If we would judge of the original law fairly, all these glosses must be swept away, and we must confine ourselves to the writings of the O. T., espe cially as they are expounded, and their spirit illus. trated, by him who spake as never man spake.' Restricting ourselves to these sources of informa tion, we repeat that, while the original design of the day was in the highest degree beneficent— nothing more nor less than an invitation to man to be hippy ; to employ that rest which itself ought to be most welcome in the tranquil enjoyment of God's gifts and in thankful remembrance and worship of the Giver—it gave no discouragement to social enjoyment, forbade no act which necessity or benevolence required, and allowed of the exer cise of the rites of hospitality, and consequently of the 'giving feasts,' though no doubt without pomp or parade. The festal character of the day leads us to suppose that this social feature belonged to the Jewish Sabbath in the most ancient times. We know that it did only too conspicuously in later ; * See this illustrated by an amusing story related by Buxtorf (Svnag. 7zedaica, cap. xv.), and well worthy of a place in the most extravagant of the monkish legends.
and that among the early Christians one of the commonplaces of reproach against the Jews, urged with rather too sanctimonious an air by some of the Fathers, was that they indulged too much in gulosity' on that day. The Christians, it seems, were fond of contrasting the full diet and formal observance of the Jewish Sabbath with the spare diet and the spiritual observance of the Christian's Sunday. (See passages from Augustine and other Fathers in Hessey's Bantpton Lectures, Lect. iii.) II. We now proceed to the subject of the Christian Sabbath,' as it has been called, or as we prefer calling it, the Lord's day ' (4) xtptaKii *cepa); to determine what are the relations in which it stands to the Jewish Sabbath ; whether it be the same institution,—mutatis mutandis, and allowing for the different circumstances of the two dispensations,—as some maintain ; or, as others (we think more justly) contend, a merely analogous institution, arising out of a general similarity of object, but originating in different circumstances, standing on a distinct basis, and appealing, like everything else in Christianity, and in contradis tinction to Judaism, to the spontaneous obedience of the heart, rather than to the sanctions of anY precise statute. Those who maintain the identity of the Jewish Sabbath and of the Lord's day' maintain that it is only an immaterial part of the institution that has been changed, leaving the purposes and the obligations of the ancient law what they were. One of these arguments is, that the Sabbath' was anterior to the Jewish law, and therefore of universal obligation on man.
In what sense the idea of a primitive Sabbath may be admitted, and in what rejected, we have endeavoured to explain in a former part of this article. That the precise law given to the Jews was enjoined on all mankind (however probable it be that a certain tradition of sacredness was from the earliest time attached to the seventh day, and that hence the division of time by weeks became so cus tomary), it would certainly be difficnit to prove, either from profane or sacred bistory. That the first mention of the Sabbath in the second chapter of Genesis does not necessarily prove this, has already been shown. Neither does the language of our Lord, that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,' prove it. For though it has been ingeniously argued that it does, and by none more ingeniously than Dr. Wardlaw, in his Dis courses on the Sabbath, yet it being an expression equally natural on either hypothesis, it cannot be conclusive for one of them. Our Lord is evidently inculcating the great principle, illustrated by a special instance, that all ritual and positive or dinances of religion must be for the sake of the worshipper, and not the worshipper for the sake of them. Had he therefore been speaking of any such institution as on all hands was acknow ledged to belong exclusively to the Jews, and in which the Christian had no part, it would have been equally natural and appropriate for him to use just the language he did. For example, had it been the passover or circumcision that WaS in question, it would have been equally natural to remind his auditors that these were made for man (for the Jews, indeed, in this case, but still as they were men), and not man for the passover or cir cumcision. We therefore cannot but concede that
these positive arguments are by no means sufficient to prove that the Lord's day ' is merely the uni versal Sabbath' that was coeval with the creation, now transferred to another day and baptized by a Christian name.—But this is not the most serious objection to such a view. The main objection is the absence of what we might surely require— some clear evidence to this effect from the N. T. When it is asked on what authority there such a conclusion is arrived at, we find not one syllable adducible for it. All is matter of doubtful inference as to the identity of the two institutions. It was natural, indeed, considering the purposes of the Jewish Sabbath—purposes physically and morally of universal importance—to expect that Christianity should have something analogous to it. This may be granted ; and, as we think, any candid reader of the N. T. may discover no slight indications of such an analogous institution in the Lord's day.' But when it is argued that the two are identical, except that the day is changed ; that the strict observance of the whole of one day in every week is made as plainly imperative on the Christian as that of the seventh day was on the Jew ; of all this we cannot find that the N. T. gives any satisfactoiy evidence. Let us briefly con sider how many things make against the hypothesis. —It is said the day is simply changed. If it be so, might we not expect that some indications would be given in the N. T. that such a transfer had been made ? especially considering the un doubtedly divine authority on which the seventh day had been appointed, and the great transactions of which it was to be commemorative ? Surely it was not sb slight a change as to be unworthy of some express mention. And as the Lord's day is commemorative of equally glorious events, one would imagine it still more natural that the substi tution of the one for the other would be at least referred to.—Again, it is acknowledged on all hands that the sanctions and penalties of the original law are altogether abolished.— Further, since the Jewish polity and ritual in general are avowedly abrogated in the gospel, the prima facie impression (apart from express exceptions to the contrary) is not unnatural, that what is not ex cepted is abolished. Now, there is not the slightest hint that the Jewish Sabbath, as a peculiar insti tution, was not among tbe things abolished. If it be said that the Decalogue was not abolished, and that this law was among them, the answer is that exeOtio probat res.ulam ; all the other articles of the Decalogue are expressly made binding in the code of Christian morals, with a more emphatic meaning and a rnore comprehensive application. On the other hand, the Sabbath is not so re ferred to ; while there are several express declara tions which look the other way in the Pauline epistles, especially the passages in which he speaks so strongly in deprecation of foolish reverence, under the Jewish notions of their sanctity, of days, and seasons, months and years.' In particular passages (Col. ii. 16 ; Gal. iv. ro ; Rom. xiv. 2-6), when reproving the lingering looks of super stitious fondness cast on the older dispensation by the Judaising Christians, he would seem to argue the abolition of all the ancient commemor ations, and in the first of these passages the very worn Sabbaths' is employed. Looking at these passages, it seems impossible, at any rate, to deny that he who doubts whether the Christian Sunday was designed to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath has exceedingly strong grounds for his opinion. It is surety very uncandid not to admit it. To say that the apostle really means that these Judaisers should not observe their Sabbaths as .‘zoish, but as Christian ; that while ' Sabbaths ' in general were abolished, the Sabbath was still retained, though to be celebrated on another day, and by another name, and for different purposes ; that they should not regard with such punctilious and scrupulous ob servance the seventh day, . but that they might and ought the first (though he says not a syllable of all this)—requires, in the first place, proof, of which the N. T. furnishes none ; and in the second, would make the reasoning of the apostle nugatory, since his argument is to show that no such days demand the sort of observance which the Jewish law required.