But what kind of history have we of the world before the time of the giving of the law on Sinai? What history have we in the period from Cain and Abel to the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, a period of nearly two thousand five hundred years? Nothing but the connecting links or joints of a genealogy, the petrified vertebræ of the back-bone of the skeleton of history. Is it here we are to look for manners and customs? What should we think of a history from the origin of the republics of Greece down through Rome to the present time, consisting of the names of a single line of descent? Should we expect there to find the manners of Greece and Rome and Europe?

Then again, from the flood to the call of Abram, (with the exception of the short notice of the confusion of languages,) what history have we for these fourteen hundred years? Nothing but another genealogy. In fact, until the call of Abraham, we have nothing like continuous history: there were only four hundred and thirty years from that time to the giving out of the law, and for the last hundred years from the death of Joseph to the last days in Egypt, we have no history. And because the sabbath is not mentioned in that short period, thus reduced to three hundred and thirty years, our authors draw the proof of the conclusion of its non-existence. This is one of the proofs upon which they most rely; but if I do not give most undeniable and convincing proof to the contrary from the nature of scripture history, I consent to give up the argument altogether.

The omission of mention of an observance for three hundred and thirty or four hundred and thirty years is no proof of its non-existence.

I can produce an instance of an observance, which we know to have been continually practised, which is not once mentioned in the history from the death of Moses and entrance into Canaan, Numb. xxviii. 10, to the time of

Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 23, a period extending from the year 1452 before Christ to the year 895, comprising five hundred and fifty-seven years, a much longer period of history than we have of the patriarchal age ;—and then only slightly and incidentally alluded to. And what is that observance? It is the SABBATH !

I can also produce another observance, which is not once mentioned from 1491 to 588, a period of nine hundred and three years. And what is that observance? No less than the continued standing miracle of the sabbatical year; although we know that it existed for upwards of four hundred years of that time. And more strange still, it never was once mentioned by Jeremiah when he predicted the captivity of seventy years; although that number, as we learn from 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21, was determined on from the number of sabbatical years, which had been omitted, viz. seventy, or for a period of four hundred and seventy years; and if it had not been for that short notice in Chronicles we should not have known that it ever had been omitted, or when it had first been omitted-but by reckoning back, we find that it was first omitted by Saul.

I can still mention another observance which is not mentioned from Deut. xvi. 2, &c. 1451 years before Christ, until the time of Isaiah, 623 years before Christ, a period of eight hundred and twenty-eight years. And what was that observance? The Passover.

Now these instances are much stronger than the omission of the sabbath in patriarchal times; because all these observances in these latter periods were attended by miracles. For the sabbatical year, a double provision was produced in the preceding or sixth year; and on the sabbath, and on their attendance on the passover, their enemies were miraculously withheld from attacking them.

But methinks I hear our opponents, when compelled

to give up this argument, endeavouring to break their fall, and come as gently as they can to the ground, and arguing thus: "It is true, that in the history of those times there is no mention of the sabbath; because during this period there were written devotional and religious books. Look there, and you will find it; these are the Psalms of David, the Proverbs, and the Ecclesiastes of Solomon.”

Well, come; here are the Psalms, the great devotional book of the Israelites, written by David, the inspired king, the sweet singer of Israel, in which frequent mention is made of public worship, of the tabernacle, of the sanctuary, of the solemn assemblies. Here, if anywhere, we may expect to find it mentioned, frequently mentioned. Well, how often does it occur in the Psalms? Not once.

Well, here are the Proverbs, the wise sayings of the wisest of men, on the all-important subject of religion. How often does it occur? Not once. Well, but there is the book of Ecclesiastes, the book of the Preacher, there surely you will find it. How often does it occur? Not once. And yet we know that it was observed all that time.

Let us, then, hear no more of the argument of the omission of its mention in the history of Moses of patriarchal times, as a proof of its non-existence.

I have now shown that we had no reason to expect to hear of the sabbath in patriarchal history. I have also proved that its not having been mentioned is no proof that it did not exist. During this argument I conceded that the preceding history exhibited no proofs of its existence; and I did so that I might argue with the objectors on their own. grounds. I have shown, that even supposing their premises true and their facts correct, their conclusion would not follow. I now proceed to show that their premises are false, (I use logical language,) and their facts erroneous.

From what I have already said, it appears that we have no reason to expect direct mention of the sabbath in the book of Genesis, after the command so distinctly given at the creation. The utmost that we may reasonably expect to find, is traces of, and allusions to it. Such traces we shall find not only there, but even in heathen nations, who would have been averse from borrowing from the Jews, and who must have carried the principle and practice with them at the time of the confusion of languages and the consequent dispersion. If the observance itself be not found in heathen nations, yet we find its outlines and framework, outliving every other command, outliving all other revelation, outliving even the knowledge of the true God. The division of time into weeks of seven days was very ancient and very universal. Several authors have given long enumerations of countries, where the division subsisted. Homer and Hesiod, the most ancient of Greek writers, mention weeks of seven days. Among all nations of the earth the number seven has maintained a pre-eminence above all other numbers. Could this have been from any intrinsic excellence or convenience in itself? I have the valuable testimony of the learned Heylyn to the contrary, although intended to answer a very different purpose from that for which I use it. He endeavours at great length to show "the number seven has no excellence or preference in nature beyond any other number. On the contrary, arithmeticians condemn it as the most barren of all numbers." If then there be nothing intrinsic to recommend it, but, on the contrary, everything to condemn it, there must have been some very powerful extrinsic circumstances to have given it the paramount pre-eminence above all numbers. An even number would have been a much more convenient division, the number ten would perhaps have been most convenient of all; and accordingly, when the

French revolutionists abjured revelation, and endeavoured to accommodate their institutions to reason, they rejected the hebdomadal division, and established decades. They considered this an important and necessary step towards the overthrow of revelation and the establishment of the age and reign of reason.

In all nations, whether pagan or worshippers of the true God, even before the time of Moses, the number seven has had a sacred character. A volume of quotations could be made to prove this. The division was incorporated into the Roman law, and the names of the days called after the heathen deities and the sun. The same names were transferred from thence into the civil law which grew out of it, and spread over all continental Europe; and from thence those names found their way with the Norman code and language into our judicial and legislative proceedings.

In the Bible, from the most ancient times, the number seven seems to have been held in peculiar favour both by God and man. The Lord says that vengeance shall be taken sevenfold on any one that slew Cain. Lamech says, that if Cain be avenged sevenfold, Lamech shall be avenged seventy-and-sevenfold. Noah was ordered by God to take of clean beasts by sevens-seven males and seven females. Jacob bowed himself to Esau seven times, a kind of reverence, I should suppose, borrowed from religious worship. In Pharaoh's dreams, sent by God himself, there came up seven fat kine, and then seven lean kine. In the second dream came up seven ears of corn full and good, and seven blasted ears; and Joseph tells Pharaoh that "God had showed him what he was about to do." These two dreams represented seven plentiful years and seven years of famine. And perhaps it is not refining too much to say, that the number of the years of plenty and of famine, as well as of the dreams, were chosen to show to Pharaoh that they pro