48 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



" Blessed'' for man: and '•' sanctified" to religion. A conjectural erasion. 



it were so, why was the fact, in which of course man has no 

 interest, recorded in a revelation for man ? But I must re- 

 mind my friend that his notion is contrary to the established 

 usage of the words " sanctified'* and " blessed" in the Scrip- 

 tures. The word " sanctify" is found for the next time after this 

 text, in Exodus xiii. 2 ; xix. 10, 22, 23. In all these and in 

 other places, it is used in the sense of setting apart to the spe- 

 cial service of God, hy divine autJiority. If he can find any 

 other meaning appropriate to Gen. ii. 3, 1 shall be glad to see 

 it. I know of no interpreter of Scripture who agrees with 

 him. Wh en it is therefore said by the inspired historian, 

 that God ^^ sanctified the seventh day,'' I must understand 

 him to say, that God set it apart (from the other six days of 

 labor), to he religiously employed hy man. The use of the 

 same words in the fourth commandment (^Exodus xx. 8 — 11) 

 confirms this meaning, bey ond all the power of scepticism. 

 The word '^ bless," when used of an act of God, signifies, in 

 the Scriptures, to confer hlessings on men ( Gen. i. 22 ; xxx. 

 27 ; xxxix. 5) ; when spoken of things, it signifies to make 

 them means of ha2:)piness to men (^Exodus xxiii. 25 ; Deut. 

 xxviii. 12 ] xxxiii. 11). I am really ashamed of all this de- 

 tail. But my friend has compelled me. And "in the 

 mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be es- 

 tablished.'' 



The only plausible evasion of the force of this passage is 

 that of Paley and others, who conjecture that it may be a 

 prolepsis, or anticipation by the sacred historian, of the insti- 

 tution of the Sabbath twenty-five hundred years after. But 

 to this conjecture, I answer, 1. It admits my interpretation 

 of the words to be just. 2. It supposes, instead of a ré^ 

 corded fact, a figure of speech, without any necessity contrary 

 to a fundamental law of interpretation. In other words, it is 

 a pure "fancy," without any grammatical, logical, or histori- 

 cal support. 3. It is <x snjjposition employed to set aside a 

 divine testimony : just as if a man, to get rid of the Divine 



