the enforcing
its observance by civil penalties, is certainly
an argument of weight for any enactment of
the kind referred to short of instituting a sab-
bath. But it is evident that a nation cannot se-
cure for any day that private and mental regard,
without which, whatever external and public
respect is shown to it, it does not receive the
sanctification which, according to the Scriptures,
is due to a sabbath; even if such an extensive
sanctification were necessary (which is not the
case) to the attainment of the great and good
ends proposed by the act of the Legislature in
question. The day never can present itself with
divine authority to the mind, except when it
either coincides with the Scriptural day, or can
plead a Scriptural commission given to the civil
power for that purpose; and the decision of these
questions must be left to each individual for the
regulation of his own conduct in secret. In the
real sanctification, therefore, of a day by the sub-
ject, the nation can only act a part subordinate to
his conscience at most ; and when his conscience
does interest itself at all, or differs in opinion
concerning the Scriptural sabbath from the na-
tion, all the country can justly claim, and in
fact all that it thinks of claiming, is the exter-

Connexion between the Grounds, fyc. 329

nal and public observance of the day which it
has appointed, so far as relates to secular busi-
ness or pleasure.

If the sanctification which is claimed for the
first day were placed only upon such grounds as
have hitherto been mentioned, whatever species
of guilt the withholdment of that part of it which
alone man can take cognizance of and punish may
come under, I do not see how it can be proved to
be profane and impious, as those sins are which
are committed immediately against God — such as
is a breach of any one of the three first com-
mandments. In the case supposed, that is, of
a person who, after proper inquiry, thinks
either that there is no Scriptural sabbath, or
that the first day is not that sabbath, he that
merely does not keep the day privately and men-
tally, is not guilty of an offence at all. In act-
ing contrary to a human law relative to the pub-
lic observance of the day, he does commit an of-
fence — a high offence if you will ; for he not only
disobeys the civil power in a case where it is
exercised lawfully, which is itself a public inju-
ry, and a 'resisting the ordinance of God,' but
he disobeys it in a case which the Legislature
thinks is highly important to the temporal and
spiritual welfare of the subjects at large. But
whether the offence would equal in enormity and
atrocity the sin of sabbath-breaking, or expose

330 Connexion between the Grounds, fyc.

the delinquent to the peculiar vengeance of Hea-
ven both in this world and the world to come, as
that sin is conceived to do, is another affair. The
requisitions of the civil power relative to religion
are not all sanctioned by Inspiration, as they were
among the Jews, under their prophets. A civil
offence, even in an affair of religion, may not be
an offence committed immediately against God,
more than another offence. Supposing the first
day to depend for its claim to sanctification on no
other grounds than those already stated, the secu-
larization of it by business or pleasure is a crime
to be ranked rather with the violation of the reli-
gious fasts and feasts that are also (and have
equally been so for ages) appointed by the coun-
try for the moral and spiritual improvement of its
inhabitants, than with the violation of the Fourth
Commandment under the former dispensation.

In order, therefore, to fix, with justice, the in-
famous stigma of profanity and of sabbath-break-
ing on the non-observance of the first day accord-
ing to law, and to prove the offender's exposure
to divine vengeance, it will be necessary to men-
tion the arguments hitherto produced for it only
as secondary, and subsidiary to reasons of an infi-
nitely higher nature. The divide authority of its
claim to sanctification from Scripture ought to be
chiefly insisted upon and proved by every speak-
er or writer who would address the non-observers

Connexion between the Grounds, fyc. 331

of it on the atrocity and peculiar danger of their
conduct with justice and effect. It is not enough
for them to say that men of piety and learning in
general — that (he ancient Fathers — that the Chris-
tian world at large— and that the laws of the
country, account the day to be sacred : they must
show also that the sentiment and practice in ques-
tion are founded in Scripture, and that they are
totally different from the errors and corruptions
that were introduced into the Christian religion
soon after, if not during the time of the apostles,
and which were by no means wholly separated
from it at the Reformation. They must show
that the obedience due to the state respecting the
observance of Sunday, is enjoined upon the peo-
ple whom they address by an authority infinitely
more awful than Miat of human laws. They must
not only call Sunday the weekly sabbath, but
prove from the Scriptures that it is so, and endea-
vour to move and influence the minds of men not
merely by solemnity of manner, but by the
weight of matter ; not by dogmatical assertion,
but by incontrovertible reasoning.

Whether the arguments generally adduced
from Scripture to prove that the obligation to
keep the first day is clothed with divine authority
are sufficient, will best appear by looking back to
that part of this Work in which the question is
discussed. The great and good event of our

332 Connexion between the Grounds, S?c.

Lord's resurrection happened on the first day,
and he met with his disciples once, or perhaps
twice, on it; but how do these circumstances
make or prove the first day a weekly sabbath,
more than his meeting with his disciples, his
blessing them, his ascending, and his being exalt-
ed, on Thursday, make or prove that to be one ?
No inspired writer intimates that the day was on
these accounts henceforth to be called ' Lord's
day,' or to be treated as sacred either in whole or
in part.* — Were it necessary to show that it was
lawful for Christians to meet together for the pur-
pose of ' breaking bread,' (supposing the phrase
to mean celebrating the Lord's Supper,) the ex-
ample of the disciples and of the apostle Paul at
Troas is certainly adequate to the purpose ; but
if the object be to show, not the lawfulness of
these^acts, but the incumbent duty of performing
them on the first day, on account of its being the
weekly sabbath, where is the proof that the disci-
ples and the apostle considered the day in that
light, or that this was the reason of their assem-

* The creation, that occupied the six first days of the first
week, was a work sufficiently great and good to justify the
Divine Being's appointing the next day, on which he rested
from it, the weekly sabbath. But without notice of that ap-
pointment, no one would have been warranted in concluding
that it was to be so considered and applied, or would ever
have thought of doing so.

Connexion between the Grounds, Src, 333

bling and acting on it as they did ? The acts
themselves imply no such thing.

The private act of pious benevolence which
the apostle Paul enjoins on Sunday (1 Cor. 16.
1, 2.) on certain churches during a certain period,
was under the necessity of being performed either
after terminating the secular labours of one week,
or before the commencing the labours of another
week. Had the order been given for Friday,
would that have proved Friday to be the weekly
sabbath ? If not, why should its being given for
the first day, prove that to be a sabbath ? There
is no hint given here, any more than in Acts 20. 7.,
that the act enjoined on the first day was on ac-
count of its being the sabbath ; nor can the act
itself prove it. Indeed the secular act requisite
to it, and which is not forbidden immediately
to precede it, (as it was natural for it to do,)
is not very suitable to a sabbath. The selec-
tion of the same day for this temporary though
weekly act, as that on which the meeting at Troas
was held, cannot make or prove it to be the week-
ly sabbath, without notice from Inspiration to
that effect. No other day except the seventh
day had at the time its appropriate name ; and a
day that had this advantage was fitter for a cir-
cular, like the order in question, than one that
could not be designated but by a circumlocution.
The seventh day, if still the sabbath, would not

334 Connexion between the Grounds, fyc.

have been fit for such an act, on account of the
act before mentioned that necessarily preceded
it.*

These private sequestrations were enjoined, as
before noticed, only on some churches, were to
answer a temporary purpose, and would not have
been heard of, (and of course not the day on
which they were to take place,) had it not been
for the contingent occasion. The meeting, too,
at Troas, is not stated to have been ever repeated,
and would likewise probably not have been heard
of, had it not been for the affair of Eutychus.
Would these incidents have been recorded thus
indirectly, and have been thus exposed to the
hazard of omission, had they been intended to
announce a new institution, never before glanced
at ? They however imply no such thing.

The circumstances that distinguish Sunday
from Thursday or Friday, are not great and good
events happening upon it, or Christ's meeting

* The apostle's sole object seems to have been to secure
the weekly performance of this private act. Provided the se-
questration took place weekly, for aught that appears it made
no difference to him on which day it took place. He only
named a day, lest that which might be done any day, should
not be done at all. Proper as the act itself, detached from
its preceding adjunct, was for a sabbath, it is less calculated
to assist in proving the consecration of a day than any other,
because it is so very common on any day. ,

Connexion between the Grounds, fyc. 335

with or blessing his disciples upon it, or the per-
formance of religious acts, even that of 'breaking
bread,' upon it. [Acts 2. 46.] The distinctions
are, that the first day is named, and that it was
appointed for a private act of pious benevolence
to be performed by some churches, and which
might possibly be repeated for several weeks.
As to the first day's being named, it alone had a
name, (except the seventh day,) it being conve-
nient that it should have one for stating the day
of the resurrection, which there was frequent oc-
casion to mention, without a circumlocution. Its
having a name, too, fitted it for the circular,
1 Cor. 16. 1,2. The nature of the act enjoined
confined it to the first or the seventh day. It is not
very extraordinary that the same day in different
weeks should have different religknis acts per-
formed upon it for a while. The act enjoined
was the least calculated of any to convey the idea
of a sabbath respecting the day of performance.
At most it would occupy only a few minutes j and
it does not follow, from the evening of the Sunday
being spent in public devotion at Troas, that
there was public devotion every Sunday in other
churches, and much less that the day was de-
voted to religion, and that weekly.

The pious acts performed, according to Acts
20. 7. and 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. occupied only a small
part of the different first days to which they re-

336 Connexion between the Grounds, fyc.

late. Neither an order to sanctify the day, nor
any other mode, is employed, that indicates the
observance of the whole day. The expression,
therefore, ' Lord's day,' Rev. 1. 10. (supposing it
to be written by the apostle John, and to mean a
day the whole of which was sacred,) whatever
day it refers to, cannot by any fair rule of inter-
pretation be referred to the first day. Indeed I
know of no day to which, taken in its connexion
with the rest of the New Testament, it can be
justly applied, except to the seventh day, as was
said before more at large.

For the reasons just given, I must consider the
arguments in favour of the first day's claim to
sanctification drawn from the New Testament,
taken separately, as mere ciphers ; and, as I have
observed before, a number of ciphers put together,
were they ever so many, will amount only to no-
thing, except there be a significant figure on the
proper side of them. How totally void of weight
do they appear, compared with those which sup-
port the divine institutions of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper! Their insufficiency is owned by
King Charles the First, and by some of the great-
est divines both here and abroad. The perpetu-
ity of these institutions beyond the apostolic age
has been questioned, and supported by much the
same means as that of the seventh day sabbath
is, namely, their reason and utility remaining the

Connexion between the Grounds, &c. 337

same, and the want of Scriptural notice to the
contrary : but the fact of their institution has ne-
ver been questioned.

The appeals made in favour of the same day to
the Old Testament, amount at most only to a
proof that the first day, had it been instituted in
the New Testament, would not have been unlike
the former institution in one particular, being
equally a seventh part of time as much as the se-
venth day. But the Old Testament certainly
does not institute the first day; and therefore if it
be instituted by divine authority, it must be in-
stituted in the New Testament, and must derive
its claim to sanctifi cation solely from that institu-
tion, and not from the sanctification enjoined in
the Old Testament relative to another day. The
institution in Genesis 2. 2, 3. plainly means the
last day of the week, and no other. The Fourth
Commandment likewise refers to the last day of
the week exclusively ; so it was always under-
stood to mean before our Lord's resurrection.
* Whether this summary of the proofs from Scrip-
ture of the alleged right of the first day to sancti-
fication, when laid before those who follow their
worldly business and pleasures on the day, will
be likely to convince them that they ought not
only to keep it as much as the laws require, but
even to sanctify it in the sense of Scripture, or
that their violation of the laws contains in it the
Q

338 Connexion between the Grounds, fyc.

heinousness and incurs the danger of the sin of
sabbath-breaking, I must leave others to judge.
It will be said by some, perhaps, that by exciting
doubts in minds where there were none, and
furnishing with objections and arguments people
who had none before, 1 have been encouraging
them in transgressing the laws relative to Sunday,
instead of promoting obedience to them as I pro-
fess to do. But, in my opinion, to keep persons
ignorant of the grounds of duty is not the way to
enforce the practice of it ; nor is it the way to
secure or obtain for Sunday its just right, to de-
mand for it more than it has a right to. I am
not conscious to myself that I have been i walk-
ing in craftiness,' or < handling the word of God
deceitfully :' on the contrary, by manifestation of
what 1 verily believe to be * the truth,' I have
been 6 commending myself to every man's con-
science in the sight of God.' As a Protestant, 1
regard the maxim that < ignorance is the mother
of devotion,' as no less degrading to human na-
ture, servile, and temporary in its operation, than
it is absurd, impious, and calculated only to ren-
der men formalists and hypocrites. The expedi-
ent of addressing thoughtlessness, sloth, implicit
faith, and the passions, without enlightening the
understanding and convincing the judgment, has
been tried long enough, in the hope of producing
a regard for Sunday according to law. As that

Connexion between the Grounds^ S?c. 339

Las failed, let the expedient of addressing reason
out of the Scriptures be tried. The disregard la-
mented by the pious claimants of sanctification
for the first day may be more generally owing to
want of conviction that it has a right to it, than is
commonly imagined.

Once more I repeat, that I have no doubt of
the right of Sunday to regard, so far as the law
can enforce regard, or in fact claim it. But 1
must be allowed to say, that could its right to
Scriptural sanctification be proved, that would
tend infinitely to strengthen and give effect to the
national enactment. What 1 think of the Scrip-
tural claim has been already stated at large. How
incomparably superior to it is the ground, in my
opinion, on which the claim of the seventh day to
be kept holy by Christians stands. Its claim rests
upon the ground of the institution in Paradise, and
repeated in the Fourth Commandment, which is
allowed by its opponents still to continue in force,
though that could not be were the seventh day re-
pealed. The glorious work of the creation, the
rest after which is the only cause assigned to man-
kind for its institution, and which is the primary
and chief cause of its being given a second time
with the rest of the Decalogue to the Jews in
particular, still continues in being ; and as much
concerns the moderns as the ancients, the rest of
the world as it does the Jews, the Christian dis-

340 Connexion between the Grounds, fyc.

pensation as it did the two former dispensations.
It has no other memorial except the seventh day,
whereas the work of redemption has two; and
that day is as fully competent to any purpose for
which the first day is ever applied, as the first or
any other day can be. The want of records con-
cerning the actual observance of it by the ancient
Patriarchs and Gentiles cannot disprove the fact
of its existence, and of their obligation to keep it,
even if Mr. Wright, Dr. Jennings, and Dr. Rees,
in his Encyclopaedia, under the word c Week,'
did not produce a variety of authors both before
and since the time of Christ in support of their
regarding it in one way or in another. The re-
peal of it cannot be proved by any text which
will not fairly bear another sense, and which will
not, if taken literally, do away all sabbaths as
well as the seventh day sabbath. There is no
proof of the day having ever been secularized by
an apostle or by the first Christians ; on the con-
trary, there is proof that pious acts were performed
on it by Christians as Christians, even that of 'break-
ing bread,' because they were performed by them
daily. Acts 2. 46. Though it was necessary for
the apostles to tell the Jews and the Gentiles that
there was a change respecting the weekly sabbath,
(supposing that there was such a change,) be-
cause otherwise they could not know it, not hav-
ing reason to expect it ; yet it was not necessary

Connexion between the Grounds, $c. 341

to tell either of them that a law continued in force
which both have always been under an obligation
to regard, and which the Gentiles, when they
became Jewish proselytes, regarded as a matter
of course, if they did not do so before — the reason
stated for the institution remaining just the same,
and there being nothing in the change of dispen-
sation to make them think otherwise. The apos-
tles had matters of too much importance to speak
of to the Gentiles, to take up the time by speak-
ing of the sabbath, their duty relative to which
they could not fail of finding in Genesis 2. 2, 3.
and the Fourth Commandment, if they did not
know and practise it already. It cannot be in-
ferred that the Christians did not keep the se-
venth day, from there being no specific instance
of it mentioned in the inspired writings; because
a law is always supposed to be regarded as usual,
which is known to have long existed and to have
been long obeyed, and of the repeal of which
there is no account — especially since the silence
can easily be explained by the absence of the
apostles from the Christian assemblies on mission-
ary duty at the synagogues — the want, in conse-
quence, of any extraordinary or miraculous oc-
currence at them — and the omission of common
events, which was required in a detail of princi-
pal matters so concise as that given by the sacred
writers. That they did keep it, appears from the

342 Connexion between the Grounds, S?c,

pacific conduct of the Jews, whether believers or
unbelievers, who were too strongly attached to
the sabbath to have acquiesced quietly in its re-
peal, had there been any ; and also from the ex- ^
istence of Christians who kept it in the age suc-
ceeding that of the apostles, whose practice the
Fathers never speak of as a novelty, or as a revi-
val of something obsolete. In a word, as conjec-
ture and presumption are not sufficient grounds
for the admission of a new law, neither are they
sufficient grounds for the abandonment of an old
one.

Such is the summary of the arguments for the
continuance and universal obligation of the se-
venth day sabbath. How can any one justly call
it the Jewish sabbath in any sense, except as lie
uses the phrases Jewish Scriptures and Jewish
God,* when a Christian sabbath distinct from the
Jewish one is unknown to the New Testament,
which gives the title of sabbath exclusively to the
seventh day ? What amazing force would this
chain of reasoning add to the enactment of the
Legislature relative to sanctifying the first clay,

* Jehovah at one time condescended to stand in the rela-
tion of a king to the Jews. Is he, then, the God of the Jews
only ? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also ? In like manner,
the seventh day answered particular purposes to the Jews,
without losing its claim to the regard of the Gentiles.

Connexion between the Grounds, &?c* 343

and to the obligation of keeping it according to
law, if it applied to the first day as it does to the
seventh ! Whether any of those who secularize
Sunday externally and publicly are transgressors
of that which they believe in their consciences to
be a divine law, (as they undoubtedly are of a
human law, and justly deserving of punishment
for it, too,) I shall not say. But I have no hesi-
tation in saying that the heinous guilt and pecu-
liar danger attached to sabbath- beaking are un-
questionably incurred, whenever the neglect or
violation of the seventh day sabbath is persisted
in in opposition to light, or to the duty of coming
to the light — whether in the case of an individual,
or of a society, small or great.

I close the Chapter with reciting a fragment of
a prayer which a Sabbatarian was accustomed to
offer the evening and the morning of his sab-
bath :—

i I would call to mind the Creation,

thy great and good work, though now marred, of
which I am a part. I bless thee for making me
wiser than the beasts that perish, and for all thou
hast done for me these many years, praying for
the continuance of thy mercies through the re-
mainder of life — in death — and for ever. I
would not substitute nature, chance, or human
agency, for Thee, who art the only living and
true God. I would see thy glory not only in the

344 Connexion between the Grounds, 8cc.

upper and better world, but in this lower world
— in thy conduct toward man and fyeast. Here
thou didst accomplish the glorious work of re-
demption, without which, under the present apos-
tate, guilty, wretched, and helpless circumstances
of my nature, my being would inevitably prove a
curse to me instead of a blessing. Here thou
callest thy people, and fittest them for heaven.
Here thou glorifiest thyself in them and by them.
Enable me to co-operate knowingly, willingly,
zealously, with thee, as the God of nature and
providence, and more especially as the God of
grace ; and when thou shalt be pleased to remove
me from this creation, or when it shall be burned,
may I form a part of the new creation ? '

CONCLUSION.

In the foregoing pages it will, I hope, be seen,
that I have confined myself to the subject as
much as possible. Though I have declared my
sentiments with the freedom that becomes a Pro-
testant and an Englishman, much more a Chris-
tian and a Christian minister, yet I have endea-
voured to treat with proper respect my opponents

. Conclusion. 345

of every description, whether the pious or those
of the opposite character — whether Churchmen
or Dissenters — whether Christendom or the Bri-
tish Public— (what fearful odds exist !) In parti-
cular, I have been very careful to say nothing in-
compatible with that obedience which I owe to the
laws of my country. I have shown that my opi-
nion and practice relative to the weekly sabbath
are by no means hostile to that regard which the
Legislature demands for Sunday.

There are numbers of people who could bear
the inconvenience of paying that regard which all
ought to pay to it while the law so stands, and yet
keep the seventh day holy as well as I, were they
in like manner convinced that it was the sabbath
of the Lord their God. Were it otherwise, I am
not certain that the Legislature would be unwil-
ling, upon application to it, to let those work
six days who thought themselves still required
by the Fourth Commandment to sanctify the old
sabbath. Though the symmetry of religion's
public appearance on the first day might be
marred a little by the measure, yet neither reli-
gion itself, nor any civil or moral purpose, would
suffer any more than as they were injured when
the Act of Uniformity and the Schism Bill were
liberally and justly exchanged for the Acts of
Toleration.

Thus the tendency of the foregoing pages is
q2

346 Conclusion.

not to encourage the non-observance of Sunday
in opposition to law, whatever tendency they may
have to induce the Legislature to alter the law,
so far as the law withholds from the Sabbatarians
that liberty which is given to them by the Fourth
Commandment. I have strongly and repeatedly
inculcated obedience to the law in this particular,
so long as the law continues as it is. Indepen-
dent, however, of the law, the first day observer
has no more a right to incommode or to grieve a
Sabbatarian by labouring on his day, than the
Sabbatarian has to incommode or to grieve the
other by labouring on the other's day. The sen-
sibility of the Sabbatarian to offences against the
sanctity of his day, is no less acute than that of
the first day observer to offences against the sanc-
tity of his ; and though it would be wounded in
a body of people in an infinitely greater num-
ber of instances, were the Sabbatarian to ob-
tain his just rights, than it is now, yet the
shocks given to each individual would be in-
finitely fewer than those which are every week
given to him. Important as public opinion, fa-
shion, and general example, are in civil matters,
they ought not to have any weight in an affair
that lies entirely between God and the soul.*

* The multitude of fellow-sufferers in the case supposed,
calculated as it may be to strike the eye of a spectator or a

Conclusion. 347

1 am, then, to be considered not as hostile to
the first day, but as an advocate for the seventh
day. — Whether 1 am right or wrong in my no-
tion concerning the day that is the Scriptural sab-
bath, no one can justly say that the question is
unimportant. As long as the Fourth Command-
ment is recognized by Christians as a precept
still in force — as long as it is stated to be so with-
out the least alteration of the matter or modifica-
tion of the form of words in which it stood ori-
ginally in the Decalogue — so long it must be a
matter of consequence to inquire what day of the
week is meant by the seventh day. As long as
the pious exclaim against the heinous and dan-
gerous sin of sabbath-breaking, so long it must
be important to inquire what the sin is, and who
the person is that commits it.

In supporting the seventh day sabbath, I am

philosopher, is a circumstance that tends not to increase, but
to diminish the suffering of each individual. The evils which
each individual feels are few : they only become many when
he thinks of the evils suffered by others, which he does not
feel. This would probably be admitted, were the first and
seventh days ever to exchange situations. What is the num-
ber of evils actually felt by an observer of the first day, com-
pared with that of similar evils encountered by every Sabba-
tarian i Ought the wounds that are suffered merely by fancy,
if not by something worse, to prove the occasion of real in-
jury and temptation ?

348 Conclusion.

indeed advocating the cause of a weekly sabbath
in general, more than many are aware of. There
are, as 1 have had repeated occasion to notice
before, those (and 1 suspect that their number is
far greater than is known) who, though they are
firm in denying that any except the Jews ever
did keep or were bound to keep the seventh day,
or at least that it is obligatory upon Christians,
yet are equally firm in denying that the first day
is a sabbath by divine authority. What is this
but denying that there is any sabbath binding
upon conscience, and depriving a nation of the
power, let it consecrate what day it will, to
appeal to Scripture in aid of its own enact-
ment? My sentiment, on the other hand, that the
seventh day is still the Scriptural sabbath, leaves
the nation at full liberty, if it pleases, with regard
to that day, to support and strengthen human by
divine authority.*

* There is not the smallest evidence, in my opinion, that
the Scriptures leave the civil power at liberty to fix the day
for the weekly sabbath, indicating that whatever day that
may be, it is binding upon the privacies and the thoughts of
all its subjects, as well as upon their public and external con-
duct. Ifitbesaid that though Revelation does not require
this, Reason does, I answer that all which reason requires
(and it is extremely doubtful, to say the least, whether it
would have ever thought even of this, had it not been for Re-
velation) is an enactment of the legislature that should pro-

Conclusion, 349

The length and complex nature of the pre-
ceding discussion are owing to the many topics
which curiosity has unnecessarily, though not
unnaturally, introduced. If the institution in
Genesis 2. 2, 3. be real, inserted in the natural
place, and mentioned no sooner than it was needed

mote humanity, morality, and religion, throughout the nation
weekly. But mere reason does not inculcate the devotion
of the privacy and secret thoughts to religion, on those
accounts, during the whole of the twenty-four hours at
once. Personal religion, indeed, is important at these
times for a man's acting his part in society with a view to
the promotion of the aforesaid objects, and perhaps a larger
and more frequent exercise of it on those occasions than
at other times — especially as upon the present supposition
there is no other day in the week that claims these attentions
from him ; but not that entire exclusion. of worldly business
and pleasure which the weekly sabbath, according to the
Scriptures, demands. Without the injunction of Revelation,
it does not appear to me that nature, reason, expediency, or
any thing else, would suggest a national or any other sabbath,
like what I conceive a Scriptural sabbath to be, if it suggest-
ed any sabbath at all. It would scarcely of itself suggest that
external, public, and partial regard for some days, more or
fewer, which the laws demand and can enforce for the first
day, and which is fully competent to answer every purpose
which society can be supposed to have in view. The impor-
tance of a Scriptural weekly sabbath appears solely from
God's having at the beginning fixed'the day for it j and if he
has withdrawn that day without substituting another, such a
sabbath has ceased to be important.

350 Conclusion.

by man, it is no matter whether there are any
records of his keeping the day or not. If the
Fourth Commandment be only a repetition of
that institution — if it has but one meaning,
namely, the weekly sanctification of a specific
day, for a specific reason which is stated, and is
applicable to no other day, (a meaning which it
always had exclusively before our Lord's ascen-
sion, and after according to Luke's judgment,
ch. 23. 56.) — and if the commandment be not
repealed, (as Christians in general think,) it is of
course the duty of Christians to keep the seventh
day. If, in short, the phrase Lord's day (He v.
1. 10.) cannot be applied to the first day without
the help of Fathers and Councils, (though they
never tell us that they are quoting Scripture in
using the phrase, much less that the Scriptures
warrant their application of it,) nothing more
need be said ; for the application cannot be ad-
mitted by any consistent Protestant.

Convinced as I feel of the soundness of my ar-
gument, I would by no means allow myself to
doubt for a moment the possibility of another's
considering it, and coming to an opposite con-
clusion, without the least discredit to his abilities
or character. On the other hand, I cannot admit
any right of dispensing, by myself or others, with
the obligation to study and regard the will of
God in all things. I am ready to allow that the

Conclusion, 351

question I have been discussing is a minor point:
but no conscientious mind will think that because
such a point is of far less importance than some
others, therefore it is of no importance at all.

The minor questions in religion are very differ-
ently situated with respect to the chance they
stand for fair treatment. There are some which,
though they rose from a small source, yet run
rapidly, and spread themselves widely in their
progress. The obstacles they meet with occur
but seldom, and are overcome with comparative
ease. Others are less favoured in each of these
particulars. The Reformation was greatly as-
sisted in advancing to its present prosperity, by
the freedom of inquiry and of communicating sen-
timent which it allowed to learning and philoso-
phy — by its friendly aspect toward the rights of
princes and the independence of nations — and by
its tendency to promote civil and religious liber-
ty. The Dissent from an Establishment cannot of
course hope to have a nation or the higher powers
in its train : but in liberal times like these, it
encounters no mighty obstacles in the way of at-
taining considerable wealth and respectability.

The questions which separate the Baptist De-
nomination from their Non-conforming brethren
merely affect communion at the Lord's table,
domestic economy, or personal convenience ; and
these but in a few cases comparatively. Sabba-

352 Conclusion,

tarianism, on the contrary, may possibly deter a
prudent man from venturing on a family, or in-
terfere with its general regulations one whole day
every week : it may withhold the means of train-
ing children to honourable and lucrative profes-
sions : it may prevent engaging or continuing in
any respectable line of business ; and may even
threaten its votary with the want of conveniences,
if not of necessaries. It may, in fine, endanger
the safety and prosperity of a church, the com-
forts and advantages of social and public worship,
and the extensive or useful exercise of ministerial
talents.

The peculiar disadvantages thus attending Sab-
batarianism will easily account for its low state,
compared with that of any other minor point:
but they will by no means prove the propriety or
necessity of disregarding it.

Were it not true, as it is, that these evils are
felt chiefly in times and places in which the Sab-
batarians are few — that beside the just expectation
of the divine blessing on every one who sacrifices
the world to conscience, many sources of supply
remain to the inventive, the industrious, the fru-
gal, and the patient — and that there are instances
not only of comfort, but of competence and even
of affluence, among the Sabbatarians, as well as
among other religious bodies, the sombre picture
before drawn of their peculiar disadvantages,

Conclusion. 353

will not, in my opinion, release any from the
obligation they are under to inquire what the
will of the Lord is in this particular, and to con-
form to it, whatever it may be, not * consulting
with flesh and blood.' What would a pious ob-
server think of keeping Monday instead of Sun-
day, on the ground of convenience ? Would he
think that it signified little or nothing which day
he kept, provided he kept one ? How can he,
then, in conscience, dispense with inquiring whe-
ther the Fourth Commandment does or does not
really enjoin the observance of the seventh day,
and no other, or with keeping it, if he finds that
the fact is so ? , Duty will allow us a reasonable
time for * setting our houses in order,' and for
c guiding our affairs with discretion,' before com-
pliance with it, but nothing further. I have
known more than one noble case of this kind, and
cases that were attended with a reward here, as
well as with the fairest prospect of a reward
hereafter. That policy which regards no minor
point except as it is going forth i conquering and
to conquer,' or as it is consistent with worldly
ease and pleasure, with profit and honour, with
genteel connexions, with figure and influence in
society — in a word, with civil and religious re-
spectability, appears to me to < savour less the
things that be of God, than the things that be of
men.' It is not very probable that the characters

354 Conclusion,

in whom it predominated would have associated
with the persecuted Non-conformists, or even
with the persecuted Lollards. It is well if they
would have met with the few Christians in the up-
per chamber at Jerusalem, just after our Lord's
ascension, or have resorted with the women at
Philippi to the river side where prayer was wont
to be made ; if they would have associated with
the seven thousand worshippers of the true God,
rather than with the Baalites in Elijah's time ;
or with Noah joined the eight in the ark, rather
than have remained outside with an unbelieving
world > that perished in the waters of the flood I

the By J},

ERRATUM.
Page 311, lines 17, 18. For enjoined read enjoyed.

Lately Published,
BY THE SAME AUTHOR,

In Two large Octavo Volumes, Hotpressed,

Price ll. Ss. in Boards,

THE

RELIGION OF MANKIND,

IN A SERIES OF ESSAYS.

In these Essays, the chief topics relative to real
religion, that interest either the World or the
Church, are considered on principles usually
acted upon in civil life by all Mankind, whe-
ther enlightened or unenlightened by Revelation.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

On the Reality of the Future S On Splendid Virtue, uncon-
State. | nected with Piety.

On the Nature of the Future i On Benevolence, uncon-
State. \ nected with Piety.

On the Danger of Future \ On Devotion merely ex-
Misery. \ ternal.

On the Attainableness of \ On a mere Assent to the
Future Felicity. X Articles of the Christian

-•- ■ Faith.

} On professing Repentance

On abandoning the Concerns j at the Close of Life,
of Eternity to Chance. j On external Reformation.

OnVirtue,unconnected with \ On occasional and transient
Piety. * Professions of Piety.

THE RELIGION OF MANKIND.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.— Continued.

On artificial Substitutes for \

Piety. J

On Pretensions to Piety, un- j

connected with Virtue. *
On the different Degrees \

of Wickedness. X

On Infidelity.
On the Culpability of Error \

in Religion. *

On the Nature of true Piety. \

On the Imperfections of the I

truly Pious.
On the peculiar Disadvan- j

tages under which some \

labour with regard to I

Piety.
On the Difficulties attending \

the Study of the Scrip- \

tures. \

On the religious Differences j

among the truly Pious. {

On the Number of the Ir-
religious.

On the Influence of Fashion
' in Religion.

On the Compatibleness of
Piety with intellectual
Improvement.

On the Compatibleness of
Piety with active Life.

On the Compatibleness of
Piety with Pleasure.

On the Compatibleness of
Piety with different Cir-
cumstances and Ranks in
Life.

On the different Kinds and
Degrees of Piety.

On the peculiar Circum-
stances and Number of
the Pious.

On the peculiar Happiness
of the Pious.

CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

On the Mode and Means of j On the Evidence of real

becoming Pious. * Piety in others.

On the Difficulties attend- $ On the ordinary Sources of
ing the Commencement j Temptation,
of Piety. , | On the Temptations of evil

m i Spirits.

| On the Uses of Temptation.
On the Evidence of true \ On the Guilt of yielding to
Piety in ourselves. * Temptation.

THE RELIGION OF MANKIND.

CONTENTS OF VOL. II.— Continued.

On the Means of overcom- j On Frivolity and the Love

ing Temptation. j of the World.

On the Declension and Re- \ On the Testimony of a good

vival of Piety. $ Conscience.

On the Preservation and \ On Reputation.

Improvement of Piety, j On Bigotry.
On Presumption in Re- \ On Liberality of Sentiment.

ligion. \ On Efforts for Promoting

On Religious Despondency. \ Benevolence and Piety.
On Improvement in the $ On the Connexion between

Worship and Service of* Piety and Patriotism.

the Deity. | On Religious Abstraction.

On Improvement in Chris- \ On Weariness of Life.

tian Principles. j On the Dread of Death.

On Improvement in Chris- { r*7

tian Obedience. * Appendix. — On the Im-

On Religious Conversation. j portance of Learning to
On Austerity. \ the Christian Ministry.

Also,
BY THE SAME AUTHOR,

In One 12mo. Vol. Price 4s. 6d. in Boards,

®%t &f)corg of (tompogititm,

WITH EXAMPLES IN LATIN,

PROSE AND VERSE,
Freely translated into English.

FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF YOUTH.

Also,
BY THE SAME AUTHOR,

In Three Duodecimo Volumes, Hotpressed,
Price 10s. 6d. in Boards,

TEA-TABLE CHAT;

OR,

Eeltgtous 8llegorte&

TOLD AT THE TEA-TABLE IN A SEMINARY
FOR LADIES.

N. B. The Advertisements to the Second and
Third Volumes distinguish Religious from Moral
Allegory, — compare it to our Lord's Parables, —
and justify the dramatic parts by the ancient
mode of writing History.

Printed by James Powell, Printer to the Asylum for the
Deaf and Dumb, Hand Court, Dowgate Hill,

2

RETURN TO: CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT
1 98 Main Stacks

LOAN PERIOD 1
Home Use

2

3

4

5

6

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS.

Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due
date. Books may be renewed by calling 642-3405.

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW.

JUL 1 9 2007

FORM NO. DD6
50 M 1-06

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELE
Berkeley, California 94720-60(

U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES