EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED, IN A SERIES OF SERMONS, BY TIMOTHY DWIGHT, S. T.D. LL.D. LATE PRESIDENT OF YALE COLLEGE. FOR WILLIAM BAYNES AND SON, PATERNOSTER ROW; AND THOMAS TEGG, CHEAPSIDE, R. M. TIMS, DUBLIN; AND ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS. SERMON CV. THE LAW OF GOD. THE DECALOGUE. THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT. THE PERPETUITY OF THE SABBATH. REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY. SIX DAYS SHALT THOU LABOUR, AND DO ALL THY WORK: BUT THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD; IN IT THOU SHALT NOT DO ANY WORK, THOU, NOR THY SON, NOR THY DAUGHTER, THY MAN SERVANT, NOR THY MAID SERVANT, NOR THY CATTLE, NOR THY STRANGER THAT IS WITHIN THY GATES: 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. EXODUS XX, 8-11. THE command which is given us in this passage of Scripture requires no explanation. I shall therefore proceed immediately to the consideration of the great subject which it presents to our view, under the following heads :— I. The perpetual establishment of the Sabbath. 1. I shall endeavour to prove the perpetual establishment of the Sabbath in the Scriptures. This subject I propose to consider at length; and, in the course of my examination, shall attempt to offer direct proof of its perpetuity, and then to answer objections. In direct proof of the perpetuity of this institution, I allege, 1. The text. The text is one of the commands of the moral law. Now it is acknowledged, that the moral law is, in the most universal sense, binding on men of every age and every country. If, then, this command be a part of that law, all mankind must be under immoveable obligations to obey the injunctions which it contains. That it is a part of the Moral Law, I argue from the fact, that it is united with the other commands, which are acknowledged to be of this nature. It is twice placed in the midst of the Decalogue; in the context, and in the fifth of Deuteronomy. This fact, you will remember, was the result of design, and not of accident; a design formed and executed by God himself, and not by Moses. I argue it also from the fact, that this command, together with the remaining nine, was spoken with an awful and audible voice, from the midst of the thunders and lightnings which enveloped Mount Sinai. The splendour and majesty of this scene were such, that all the people who were in the camp trembled. And when they saw the thunderings, and lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they removed, and stood afar off; and said unto Moses, 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.' Even Moses himself exceedingly feared and quaked.' I argue this doctrine also from the fact, that this command was written by the finger of God, on one of the two tables of stone, originally prepared by himself, and destined to contain nothing but this and the other precepts of the Decalogue. It was afterwards written again by the same hand, after these tables were broken, on one of two similar tables, prepared by Moses. A table of stone, and a pillar of stone, were in ancient times direct symbols of the perpetuity of whatever was engraved on them. This very natural symbol God was pleased to adopt in the present case, to show the perpetual obligation of these commands. The remainder of the law given by Moses was all written in a book; and was here intentionally and entirely distinguished, as to its impor tance, from the Decalogue. The tables of stone on which these commands were written were fashioned by the hand of God himself. This also forms a peculiar article of distinction between the Decalogue and the rest of the Jewish law. Nothing but the Decalogue ever received such an honour as this. It was written on one of these tables by the finger of God. This also is a distinction peculiar to the Deca logue. When Moses, in his zeal to destroy the idolatry of the Israelites, had broken the two tables of stone, fashioned and written upon in this manner, God directed him to make two other tables of stone, like the first. On these he was pleased to write the same commands a second time. In this act he has taught us, that he was pleased to become a second time. the recorder of these precepts with his own hand, rather than that the entire distinction between these precepts, and others, should be obliterated. Every part of this solemn transaction, it is to be remembered, was the result of contrivance and design; of contrivance and design on the part of God himself. Every part of it, therefore, speaks a language which is to be examined and interpreted by us. Now let me ask, whether this language is not perfectly intelligible, and perfectly unambiguous?. Is it not clear, beyond every rational debate, that God designed to distinguish these precepts from every other part of the Mosaic law, both as to their superior importance, and their perpetuity? Is it not incredible, that God should mark, in so solemn a manner, this command, together with the remaining nine, unless he intended that all to whom these precepts should come, that is, all Jews and Christians, or all who should afterwards read the Scriptures, should regard these commands as possessing that very importance which he thus significantly gave them; should consider them as being, in a peculiar sense, his law; and hold them as being perpetually and universally obligatory? It is further to be remembered, that this command is delivered in the same absolute manner as the other nine. There is no limitation to the phraseology in which it is contained. Honour thy father and thy mother,' is obligatory on all children to whom this precept shall come. • Thou shalt not steal,' a precept, prohibiting the stealing of every man who shall is |