in the passage where we read of the punishment of a sabbath-breaker, we find that it was simply for doing menial labor that he was punished.* And the same is the offence rebuked, in connexion with the account of the sending of manna. It is true, that there were two other subordinate distinctions of the day. One was, that a particular sacrifice was to be offered upon it ; ‡ but this did not distinguish it from many other days in the calendar; and what is more important to be remembered, this fact in no degree affected the individual citizen's solemnization of the day, inasmuch as the sacrifice in question was only one national sacrifice, to be offered at the one place of national worship. The other peculiarity of the day was, that there was to be upon it "a holy convocation," § by which appears to be meant no more, than that there should be an assemblage of such as might be within convenient distance, to witness the sacrifice just spoken of, or perhaps that there should be festive meetings of friends, a use to which we know that the day was actually put.|| That there were any Sabbath meetings in the early Jewish times for religious worship and instruction, corresponding to those of Christians at the present day, there is no ground whatever for believing. At a later period, indeed, there were such meetings in the synagogues. But they were no provision of the Law, which says nothing even of synagogues. They appear to have originated after the captivity, when the people, ignorant of their sacred language, needed some such resource for obtaining an acquaintance with the requisitions of their faith. This view of the nature of the sabbatical observance guides us, as I think, to a right apprehension of its de *Numb. xv. 32 et seq. Numb. xxviii. 9, 10. See Luke xiv. 1; Hos. ii. 11. † Ex. xvi. 27, 28. 1 sign. It was intended for a weekly national commemoration of the national deliverance from Egyptian servitude. The gratitude, which the people owed for that deliverance, was designed to operate with them as a motive to the obedience required by their deliverer; and, accordingly, an important object was, by reviving impressively and frequently the memory of the deliverance, to excite anew the gratitude which was due for it. As far as we may presume to judge, there could be no more appropriate way of doing this, than by a frequent periodical cessation from all labor whatever, presenting the strongest contrast to the rigor of those labors under which they had formerly groaned. So in fact the Sabbath is represented in a later passage of the Pentateuch.* And repeatedly we find it spoken of as a sign between God and the children of Israel, as well as mentioned among the institutions incident to the deliverance of the nation.† And here, of course, I am met by the remark, that there are other texts of the Pentateuch, which speak of the Sabbath in a quite different relation; viz. as having been instituted at the beginning of earthly things, and designed not for a commemoration, by the Jewish people, of their deliverance from Egypt, but for a commemoration, by all people, of the creation of the world. This view, and its grounds, it is my duty to consider; in doing which, I ask to have it remembered, that, as far as our remarks have hitherto been pursued, we seem to have proceeded on satisfactory testimonies of Scripture; and that he who should adopt any different, or any further views, necessarily assumes the task either of disproving those which have been presented, or of * Deut. v. 15. + Ex. xxxi. 13-17; Ezek. xx. 10-12; Neh. ix. 14; compare 9-21. showing how they can be reconciled with such others as he finds cause to entertain. The first text which would be referred to in this connexion, is that which occurs at the beginning of Genesis. "So God finished on the seventh day his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made; and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God created and made." * There are material views, bearing upon the interpretation of this passage, which I am unable at the present time to urge, inasmuch as they involve principles of exposition, relating to the whole structure of a book, at the examination of which we have not yet arrived. When we have advanced to the reading of that book, I shall be better understood, when I say, that, supposing the latter half of the second verse, and the third verse, to be genuine, it is by no means clear that any institution whatever was here intended to be spoken of by the writer. What is said is, that "God blessed and sanctified the seventh day." He pronounced a blessing upon it, ―he commended it, — because (this is agreeable to the whole anthropomorphitic cast of the passage) it was for him a day of leisure after six days of toil. "And he sanctified it." How? By making it a holy human institution? This is the gloss put upon the word, by force of an opinion derived from some subsequent texts, but the word itself implies no such thing. It signifies merely "to set apart," "to sequester," to some distinctive use, just as we might speak of dedicating or devoting a day to amusement, to leisure, to study.† And I * ii. 2, 3. † We should perhaps hardly speak of consecrating a day to any but a religious use. But the French freely use their corresponding word with all the latitude which we give to "dedicate," and "devote." submit with confidence, that, if we were not biased to a peculiar interpretation of this text, by views preconceived from other sources, we should not think of regarding it, as speaking of the appointment, at any time, or in any way, of a religious institution for man. We should understand it but as declaring, (agreeably to two familiar meanings of that Hebrew conjugation, in which the verbs are found,) either that God (for himself, and not for man,) made the last day of the first week (for the time being, and not for future time,) happy and sacred, peculiar, distinct from the days which had preceded, by resting upon it; or that he called that day a blessed and a holy, distinguished day, on which he thus found repose from labor.—That God enjoyed his own rest, is recorded; but not that he now established for men any periodical rest whatever. But it will be said, that, attached to the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, we find in Exodus the following words; "For in six days the Lord made Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath-day, and hallowed it; "* and that these words are part of God's own annunciation from Mount Sinai. I would ask, whether any one can compare this verse carefully with its parallel in Deuteronomy, and then be confident in the opinion that it did make an original part of the Decalogue. In Deuteronomy we find no such words, but instead of them the following, which accord entirely with the view of the institution first given above; "And remember that thou wert a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence with a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out xx. 11. arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath-day." * Will it be said, that one of these texts cannot be used to invalidate the other; inasmuch as the reason given in Exodus, and that in Deuteronomy, were both good, and not mutually inconsistent, reasons for the institution; that they were both accordingly announced on Sinai, and that in Exodus the mention of only one was preferred, in Deuteronomy only of the other? I apprehend, that, under the circumstances, this view is altogether untenable. What the writer of the Pentateuch is doing in both these instances, is not prescribing an institution, and assigning reasons for it. In that case he might, no doubt, with perfect propriety, select, from among good reasons, one to be urged at one time, and another at another time. But what he has undertaken to do, is to relate to us a fact; to tell us what God declared, by a supernatural voice, at a certain place and time; and these too, I may add, a place and time when every word was to be chosen, to make the most effectual impression. Under these circumstances, can it be maintained, that Moses, designing to act the part of a veracious narrator, in acquainting us with specific words which God spake, could give important words in one place, then omit them in another, where he is relating the same occurrence, and give us other important words, significant of a quite different cause of a material provision of his Law, in their stead? I have said, that Moses undertakes, in these two texts, if he wrote both, to apprize us of words which God spake in the people's hearing; and yet they differ from each other. But we are told still more respecting the specific character of the words in question. God "wrote them," it is said, (that is, wrote the words recited * v. 15. |