own seventh period had been to himself. If the two periods were not then of the same identical length, the one was at least the fit representative of the other, and man, in resting on the one, was furnished with a fit emblem and a sweet memorial of God resting from his work of creation on the other. Such a setting apart or sanctification of each returning seventh day, as a day of holy rest for man, from the creation downward, was therefore alike significant and proper.

CHAPTER IV.

THE SABBATH IN THE PATRIARCHAL AGE,

THE Bible, it is said, " contains no example of any man keeping a Sabbath before the time of Moses; "* nor does it in any way make mention of a Sabbath from the creation to the giving of manna in the wilderness - -a period of two thousand five hundred years; and how could this be, if it were during all that period an existing institution? +

parts, a fact The fact as

This objection is made up of two asserted, and an inference from it. serted is, that no mention is made of a Sabbath during the period in question; the inference is, therefore, at that time, there was no Sabbath.

1. Suppose we admit the fact asserted; does the inference follow? By no means. For, (1.) the history of that whole period is given in a single book and twelve chapters of another. If, then, there be no mention of the Sabbath in a history so brief, it is not surprising, nor is it any proof that it did not exist. But, (2.) the Sabbath is mentioned only five times in the Jewish Scriptures, prophetic and historical both, from the time of Moses to the return of the captivity

* Grew, p. 3.

+ The argument, substantially, of Paley and all that class of writers.

-a period of one thousand years; twice in prophecy, and three times in history. And, (3.) in the entire histories of Joshua, of the Judges, of Samuel, and of Saul, a period of about five hundred years, - the Sabbath is not mentioned once. Had they no Sabbath, then? (4.) From Joshua to Jeremiah, a period of eight hundred years, not one word is said of circumcision. Had they no circumcision, then? In all these cases, the history is much more minute and full than in the other. If the silence of the record is conclusive in the one case, it is more so in the others. But is it conclusive? Were the Jews without a Sabbath from Joshua to David -a period of five hundred years? And without circumcision from Joshua to Jeremiah- period of eight hundred? By no means. Moreover, Noah, we are told, (2 Pet. ii. 5,) was "a preacher of righteousness." But we have no record of what he preached. Did he therefore preach nothing? But,

2. I deny the fact asserted. It is not true that there is no mention of the Sabbath during the period in question. What are the facts? We find at first a distinct record of its original institution, with the reasons for it, a record as distinct as is that of the institution of marriage. Nor, from the record merely, is there any reason, in the one case more than in the other, to suppose that it is the record of an institution first established two thousand five hundred years after creation. So far as the record goes, it is in both cases the clear record of institutions established at creation. At the outset, then, the mention is distinct and clear. And being so, it is manifest that, subsequently, in so brief a history, we ought to ex

pect only incidental allusions to it, if any, or such existing facts and occurrences as are in harmony with the supposition of its existence. And if we find such facts and occurrences or allusions, it is plain that we not only have a mention, but all the mention of its existence which the case requires. Nay, if these incidental allusions, and these existing facts and occurrences, are just what we should expect them to be on the supposition of a Sabbath, so that the theory or supposition of a Sabbath affords the only or even the better solution of their existence than any other, then in this fact we have the mention and the proof that the Sabbath was. And we have all the proof that science has that the sun is in the centre of the solar system. For it is only on the ground that the theory or supposition of the sun's being in the centre of the system affords, not the only, but a better solution merely of existing and occurring facts than any other theory, that science, with a Newton at its head, declares that to be the true theory, and summons the assent of the scientific world to the correctness of its decision. And why shall not the same proof, if it exist, be equally valid here? Does such proof exist? That is the question now before us.

(1.) On the supposition of a Sabbath, we should expect to find the patriarchs meeting together at stated times for religious worship. Accordingly, the first distinct record of religious worship is, (Gen. iv. 3,) that "in process of time," or, literally, "at the end of days," Cain and Abel brought their respective offerings to the Lord. And the fair and obvious import of the record is, that they did this as a matter of course,

when the regular or stated time for it came round. The next record (Gen. iv. 26) is, that at the birth of Enos, when his father, Seth, was one hundred and five years old, "began men to call upon the name of the Lord." What was this but public, social worship? The writer surely does not mean to inform us that there was no family worship before. For we have the record of that in the offerings of Cain and Abel. Nor can he mean to say that there was no private worship—that Adam and the pious Seth never prayed until the birth of Enos; i. e. until Seth was one hundred and five years old, and Adam two hundred and thirty-five. Surely Adam and Seth did not live all that time without private prayer. What can the passage mean, then, but that when Enos was born, — i. e. as soon as men began to multiply,—they then began to call on God in a public, social way? But such worship must have had its mutually-agreed upon, or divinely-appointed stated times. How else could it have been conducted? *

1

* Since the sitting of the Convention, 1 have solicited the opinion of Professor Stuart, of Andover, concerning the proper translation and interpretation of several passages used in the discussion. The following is his view of the passage above:

"Gen. iv. 26, 'Then began men to call,' etc., or, Then was a commencement made of calling, etc., is rightly translated. The phrase, in p (ligra beshem Yehovah,) means, invocation upon the name of God, and this in a social and public manner. (Compare Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 4; xxi. 33; xxvi. 25. Ps. cv. 1. Is. xii. 4; xli. 25.) It can mean neither less nor more here, as I think, than that public social worship then commenced, i. e. so soon as men began to multiply. The writer does not mean to intimate that the pious Seth did not pray, before his son was born to him; what can he intimate but social worship? When-is not said."