Dr. Whately seems to me to have lost sight of a consideration which ought never to be lost sight of in questions of this nature, namely, the impossibility there is of forming any code of precepts, such as to include every possible case that may occur. The usage has always been, to make the precepts as few and comprehensive as possible; and in this point of view, I believe, nothing has ever been framed with so much. consummate wisdom, as the ten commandments of the moral law. The codes of national laws occasionally become so voluminous, we know, as to be remembered and cited with the greatest difficulty, and this is the case with our own; and yet none have hitherto appeared which have provided for every case; because the thing is manifestly impossible. Their spirit and drift is principally to be regarded; and this is precisely what is taught in the New Testament, respecting the moral law of Moses. Our divines, too, have generally proceeded on these grounds in writing on the commandments; and, for my own part, I have no doubt the view they took was the just one. In the same manner must the precepts delivered by our Lord and his Apostles be explained (for precepts they have laid down, whatever Dr. Whately may think to the contrary); which, I believe, will for the most part be found, either to be citations from some part or other of the Old Testament, or comments authoritatively given upon it.

The Gospel principles of morality, mentioned by Dr. Whately, can be nothing more than the just application of those moral precepts, which we find written either in the Old or New Testament, and which are in some places spoken of as being the law of God written on the heart, i. e. are applied not according to the letter merely, but according to their genuine spirit, to the conscience of the Christian. But suppose we grant the utmost that Dr. Whately can ask for, and allow that Christian principles or dispositions are mainly urged in the Gospel, what will our question now be? Will it not be to inquire, How these principles or dispositions are inculcated? The answer will then necessarily be: In the detail and application of moral precepts extended to the heart, and governing it in an entire submission to the authority of the divine Lawgiver; and in that equability and serenity which appears to have been termed by the Apostles, "the peace of

God." Dr. Whately seems to me to have allowed himself to be mistaken, when he urged the realisation of principles independent of any specific moral code. Principles, according to my notions, are nothing more or less than comprehensive laws, against which, the man who holds them, or who is commonly termed the man of principle, will not allow himself to sin and whether these be written in a book, or understood by common consent, their nature is still the same; they are still laws-and the only questions that can arise about them must be: Where they are to be found; whether they are good; and how they can be made generally binding.

I have said, that these laws, which constitute principles, must be written: I will now say, it is only by thus recording them, that they can be preserved from injury, or admixture with other matter. And I believe the laws or principles (for it signifies not by which name we style the moral precepts) recommended to believers, have always been registered for this very purpose; tradition being too insecure a medium to preserve them. In the next place, they have been dictated by God himself. We may, therefore, rest assured, that they are both good and binding. In these respects, therefore, the moral law, as recorded in the Scripture, is complete; it is holy, just, good, and spiritual: and the only point of view in which any defect can arise in its application, must be, as the Apostle has justly argued, from the weakness or infirmity of the flesh. But if we separate Christian principles or dispositions from the positive law of morality taught in the Scriptures, I must confess I can see no other result probable, than that a mind subject at best to mistake and error, would be elevated into the situation of a lawgiver, legislating to meet its own infirmities, and becoming authoritative only to be mischievous. My conclusion therefore is, that Dr. Whately's views on these subjects are not tenable.

SECTION XI.

ON THE PRIMITIVE, THE JEWISH, AND THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.

THE last article I shall notice in Dr. Whately's "Essay" is, that given on the observance of the Sabbath. "I am

inclined," says he, (p. 163.)" to believe that one reason which
makes some persons reluctant to acknowledge the total aboli-
tion of the Mosaic law, is the notion that the sanctity of the
'Christian Sabbath' depends on the fourth commandment;
and that, consequently, the reverence due to the Lord's day
would be destroyed or impaired by our admitting the ten
commandments to be no longer binding." From what we
have seen respecting the Mosaic law, I think there is reason
to believe that it has never been abrogated. That part,
indeed, which was typical, necessarily ceased with the
offering up of the great Antitype: on the other part, which
was moral, this event could exercise no such influence.
A question, however, might arise, as to which part the
institution of the Sabbath really belonged. The West-
minster divines referred it to the moral; Dr. Whately be-
lieves that it belonged to the ceremonial law.*
For my
own part, I believe it partook, in certain respects, of both;
and for these reasons: Many of the services performed on
that day were doubtless ceremonial, viz. the sacrifices and
many other things connected with the tabernacle or temple,
as many passages might be cited to shew; but the rest en-
joined upon the people, and the keeping of this day holy, for
the purpose of reading the Scripture, prayer, and the like,
whether carried on in the temple or elsewhere, were insti-
tuted for moral purposes; and, as far as I can see, were,
in part at least, observed by the patriarchs from the very
first. Dr. Whately, too, has no doubt that the patriarchs
kept a sort of Sabbath. I believe the same thing; but I
differ from him in supposing, that the Sabbath of the
creation was not first recorded by Moses in allusion to
a circumstance which happened two thousand years after-
wards, namely, the institution of the Sabbath in the wilder-
ness because, I do not believe that Moses was the author
of the book of Genesis. He may, indeed, have compiled
it (and it is most probable he did); but, I have no doubt,

Still, in its moral part, it appears to have admitted of a typical application, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. iv. 4-10; where it seems to have intimated some future rest to the believers of those times. Again in Colossians, ii. 16, 17. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

those Scriptures are patriarchal, just as I believe the book of Job to be; for reasons which I shall presently give. If, then, the Sabbath, mentioned as instituted at the creation, was not first recorded by Moses, the probability will become strong, that a Sabbath day was kept before the law of Moses was given; and it will be equally probable, that this was the Sabbath kept by the patriarchs; and if this be the case, the abrogation or not of the Mosaic law will not interfere with this question.

Now, if the original Sabbath was kept by the patriarchs, there can be no impropriety in supposing that the Jews, through whose hands the patriarchal Scriptures have been delivered down, kept this Sabbath, if it can be shewn that they kept any, before the law had been given from Sinai. That the Jews kept a Sabbath day, before the law was given from Sinai, we are expressly told. "To-morrow," it is said, "is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord," (Exod. xvi. 23), at a period occurring a considerable time before the Israelites had come to Mount Sinai. I do not cite this, however, to shew that this was the Sabbath day of the patriarchs, I believe it was not; but only to prove, that the Sabbath day was recognised before the law had been given by Moses. It may also be remarked, that the mention of the Sabbath does not appear to be introduced here as of a thing unknown up to that time; it is, on the contrary, spoken of as a thing generally well known; it is also said to be the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord, -a circumstance of which the Israelites needed no other information, than that the day of its celebration was at hand. The terms likewise in which the declaration is couched, identify it with the primitive Sabbath; the rest and the holiness here mentioned being enjoined on that occasion, and on that occasion only, previous to this notice by Moses. It may be concluded, then, perhaps, that although the very day of the primitive institution of the Sabbath may not be here marked, the observance of that institution itself is.

.

Let us now endeavour to ascertain whether this declaration of Moses related to the day originally appointed for the observance of this Sabbath, or not? If we turn to the 12th chapter of Exodus, we shall find, that on the fourteenth day of the month, at even, the paschal lamb was to be slain,

and eaten in haste, with the loins girded, shoes on the feet, &c. (ver. 11); and again (ver. 14), that this day was to be. kept (annually) in the same manner, throughout the generations of the Jews. A day was, therefore, here set apart, for the first time, for this particular act. We are told in the next verse (15), that seven days, apparently following this, are then to be kept in like manner; and, from the words in which this is stated, it should seem, that this feast should begin and end with a Sabbath day; and if so, we have here the observance of a whole week appointed, including a Sabbath day at each of its extremes. In verse 17, we are further told, that on this day (i. e. the first of these Sabbath days), the armies of Israel were brought out of Egypt, and on this account the appointment took place. This subject is again taken up in chap. xiii., where we are told (ver. 3), that "Moses said unto the people, Remember THIS DAY, in which ye came out from Egypt .... for by strength of hand the Lord brought you out from this place: there shall no unleavened bread be eaten." And at ver. 6, "Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread," &c. which marks the whole week alluded to. Let it be observed, the particular day, its following week, and recurring Sabbath, are pointedly marked. In chap. xvi. 23, the rest of the holy Sabbath, as already noticed, is mentioned; and this Sabbath must have recurred, I presume, in conformity with the appointment just alluded to. I do not believe, however, that this Sabbath day happened on that appropriated for the observance of the patriarchs, for the following reasons: —

First, If this day was to recur in the order usually observed, it could scarcely have been necessary to admonish the Israelites that it should happen on the morrow; for this they must have known: a custom to which they had from their cradles been accustomed to look with delight and veneration, could not have been so far forgotten as to stand in need of such an admonition; but, if a change in the

*

* It has sometimes been supposed, that the Israelites might in Egypt have either forgotten or disregarded their primitive Sabbath. I cannot see, myself, how this could have taken place: for, first, they resided together in the land of Goshen, in circumstances of great prosperity, which must have continued for a considerable time. During this period, therefore, they had every opportunity for keeping up public worship, and for observing all their