



Produced by Heiko Evermann, Chris Pinfield and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from scans of public domain works at the
University of Michigan's Making of America collection.)





Transcriber's Note:

Quotations from Scripture and other sources, which are in smaller type
in the original, have been indented one space.

Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals. Italics are
indicated by _underscores_. A phrase in Hebrew has been transliterated
and indicated by =equal signs=.

The use of hyphens has been rationalized. Apparent typographical errors
have been corrected.




TRACTS ON THE SABBATH.

"THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD."

 NEW YORK:
 PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY.
 No. 9 Spruce Street.
 1853.




TABLE OF CONTENTS.


  1.--Reasons for introducing the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment to
      the consideration of the Christian Public. 24 pp.

  2.--The Sabbath: its Moral Nature and Scriptural Observance. 48 pp.

  3.--The Sabbath: Authority for the Change of the Day. 24 pp.

  4.--The Sabbath and Lord's Day: A History of their Observance in the
      Christian Church. 48 pp.

  5.--A Christian Caveat. 4 pp.

  6.--Twenty Reasons for keeping holy, in each week, the Seventh Day
      instead of the First Day. 4 pp.

  7.--Thirty-six Plain Questions, presenting the main points in the
      Sabbath Controversy: A Dialogue between a Minister of the Gospel
      and a Sabbatarian; Counterfeit Coin. 8 pp.

  8.--The Sabbath Controversy: The True Issue. 4 pp.

  9.--The Fourth Commandment: False Exposition. 4 pp.

 10.--The True Sabbath Embraced and Observed. 16 pp.

 11.--Religious Liberty Endangered by Legislative Enactments. 16 pp.

 12.--Misuse of the term "Sabbath." 8 pp.

 13.--The Bible Sabbath. 24 pp.

 14.--Delaying Obedience. 4 pp.

 15.--An Appeal for the Restoration of the Bible Sabbath, in an
      Address to the Baptists, from the Seventh-day Baptist General
      Conference. 36 pp.

 16.--The Royal Law contended for. By Edward Stennett. 60 pp.

 17.--Vindication of the True Sabbath. By J. W. Morton, late Missionary
      of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 60 pp.




[No. 1.]

REASONS FOR INTRODUCING THE SABBATH OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT

TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC.

 NEW YORK:
 PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,
 No. 9 Spruce-Street.


To search for the knowledge of our duty, as subjects of the Divine
Government, is of the highest importance to Christians and to all men.
"None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself," but
"whether we live or die, we are the Lord's." It behooves us,
therefore, to inquire, diligently and prayerfully, what God would have
us to do, and how we may best glorify Him and save our generation? We
should "seek wisdom as silver, and search for it as for hid treasure;"
and we should labor after the knowledge, not only of _some_ duties,
but of _every_ duty. "Obey my voice," is the reiterated mandate of
Jehovah. To give full proof of our friendship for Christ, we must "do
whatsoever he hath commanded us." Hence the importance of "searching
the Scriptures," and of carefully pondering the testimonies of God.
All should pursue this course, and feel this responsibility; for
"every one of us shall give account of himself unto God." Hence the
propriety and necessity, in many cases, of _individuals_ dissenting
from the views and decisions of _collective bodies_, and of
_minorities_ dissenting from _majorities_, and protesting against what
they discover to be erroneous, unequal, and oppressive, in their
resolves and measures--accompanying the same with a particular
statement of their reasons. Such a course expresses a determination
"not to be partakers of other men's sins," and is often the means of
leading to investigation and reform.

This duty is acknowledged, and this privilege is claimed, by the
observers of the _seventh day_, in relation to the subject of the
Sabbath. Compared with the many who assume the Christian name, we are
a _minority_--a _mere remnant_--and our reasons and motives for
dissent from the great mass of believers, have been by most but
partially, if at all, examined and weighed. Believing, as we do, that
we have a full and explicit Divine warrant for our practice, we regard
it as our duty to make renewed efforts to sustain the claims of the
original Sabbath of God's appointment, enlighten the public mind,
disarm our neighbors and fellow Christians of their prejudices, and
promote a more thorough and impartial attention to this item of
religious practice. The object of this Tract is not to enter fully
upon the proofs of our doctrine and practice, but to invite attention
to the subject, and impress the reader with the importance of correct
views and of being sustained in Sabbath principles and efforts by an
explicit warrant from God himself, in order the more effectually to
secure the sanctification of this precious institution. Accordingly,
we proceed to state some of our Reasons for introducing the Sabbath of
the Fourth Commandment to the consideration of the Christian Public.

I. The general concession that the weekly Sabbath is a needful, wise,
and valuable institution. Being a weekly rest from secular business
and labor, it contributes to the health and vigor both of man and
beast, encourages habits of cleanliness and decency, gives opportunity
to cultivate the social virtues, makes man acquainted with man, and
inspires a mutual regard for the interests of society; and, what is
much more, it furnishes a proper and necessary season for mental
improvement, public worship and instruction, private meditation and
self-examination, the training up of children in the knowledge of God
and of Heaven, and the deepening of our impressions of the value of
time, and of the importance of preparing for eternity. These and
similar considerations sensibly arrest the attention of sober and
enlightened Christians, and secure a conscientious regard to the
institution. This fact evinces the importance of being able to bring a
_divine sanction_ for a day so evidently desirable, and so generally
esteemed--of being assured that it rests upon no doubtful authority,
that it is not a mere human provision or a matter of expediency and
accommodation, but that in observing it we are conforming to the
clearly-manifested will of God. It is evident, that this consideration
will give a value to the institution which can be supplied by no
other, and secure a love and respect for it, and a delight in it,
which nothing else can so effectually produce. Hence the question is
presented, with a high and impressive claim to a true and definite
answer, Is any other than the _seventh_ day of the week sustained by
the important and indisputable sanction of _divine authority_? If
this, and this only, be the Sabbath of God's appointment, for general
and permanent use, then, by the substitution of another day, the
institution is shorn of its chief excellence and force--yea, it is
virtually annulled. It no longer exists as God ordained it, for the
express reason that he gave for it. This is a point which it becomes
Christians seriously to look at.

II. It is not the province of Rulers, Bishops, or Councils, to
legislate for the Church, and to bind the consciences of men in this
or any other matter. Man's appointment of another day than the one
contained in the Divine Enactment, does not make it _the Sabbath of
the Lord_. It is only a _human law_, resting on _human authority_.
Therefore, all attempts to enforce the observance of such an
institution as being of divine authority, are calculated to mislead
and ensnare souls. It is "teaching for doctrine the commandments of
men." Our faith in this matter "should not stand in the wisdom of men,
but in the power of God." The question is not, What day have men
judged most proper? and, What reasons for the institution have they
deemed the most appropriate? and, What day have civil rulers
sanctioned by their decrees and penalties?--but it is, What day has
God sanctified and blessed as a day of rest? It is manifest that no
man should stop his inquiries until he is able to produce a clear
divine warrant for his practice.

III. The fact that there is a lamentable division among professors of
religion in regard to the true design of the weekly Sabbath, and the
proper day to be observed, evinces the great importance of
investigation, and of arriving at a correct knowledge of the Divine
Will. This division is not likely to cease till a more general and
thorough knowledge of the subject is obtained, and a deeper interest
therein is felt. Can it reasonably be supposed that the whole church
will become united in the observance of the _first_ day of the week,
if it is not the Sabbath of the Bible? Will it ever be the case, that
God will have no witnesses for his own unrepealed and unadulterated
institution?--none that shall call the Sabbath of his own appointment
"a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and shall honor him
therein?" No--this will never be! Admitting that the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment is still binding, there is no doubt that there will
ever be a remnant, at least, who will conscientiously observe it. For
his great name's sake, God will not suffer this prominent part of his
law to be universally corrupted and profaned. And hence, if a
preference continues to be given, as it is now, to a day which He has
not designated and made holy, there will, of necessity, be a
protracted division in the ranks of Zion, and the cause of the
Redeemer will, on this account, continue to suffer. The faithful
witnesses will unquestionably continue to prophecy, though clothed in
sackcloth, and to bear testimony against the innovation. And no
earthly power can prevent them. Resolves, and proscriptions, and
gibbets, will not wholly suppress their testimony in favor of the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Therefore, the occasion of the
present division must be put away by a general return to the
uncorrupted appointment of God, or the same cause for regret and
mourning which now exists will continue to afflict the church. Let
those who regard the unity and peace of Zion, seriously lay to heart
this consequence.

IV. It must be admitted, that in so important a matter as a weekly
Sabbath, our great moral Legislator has sufficiently declared his will
to enable honest and impartial inquirers to arrive at a true result.
If it would be reasonable to expect explicit information of his will
concerning any point, it would certainly be reasonable to expect it
concerning this, seeing the claims of this law would come in direct
contact with the cupidity of men, and sensibly influence the
arrangements of business and pleasure--yea, deeply affect the general
interests of society. Were the data furnished, from which
contemplative and well-disposed minds might _infer_ a weekly Sabbath,
its observance and its ends could not be extensively secured without
an _explicit_ warrant. Therefore, if God intended there should be a
Sabbath--yea, we might with propriety say, that if he intended his
religion and worship should be preserved in the world--he would have
given an explicit law upon this subject--one, of course, which could
be easily discovered, and the permanent obligation of which could be
readily traced.

V. It is an obvious _fact_, that God _has legislated_ upon this
subject--that he has once made a law for the observance of the
_seventh day_ as a _weekly Sabbath_. He did this at the close of his
creative operations. Excepting marriage, the seventh-day Sabbath is
the oldest institution in the world. Moreover, God gave a new edition
of this law at the promulgation of the Decalogue upon Mount Sinai,
under circumstances of peculiar and awful solemnity and majesty; first
pronouncing it, in connection with the other nine commandments, with
an audible voice from the Mount, in the hearing of all Israel, amidst
thunders, and flames, and tempests; and afterwards writing the _entire
ten_ on two tables of stone, for a perpetual rule of action. It is
obvious, also, that _obedience_ to this institution, so solemnly
stated and defined, and enforced by so plain and adequate a reason,
was regarded as a prominent item of duty, and received his _marked
approbation_, whereas _disobedience_ received his _marked
disapprobation_. It is also clear, that good men throughout the times
of the Old Testament were peculiarly zealous for this institution, and
sought diligently to prevent its neglect or desecration, and to secure
its legitimate advantages. Thus far all is plain, and is generally
conceded.

VI. It is a principle which no proficient in the science of
Government, _divine_ or _human_, will deny, that a law, once enacted
and in force, remains in force, unless repealed or amended by the same
authority which first enacted it. Hence, if the law respecting the
seventh-day weekly Sabbath has not been repealed or amended by the
same authority which first enacted it, it still remains in full force
and obligation, as originally given. This conclusion is _legitimate_,
_necessary_, and _undeniable_. It is obvious to persons of every
capacity. And we here declare our deliberate and settled conviction,
from a careful and thorough examination of the matter, that there has
never been any such repeal or amendment; hence, that our obligation,
and that of all men, to keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment,
remains without the least abatement. "Till heaven and earth pass," we
believe, according to the declaration of the Saviour, "one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." We
alledge, then, fearless of successful contradiction, that it _never
has been so repealed or amended_, and hence _is now binding_ upon the
entire family of man.

VII. From the nature of the case, and from God's declared will, and
procedure in other cases on scriptural record, it is evident that the
same divine authority is attached to _the day_ of the week to be
observed, as belongs to the _institution itself_, so that there is no
room to say, that if a _seventh pert_ of time is observed as a holy
rest, it is not essential which day of the week is selected. When God
appointed the Passover to be kept on the fourteenth day of the first
month at even, the time of keeping it could not be changed to the
thirteenth or fifteenth of the month, without disregarding his
authority. There was, indeed, a specified case in which those who were
not in the prescribed circumstances to keep the fast at the time
appointed, might celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second
month at even. But without this express divine provision, no departure
from the first arrangement would have been allowable. And when God
commanded Saul to slay the Amalekites, without exception, together
with the sheep and the cattle, it did not answer for him to spare
their king, and "the best of the sheep and the oxen for sacrifice."
For this deviation from the course prescribed, God pronounced him a
transgressor, and visited him in judgment, declaring that "to obey is
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." So when
God instituted a weekly Sabbath, and specified the seventh day for
that purpose, assigning a special and appropriate reason, it was
manifestly his will that that particular day should be observed; and
the substitution of another day, without subsequent instruction to
that effect, cannot be reconciled with a due regard for his supreme
authority. It is "changing the ordinance, and breaking the everlasting
covenant."

VIII. It is evident that the substitution of the _first_ day of the
week for the _seventh_, as a weekly Sabbath, which has been adopted by
the major part of the professors of Christianity, has presented, and
continues to present, a formidable obstacle to the conversion of the
Jews, and the introduction of the millennium. It is well known, that
the Jews as a body are exceedingly tenacious of the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment; that, with few exceptions, they have persevered
from ancient times in its observance; and that they consider it a
prominent article in the religion of their forefathers. This practice
has been unbroken in the nation from the time of the giving of the law
upon Mount Sinai till the present day. There have been, indeed, many
instances of Sabbath-breaking among them, and at present there is
reason to believe that the motives which govern them in its observance
are sadly deficient. But the _practice itself_ is tenaciously adhered
to, as required by the unrepealed law of the God of Israel. And, if
our views are correct, they have the right of the case, and the
majority of Christians have corrupted the law. This, therefore, is a
formidable obstacle to their embracing Christianity. To become
_first-day_ Christians (and such compose a vast majority of
professors) they must relinquish or change one of the precepts of the
Decalogue, and dissent from a custom held sacred by their ancestors,
and deeply venerated by themselves; and that, too, without seeing any
_divine warrant_ produced for such a departure. This unauthorized
practice of keeping the first instead of the seventh day of the week,
cannot fail to prove a powerful objection in their view to embracing
the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is true that they are tenacious also of
other practices enjoined in the Old Testament, which Christians justly
regard as obsolete. But as to _these_, we can show authority for their
_abrogation_. We can appeal to the New Testament records, and show
that the Mosaic _ritual_, "the law of commandments contained in
ordinances," which constituted the enmity or separation between Jews
and Gentiles, was abolished by the death of Christ--that "he took it
out of the way, nailing it to his cross." But the same course cannot
be successfully pursued with respect to the seventh-day Sabbath. The
Decalogue in which this is found was not included in the abrogated
ritual. It is altogether a distinct thing, wherefore the Jews cannot
be met in the same way with regard to the weekly Sabbath as they can
with regard to the typical observances which had their accomplishment
in Christ. Hence the stumbling-block remains. And yet those who
observe the first day are generally praying for and expecting the
conversion of the Jews, and, in connection therewith, the millennial
glory of the church. What an inconsistency is this! While they are
praying for their national conversion and return to the land of their
forefathers, and are beginning to use some other means for that end,
they, by their palpable violation of the law of the fourth
commandment, place a most formidable obstacle in their way, and pursue
a course calculated to augment their prejudices, confirm their
unbelief, and <DW44> the approach of millennial glory. To bring Jews
and Gentiles together in the observance of the Sabbath, the one party
or the other must materially change their practice. And which is it
most reasonable to expect will ultimately be compelled to make the
change--the _Jews_, who have the authority of God's example and
express precept to sustain them, or the _Gentiles_, who can claim no
such authority for a first-day Sabbath? Surely, we need not be at a
loss for an answer. It is confidently believed, that this subject has
no inconsiderable bearing upon the condition and prospects of the
Jews. If a few conversions are now effected among them, what might be
expected if Christians would remove the stumbling-blocks which their
own errors have placed in their way? Would we enter an effectual plea
in behalf of this wonderful and long-neglected people, we know not how
we could do it better than to plead for the observance of the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment. Let those whose "heart's desire and prayer
to God for Israel is," like Paul's, "that they might be saved," give
this subject a thorough and impartial consideration, and return to the
path of strict obedience.

IX. It is not to be expected, that an effectual check can be put to
the sin of Sabbath-breaking, till the duty of keeping the Sabbath is
so taught, understood, and practiced, that the sanction of express
divine authority can be brought to bear upon it. Though a weekly rest
be profitable, both as it respects "the life that now is, and that
which is to come," there is much in the carnal views and inclinations
of men to oppose it, to resist its restrictions, and to thwart its
purposes. Hence powerful considerations and inducements are necessary
to suppress its desecration, and insure its proper observance. Not
only the _unbelieving world_, but _Christians_, in their present
imperfect state, need to have this institution thoroughly guarded to
prevent its abuse. If it be considered as resting upon _doubtful
authority_; if it be viewed as sustained merely by _inference_, and
the _premises_ from which the inference is drawn be at best
questionable, and do not _necessarily_ authorize it; if the principal
argument for it be founded on a supposed apostolic example of meeting
for public worship on the first day of the week, which is sustained
only by _two_ passages, while those _very passages_ fail to mark it as
_a Sabbath_, or to give the least intimation of its having been
introduced as _a substitute_ for the former Sabbath, and even fail to
imply, necessarily, that meetings of this description were _stated_
and _general_ in the churches in the apostolic age; and if it be
found, from subsequent ecclesiastical history, that the first day,
called Sunday and Lord's day, was not regarded by Christians in the
first centuries after the apostles as _a Sabbath_, nor as _substituted
therefore_, but only as a _festival_ in commemoration of the
resurrection--a _festival_ observed in connection with the Sabbath,
but not accompanied with a _resting from worldly labor_, till the time
of Constantine the Great; yea, if but a part of those who are
considered experimental Christians, look upon it _now_ as properly _a
Sabbath_, or day of _holy rest_, while others regard it merely as a
day for _public worship_, and even such as call it a Sabbath conceive,
in many instances, that the _strict_ observance formerly required is
somewhat _modified_; we can easily perceive, that it wants that
_explicit sanction_--that _high_ and _overpowering authority_--which
will be likely to awe the public into obedience--which is necessary,
indeed, to give Christians themselves a proper sense of its sanctity,
and of the evil of its desecration--to induce them "not to do their
own ways, nor to find their own pleasure, nor to speak their own
words," in it. In vain do its friends procure for it the resolutions
of churches and synods, the essays of the learned, and the decrees of
the State; if it fails of being expressly supported by the supreme
authority of God, to whom all must render a final and strict account,
it will lack the main motive to obedience--it will be unattended with
that power which, above all others, acts upon the conscience, and
makes men feel their obligation. And as such authority does not
pertain to a first-day Sabbath, but is limited to the seventh day, it
is manifest that no thorough check to Sabbath desecration can be
imposed, till men change their views and practice, and place the
institution on its original and proper basis.

X. The power of custom, though sustained by ecclesiastical and civil
enactments, and with corresponding forfeitures and penalties, ought
not to prevent investigation and discourage reform in this important
matter. When the claims of the original Sabbath are plainly presented,
many seem to be convinced of their justness; but, at the same time,
think that a general return to the observance of the seventh day is
impracticable. They alledge that the custom of keeping the first day
has been so long and so generally maintained--that it is so intimately
wrought into the habits, calculations, and business of life--that it
has received such explicit sanction from the civil powers, obedience
thereto being required by the authority of the State, and the
disobedient being subjected to civil pains and penalties--and that it
is so often, ably, and pointedly vindicated by the first ministers,
professors, and commentators in the popular churches, that it is in
vain to expect a change, and that the cause of Sabbath-keeping is
rather retarded than promoted by efforts to change the present custom.
And it is highly probable that some, in view of these difficulties,
forbear to give the subject a close investigation. But if the same
views and modes of reasoning had been adopted in other cases, what
would have become of the various reformations which are now
established, and even triumphant? What would have become of the whole
subject of _Protestantism_? There is nothing more impracticable in a
Sabbath reform than in any other reform. In other cases, difficulties
which at first seemed insurmountable, have given way to laborious,
prayerful, and united efforts. And there is the same reason to believe
that they will give way in this, if a proper zeal is once awakened,
and the friends of the Sabbath are resolved to examine the subject,
build on the foundation of truth, and persevere in their labors, with
union and vigor, relying upon the protecting power and blessing of
Israel's God. It is manifest that no earthly consideration should
impede our investigation of this matter, that no array of opposition
and discouragement should daunt us, and that no motives to sit still
or pass along with the current of public opinion, if that be not
founded in truth, should be suffered to influence us, and detain us in
the wilderness of error. The cause of obedience is the cause of God,
and we should steadfastly labor to promote it, and trust in him for
ultimate victory.

XI. As a consequence of the foregoing principles and facts, we are
constrained to regard those who observe the first day of the week, to
the neglect of the seventh day, as having sadly deviated from the path
of obedience, and we feel ourselves bound to admonish them, and labor
respectfully and kindly to reclaim them. We cannot think it
_immaterial_ what day of the week is observed as a day of rest, when
God has specified the seventh, and _no other_, as a weekly Sabbath. We
cannot think it a small matter to substitute the first day in the room
of the seventh, although it be done in honor of the resurrection of
our Lord, and because that event appears to demand equal and even
greater commemoration than the work of creation, so long as there is
no divine warrant therefor. This appears to us to be making the wisdom
of man the foundation of duty, and not the wisdom of God. We discover
_two_ evils here; first, changing _the day_ without order or
permission from God; and, secondly, changing _the reason_ for the
institution, when the Lord hath not spoken. And is not this a
departure from the rule of duty? And has not the Lord a controversy
with Zion for this? If God had seen fit to substitute the first day
for the seventh day, on account of the resurrection, (supposing it to
have occurred on the first day, which, however, is not certain,) and
to assign another reason than the original one for keeping the
Sabbath, he would doubtless have given order to that effect. His not
having done so, makes it manifest that he did not see fit to do this,
and that he considered the former Sabbath as well adapted to celebrate
the work of redemption as it was the work of creation--adapted
perfectly to subserve _all the purposes_ of a weekly Sabbath. And we
find this to be the case by experience. Here, therefore, we rest
satisfied with the divine arrangement, and feel deeply the importance
of universal conformity thereto. Consequently, our regard for the
honor of God, and for the sabbatic institution, induces us to bring
this subject in the present form before the Christian public. We do
not think that we are justly chargeable with opposing or retarding the
practice of Sabbath-keeping, because we protest against keeping the
first day of the week as a divine institution, and faithfully present
the claims of the original Sabbath. What better course can we take to
secure a proper observance of the Sabbath, than to labor to restore it
as God originally made it? It is not just to charge us with
_Judaizing_--with virtually denying that Christ has come in the flesh
and introduced the New Testament dispensation. We might as well be
charged with this for maintaining that men should not "have any other
God before the Lord," or that they should "not kill," nor "steal."
These precepts are in close connection with that requiring the
observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and _stand or fall with it_.
The truth of the case is, that the law containing the weekly Sabbath
is the law both of the Old Testament and of the New. There is no
Christian Sabbath distinct from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
If this be a correct view--and we see not how it can be gainsayed--we
in this respect perform our duty as subjects of God's moral government
only when we exhort men to "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it
holy," and when we labor to impress them with the annexed fact, that
"the seventh day is the Sabbath."

These are some of our Reasons for introducing the subject of the
Sabbath, as originally given, to your consideration. And we seriously
ask you, whether they are not _sufficient_--whether they are not
_adequate_ for earnestly and perseveringly inviting investigation and
reformation. If there be any blame attached to us in the matter, it is
for not having labored more diligently and efficiently in this cause.
Are we not dearly bound, by way of promoting inquiry and reform, to
bear a more pointed testimony against the evil in question, and to
vindicate the claims of the seventh-day Sabbath with more zeal and
firmness than ever before? Are we not peculiarly obligated to labor to
remove, if possible, the veil which is upon the minds of the great
majority of professors of Christianity, correct the false notions
received by tradition from 'the Fathers,' and effectually dispel the
delusion so extensively prevailing. We do not claim the right of
dictating to the consciences of others. "To their own Master they
stand or fall." The only ground which we would assume is that which
was occupied by the Apostle Paul when he said, "It is written, I have
believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore
speak." And also by the Saviour, "Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in
Heaven." And again, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Surely,
"the Lord hath spoken, and who can but prophesy?" How can we bear to
see one of his commandments made void by human tradition?--to see the
flock of Jesus divided concerning this question, where union is so
necessary and desirable?--to witness the unavoidable interruptions
occasioned by the different parties, and the triumph of the
adversaries of religion?--to observe those for whom Christ died
grossly misled by mistaken teachers, provoking the Most High by
neglecting to keep a day which he has made sacred, and transferring
the sacredness of his own appointment to an ordinance of men, or, what
is still worse, regarding the original institution as annulled, and
placing in its stead a day merely of memorial of the resurrection and
of worship, divested of the main characteristics of the Sabbath, and
resting upon no solid basis--its foundation, at best, being _mere
probability_ and _conjecture_? Must it not, of necessity, be very
painful to us, to see those who are our neighbors, and by profession
our fellow Christians, in a case so clear and important, and involving
such high and permanent interests, contented with such evidence as
they would blush to introduce in relation to almost any other point?
How can we bear to see _Protestants_, whose avowed maxim is, that
"scriptural authority alone is sufficient to determine matters of
faith and duty," dispensing with their own rule, in not requiring
expressly a "thus saith the Lord" for their practice, and relying upon
far-fetched and inconclusive reasonings, and mere probabilities--yea,
in some instances, by their own concession, going out of the Bible to
ecclesiastical history, to find a warrant for observing the first day
of the week, which warrant itself, even if proof from that source were
allowable, is by no means adequate?

Do we talk of reforming the church, while the guilt of disobedience in
this matter rests upon the great majority of her members?--while
ministers, doctors, and professors of divinity, break one of the
commandments of the Decalogue, and teach men so, and the multitude are
willingly obedient to their instructions? It is _preposterous_! A
thorough reformation cannot be effected under such circumstances, or
while things remain thus. It is time that it were more deeply laid to
heart, that one of the leading objects of Christ's mission was to
"save his people from their sins"--that "he gave himself for us, that
he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a
peculiar people, zealous of good works"--and that "he that saith, I
know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth
is not in him?" In view of such passages, although it be admitted that
occasional mistakes and sins, being repented of, do not absolutely
divest men of the Christian character and hopes, it will appear, that
obedience to the will of God is an indispensable requisite and
all-absorbing consideration; and that, if any man be in Christ, he is
verily "a new creature"--that he will be "zealous of good works." One
in ancient times, who was eminent for his religious knowledge,
observed, "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto _all_
thy commandments." And this respect, or obedience, which constitutes
the moral purity and glory of Christians, and is the test of their
discipleship, must be regulated and governed by the precepts of that
very law which contains the seventh-day Sabbath. There are, indeed,
some precepts peculiar to the gospel, such as "repentance towards God,
and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," "Baptism," and "the Lord's
Supper." Nevertheless, "the commandments of God," so often and so
particularly alluded to as the rule of Christian duty, are eminently
the precepts of the Decalogue--the "_ten words_" or "_testimonies_"
which God spake with his own mouth, and wrote with his own finger, and
no one of which has ever been erased from the sacred code, or
undergone the least alteration; for "the law of the Lord is _perfect_,
converting the soul." The keeping of the weekly Sabbath, therefore, as
God appointed it, and has continued it, enters vitally into the matter
of holy obedience--the true test of Christianity. If the prescriptions
of the fourth commandment are not faithfully adhered to, our obedience
is imperfect. We are the proper subjects of reprehension, and may
reasonably expect corresponding tokens of Divine displeasure.
Sabbath-keeping is peculiarly adapted to serve as a test of loyalty to
God, on account of its frequent occurrence, the weekly remission which
it requires of secular business, the peremptory call which it makes on
us to leave all our own works and ways for the special service of God,
and the opportunity which it affords, amidst the common hurry and
bustle of this world, to pause and examine our state and prospects for
eternity. It is well calculated for this, because it so clearly and so
often teaches us that the will of God should govern all our actions.
All these and similar considerations, therefore, should combine to fix
our attention to the very day of God's appointment, so that we may
sensibly feel that we are governed by a divine warrant, and have the
sublime pleasure of knowing that we are conforming to the will of God.
Taking this course, we not only preserve a good conscience, but tread
in the footsteps of God's redeemed flock. We imitate those who, in the
times of the Old Testament, "took pleasure in his holy day." We follow
the example of the Redeemer himself, who was a strict observer of the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment. His vindication of the disciples in
the case of "plucking the ears of corn" to satisfy their hunger, which
some have thought was a deviation from the strictness originally
required, was in perfect accordance with the true intent and meaning
of the law, else his obedience would have been imperfect, and thereby
the entire prospects of the Christian would have been blasted. Under
the circumstances, it was a work of absolute necessity, and therefore
not prohibited. As our Lord Jesus Christ was unquestionably a strict
observer of the seventh-day Sabbath, it is a commanding motive for a
continued observance of it by his followers, there being no substitute
appointed.

The Apostles, also, and primitive Christians, were conscientious
observers of this institution as originally delivered. The Sabbath so
often mentioned in the apostolic records is unquestionably the
seventh-day Sabbath. Who will dare deny this? And from ecclesiastical
history it appears that the whole Christian church, with very few
exceptions at most, kept the seventh-day Sabbath, in obedience to the
law contained in the Decalogue, down to the time of Constantine, in
the fourth century, and even afterward. So true it is, that we imitate
the church in her primitive and purest times, in keeping the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment. Under such circumstances, therefore, is it
strange that we should strenuously advocate the practice?--that we
should adhere to it amidst reproaches, privations, and suffering?--and
that we should feel the most ardent desire for the reformation of our
brethren who differ from us? The cause is sufficient to demand this
deep feeling, this unwearied effort, these prayers and tears, with a
vast increase of holy sensibility, tenderness of conscience, and
active labor, to promote this branch of obedience. We therefore
earnestly, and with all due respect, commend the subject to your
notice. Do not pass it by as a matter of little or no consequence. It
surely involves much that should be dear to the friends of Jesus, and
the advocates of pure morality--to such as would see the church appear
"fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with
banners." We entreat you, therefore, for the glory of God, the honor
of his law and government, the unity and perfection of the church,
your own spiritual attainments and acceptance with God, the conversion
and salvation of sinners, the triumph of truth over infidelity, the
redemption of the long-neglected house of Israel, the hastening of
millennial prosperity, and the recompenses of eternity, to give this
subject a most serious consideration, to examine and weigh our proofs
and arguments, and, if you find yourselves in error, as we confidently
believe you will, to reform. With the high consideration in view, that
"wisdom's ways are pleasantness, and all her paths are peace," and
that to pursue them "is for your life," we invite and seek your
recovery to sound views and practice in this matter. We "long after
you in the bowels of Jesus Christ," regarding him as "the Lord of the
Sabbath," not to repeal or change the sacred institution, but to
protect it, and enforce obedience thereto. Firmly believing that "we
are not without law to God, but under the law to Christ," we cannot by
any means discharge our own convictions at this eventful period, this
remarkable age of attempted reform, without using all the persuasion
in our power to promote an investigation of this matter.

We behold with sincere gratification the efforts which have been made,
and are being made, in regard to other subjects of special importance
to the church and the world. We would cordially cooperate with their
respective advocates in securing, as far as practicable, a strict
obedience to other moral precepts, and in emancipating the human mind
from sin and error. But we cannot forget that God has given a
_fourth_, as well as a _first_, a _sixth_, a _seventh_, and a _tenth_
commandment, and that it rests upon equal authority with those, and
with either of the precepts of the Decalogue; and hence we plead in
its behalf. We do this as moral and accountable beings, as
Protestants, as Christians, as reformers, and as cotemporaries of our
brethren in the nineteenth century, a period so distinguished for its
moral and political enterprises, and for its proximity to the time
when it shall be said, "The kingdoms of this world are become the
kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." We approach you in the belief
that "open rebuke is better than secret love"--that "faithful are the
wounds of a friend"--and that we "should admonish one another daily,
and so much the more as we see the day approaching." We feel bound to
exert ourselves in this cause, in the belief that "our labor will not
be in vain in the Lord," that the church is "coming up out of the
wilderness," and that we live in the dawn of a brighter day, in a
period of the world when the scriptures and the providences of God
concur in affording the highest encouragement to the faithful
advocates of truth and duty. And we do not hesitate to express our
expectation, that by the blessing of God upon the well-directed and
persevering labors of his people, and the continued and augmenting
spirit of inquiry, there will soon be achieved a glorious reformation
in respect to the subject of this Tract. God will "overturn, and
overturn, and overturn, till He shall come, whose right it is," and
"the sanctuary shall be cleansed."

Finally--we enter our testimony in what we deem an important case, in
the hope, through grace, of meeting all "the faithful in Christ Jesus
in the everlasting rest," of which the rest of the seventh day is a
lively and touching type and foretaste.

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce Street, New York.




THE SABBATH:

ITS MORAL NATURE AND OBSERVANCE


SECTION I.

THE SABBATH NOT CEREMONIAL.

It is disputed whether the weekly Sabbath is an essential part of what
is generally called the Moral Law, which the Holy Ghost declares to be
"spiritual--holy, and just, and good;" or whether it is to be classed
among the ceremonial institutions, which were "a shadow of things to
come." If the latter position can be established, it can be of no use
whatever to perpetuate the Institution under the New Dispensation. It
can neither be promotive of the spirituality and growth of the body of
Christ, nor even conservative of the morals of the community. To
suppose that the church cannot enjoy all necessary prosperity, and
attain its millennial glory by the use of New Covenant ordinances
alone, but must borrow a little help from the abrogated rites of the
Old Economy, is most anti-evangelical. Gal. iii. 3. The church needs
nothing for the nourishment of its piety, except such means as have
the entire sanction of the "better covenant." Moses is dead, and the
Lord has buried him. He cannot load us into the promised inheritance.
We have only to follow our Joshua, even Jesus, "the Son who is
consecrated forevermore."

Nor can "the weak and beggarly elements" be of service to promote the
morals of the community. Where do we find the most elevated and pure
morality, that which is refined from all selfishness? We find it only
in real Christians. The source, and life, and power of it is the
Atonement of their Great High-Priest, and the grace which is by Him.
Their obedience to all moral precepts is the obedience of _faith_,
even faith in his sacrifice. In proportion as their faith is strong,
and their dependence on Him entire, to the exclusion of all reliance
upon their own merit, so is their moral conduct irreproachable. It is
not by any resort to the "weak and unprofitable commandment," that
their morality acquires such excellence. As for that inferior kind of
morality, which obtains among unbelievers, however profitable it may
be to human society, it is but the mimic representation of that which
is practiced by the godly. For its very existence it is dependent on
Christianity, from whose influence if it recede, it becomes withered
and perishes. Transplanted to a heathen soil, it cannot live. As,
therefore, the general morals of the community are traceable to the
gospel as their first cause, and are kept in credit only by its
nurturing influence, it would be at war with sound reason to suppose,
that they could be promoted by such things as are destructive of the
purity of the gospel itself. They will be much safer, if left wholly
to the nurturing influence of that system, which is declared to be
'complete and faultless,--the power and the wisdom of God.' Wherefore,
if the weekly Sabbath was a ceremonial Institution, we have no use for
it, either as it respects the church, or the world. It is an injury
rather than a benefit.

But if, on the other hand, the Sabbath is a part of God's holy, and
just, and good law, to which nothing but the carnal mind refuses
subjection, Rom. viii. 7, it must be an institution of lasting value,
to dispense with which is dangerous in the extreme. For the
transgression of this law is sin, 1 John iii. 4, and the wages of sin
is death, Rom. vi. 23.

That the Sabbath was not a ceremonial institution, is proved from the
fact that it was given to man before his Apostacy, Gen. ii. 1-3. There
he had no need of a Redeemer, for he bore the image of his Maker in
righteousness and true holiness. If man in his original state of
uprightness had no need of a Redeemer, he certainly had no need of a
type of the Redeemer. Types, in such a case, were unmeaning things, or
else a source of vexation and horrible forebodings. If he understood
their meaning, he could never look upon them, without thinking of the
awful ruin into which he must soon be plunged by the fall. But this
would both operate as a discouragement to all endeavors at
steadfastness, and at the same time would exhibit the All-Benevolent
God as marring the happiness of an innocent creature;--an idea never
to be admitted. We conclude, therefore, that the Sabbath, as
originally instituted, possessed nothing of a ceremonial character.
Typical institutions were introduced _after_ the fall, to explain to
ruined man the nature of that redemption of which he stood in need,
and which in the fulness of the time would be provided for him. They
were for his encouragement and consolation:--not to mar his happiness,
but to promote it.

To evade the force of this argument, some contend that the Sabbath was
not actually instituted and given to man in Paradise; that the
sanctification of it mentioned by Moses, signifies only that
appointment then made of the seventh day, to be afterwards solemnized
and sanctified by the Jews. But the utter futility of this objection
appears from our Savior's declaration that "the Sabbath was made for
man." Mark ii. 27. If it was made for man, it was made for him _as_
man; the very word denoting mankind at large, or rather, referring to
the first man as the representative of the whole human race. It was
made for him as a human, rational, intelligent creature; for his
benefit _as such_, without reference to the particular nation or
country to which he might belong. If it was made for his benefit, is
it reasonable to suppose that it was, nevertheless, kept in abeyance
for twenty-five hundred years? Made for man, and yet not given to him!
The world teeming with human beings, and yet the very institution that
was designed for their temporal and spiritual welfare, kept from them
for more than two thousand years, and then given only to an isolated
people forming but a fraction of the human race! The idea is monstrous
absurdity. An institution so important to the interests of humanity,
of civilization, and of religion, was wanted immediately, as well as
at the distance of two thousand years afterwards.

The objection is farther confuted by a consideration of the reason
which enforces the institution. The reason is, "that God rested on the
seventh day from all his work which he had made." The natural
inference is, that the institution existed from the time the reason of
it did. Human legislators, it is true, may not enact a law, until long
after a good reason exists for doing so; because they may be blind to
the existence of such a reason, and slow to discover it. But not so
with God. If the work of creation, and his resting from it on the
seventh day, is at any period of the world a good reason that man
should rest on that day, it was a good reason from the beginning. It
was good as soon as there were men to do it. So that what was then
their reasonable service, could not have been deferred for twenty-five
hundred years. Nay, it may be safely affirmed, that the reason for
keeping the Sabbath possessed more cogency at the beginning than it
did afterwards. For in after ages sin had marred and defaced the
Almighty's work. Nevertheless, if when sin had marred it, there was
still good reason for keeping the memorial of it, much more was there
good reason for doing so, when it was in all its original glory. In
what respect does or did this reason concern the Jews more than any
other part of mankind? Do not Gentiles stand on the same level with
them in respect of their being a part of God's creation? Have they not
as much interest in creation as the Jews? "Is He the God of the Jews
only? Is He not of the Gentiles also?"

The reasons for such institutions as were enjoined on the Jews
particularly, were derived from considerations in which they as a
people had a special and peculiar interest. Now the Sabbath, it is
true, is in one place enforced upon them by a consideration of this
kind, viz. their redemption from bondage in Egypt, Deut. v. 15. But
while this laid the Jews under a special and peculiar obligation to
regard the institution, it does not forbid the idea that they were
also under obligations of a general nature, which concern all mankind
alike. So too, the Christian church is under a special obligation too
keep this sacred day, because of its interest in the blood of
redemption. But to infer from this, that the common obligation under
which all others are held is canceled, and that none are bound to keep
it except the blood-bought church of God, would be in the last degree
illogical, as well as unscriptural.

Let it be observed, that the language of the sacred historian: "God
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it"--is no more qualified, than
that which speaks of his resting. With reference to this, his language
is explicit,--"He rested on the seventh day from all his work which he
had made." In face of such a declaration, nothing but folly would say,
that God did not actually rest on the seventh day of creation, but
waited until the Jews were called out of Egypt. God certainly did rest
on the seventh day of creation. If the ordinary construction of
language is to be employed in reference to this, it must be employed
in reference to his blessing and sanctifying it also. Wherefore, as
God rested on the seventh day of creation, he blessed and sanctified
that day, even that very day on which he rested. "God blessed the
seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in _it_, (the very day
which he so blessed and sanctified,) he had rested from all his work
which God created and made." Gen. ii. 3.

The act of blessing and sanctifying the day can import nothing else
than constituting it a Sabbath. For to sanctify, undoubtedly, is to
set apart for a holy use. It refers to some line of conduct to be
observed by men towards that day. The expression, "God blessed it,"
must mean that he rendered it a day peculiarly happy and beneficial
for man. For whenever God blesses an object, whether it be a person or
an inanimate thing--a rational creature or the brute creation--he
connects with his blessing certain favors which would otherwise not be
bestowed, and renders the object serviceable for the promotion of
certain purposes which would not result without his blessing. A few
examples will render this perfectly clear. Thus, when he blessed the
first human pair, and the brute creation, he bestowed on them the
power to be "fruitful and multiply." When the ground receiveth
blessing from God, it bringeth forth herbs, meet for them by whom it
is dressed. When it is cursed, it bears thorns and briars, Heb. vi. 7,
8. Gen. xxvii. 27. Lev. xxv. 21. Mal. iii. 10. When God blessed
Abraham, he bestowed on him a numerous posterity, with Canaan for an
inheritance, and counted his faith for righteousness. In blessing
Samson, Judges xiii. 24, he endowed him with an heroic spirit,
singular valor, miraculous strength of body, and all other gifts and
graces necessary to his calling. When he blesses the church, he
bestows spiritual blessings in Christ, Eph. i. 3. Numerous other
examples might be adduced: but these are sufficient to show, that in
connection with the Divine blessing, special favors are always
bestowed. We therefore argue, that when it is said, "God blessed the
seventh day," it can mean nothing less than that he connected with it
favors and benefits above what are connected with any other day, and
that he bestows them abundantly upon those who keep it, and delight in
it, Isa. lviii. 13. He renders the day serviceable for the promotion
of the spiritual and temporal welfare of man. For it can by no means
be supposed, that God proposed to render homage to himself, or to
bless himself. It must be man, for whom the Sabbath was made, Mark
ii. 27, that stands in need of the blessing, and who is bound to make
a holy use of the day.

The foregoing remarks are judged sufficient to destroy the notion of
the Sabbath being a ceremonial institution. But we will not yet
dismiss the subject. If it was a ceremony, why was its importance
magnified above all the other ceremonies? Why that pre-eminence and
sanctity, which it had above all other types? It rears its head high
above all the ritual institutions, and holds this superiority
throughout the whole Mosaic Economy. Not only is it counted worthy of
being graven by the finger of God upon the stone tablets, thus having
the same honor as all the other precepts of the Decalogue, which are
confessedly moral; but even where it appears in combination with the
ceremonial usages, its great importance as a moral institute directed
to the highest ends, is clearly exhibited.

"For first, after the record of the promulgation of the Decalogue,
three chapters of judicial statutes follow; but in the midst of these,
the people are reminded of the essential importance of the Sabbath, in
a manner quite distinct and peculiar. It is associated with the
primary duty of worshiping the one true God, as of equal obligation,
and indeed as necessary to it. 'Six days shalt thou do thy work, and
on the seventh thou shalt rest, * * in all things that I have said
unto thee, be circumspect, and make no mention of the name of other
gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth,' Exod. xxiii. 12, 13.
This is sufficiently remarkable.

"Again, after six chapters more concerning the tabernacle and its
various sacrifices, the whole communication of the forty days' abode
on the mount is concluded with a re-inculcation of the Sabbath-rest,
in a manner the most solemn and affecting. 'And the Lord spake unto
Moses saying, verily my Sabbath ye shall keep; for it is a sign
between me and you throughout your generations, THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT
I AM THE LORD THAT DOTH SANCTIFY YOU. Ye shall keep the Sabbath,
therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that defileth it shall
surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that
soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be
done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord;
whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath-day, he shall surely be put to
death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to
observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual
covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever,
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day
he rested and was refreshed.' Exod. xxxi. 12-17. Can anything give
dignity to the sacred day, as founded in the essential relation of man
to his Maker and Redeemer, if this sublime language does not? Every
idea of sanctification, every sense of importance from a sign of a
covenant between God and man, every sanction derived from the awful
punishment of death, unite to impress upon us the duty; whilst the
proportion noted between the working days and the day of rest, and the
reason drawn from the order of creation, extend the obligation to
every human being."[1]

This great prominence which the Sabbath had amidst all the ceremonial
laws, was equivalent to an intimation that the ritual service must
never take the precedence of moral duties; that in the multitude of
their offerings and shadowy service, the worshipers must still
remember that true holiness does not consist in them, but in something
higher; and that all their conformity to the ritual service must
proceed upon moral footing, otherwise it is abomination in the sight
of God.

But come with me, reader, a little farther, and see how the scriptures
magnify the Sabbath at the very time they comparatively underrate the
importance of ceremonial observances. Compare carefully Isa. i. 11-14,
with chapters lvi. 1-8, and lviii. 13, 14, of the same prophecy. See
how in the one case the ritual service is degraded, and in the other
the Sabbath is exalted, and the holy keeping of it made the condition
on which depends the acceptance of their burnt-offerings and
sacrifices. Consider the language of Jeremiah. chap. xvii. 19-27. Read
the passage with care, and see how all the prosperity of the nation,
all the favor of God, is suspended on this one branch of moral
obedience; with which compare his language concerning ceremonial
observances. "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in
the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning
burnt-offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them,
saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my
people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it
may be well unto you," Jer. vii. 22, 23. A comparison of these
passages shows that Sabbath-breaking stood upon the same level with
the breach of all moral precepts, and characterized them as a
disobedient and rebellious people; while the neglect of ceremonial
observances is classed in a different category. Ezekiel follows in the
same strain, chap. xx. 12, 13, 16. In the book of Psalms too, we have
the Sabbath and its holy duties and pleasures extolled, Ps. xcii,
while ceremonies are depreciated, Ps. 1. 8, 14, li. 16, 17. And what
was the great reformation which the prophets after the captivity
sought to accomplish? Was not Sabbath-breaking the crying sin upon
which they dwelt? Look at the holy zeal of Nehemiah. His faithful and
searching rebukes proceed not upon their omission of ceremonial
duties, but upon their neglect of the great and paramount duty of
keeping the Sabbath, Neh. xiii. 15, 21, 23. In view of these scripture
references, does the Sabbath look like a ceremony--a shadow--a mere
element of the world, weak and beggarly!

Again, if the Sabbath was a part of the ceremonial law, why was Christ
at such pains to regulate the manner of observing it? Matt. xii. 1,
13. Why so careful to modify the false usages that obtained? Why did
he lay down distinctions between what is lawful to be done, and what
is unlawful? Was this his manner when any thing ceremonial was the
subject of dispute? Do we not find him, in such cases, waiving the
subject at issue, in order to inculcate matters of lasting importance?
How was it in his interview with the Samaritan woman? John iv. Her
question in regard to the proper place of worship was merely of a
ceremonial nature, yet it had been hotly disputed between her nation
and the Jews. Does Jesus become an umpire in the case? No. The
ceremonial institutions were about to vanish away; He himself came to
end them. Therefore he occupies himself, not in settling the litigated
questions that grew out of them, but in preaching great and
everlasting truths. In regard to the Moral Law, however, he is at
especial pains to vindicate if from all Pharisaic austerities, to
remove all false glosses, and to assert its everlasting equity and
glory. Witness his admirable exposition of it in his sermon on the
mount. Witness too, his exposure of the hypocritical tradition
concerning the fifth commandment. Matt. xv. 1-9. With this, his
vindication of the Sabbath, his care to purge it from traditional
corruptions, is perfectly parallel. But what sane mind ever thought
that he proclaimed the fifth commandment to be of a ceremonial nature?
Yet, strange to say, the precisely similar course which he took in
regard to the Sabbath, has, by some, been made an argument that he
abolished it as nothing but a Jewish ceremony.

'But drowning men catch at straws.' In spite of the overwhelming proof
that the Sabbath had its origin before ceremonial observances could,
with any reason, have been introduced, it is contended that it must
have been merely a Mosaic institution, because no mention is made of
its observance from the creation down to the time of the exodus of the
Israelites from Egypt. It is asked, 'whether men during all that time,
though otherwise so wicked, sanctified the Sabbath so universally and
perfectly, that not one among them ever needed an excitement to duty,
or a reproof for the neglect of it.' But to this question, however
triumphantly proposed, we are as ready to answer, No, as the objector
himself. That the great mass of men, during all this time, were wicked
and sinners before the Lord exceedingly, is admitted. But because they
were not particularly reproved for Sabbath-breaking, no more proves
that it was not a sin cognizable by the moral law, than the fact of
God's winking at the times of the Gentiles' ignorance and idolatry,
Acts xvii. 30, proves that their conduct was not cognizable as a sin
against his law. If God passed over the Sabbath-breaking of those who
lived in the first ages of the world without particularly taking
notice of it, the same may be said of his carriage towards the Gentile
world, in reference to _all_ their wickedness for four thousand years.
Besides, is not the drunkeness of Noah passed over without reproof? Is
not Lot's incest with his daughters?--and Jacob's cheating Esau of the
patrimony?--and the plurality of the patriarchs' wives? Were these
things not contrary to the Divine Law, because they were "winked at?"
Or, to come to cases still more in point, we observe that the silence
of scripture respecting the observance of the Sabbath during the
ante-Mosaic age, is no more than what occurs in regard to the period
between Moses and the time of David, near four hundred years. Yet who
ever doubted that it was observed during all this time? So also the
rite of circumcision is not so much as alluded to from a little after
the death of Moses, till the days of Jeremiah, a period of eight
hundred years or more. Nor is the ordinance of the red heifer once
mentioned from the Pentateuch till the close of the Old Testament. But
who doubts the constant observance of these ceremonies? The objection,
therefore, which is raised from the silence of Scripture, has no force
whatever.

But whoever considers the very concise manner in which events are
narrated in scripture, and that the history of two thousand years is
all compressed within the compass of fifty short chapters, occupying
about as many pages, will cease to wonder that no notice is taken of
the observance of the Sabbath by the pious patriarchs. This very
conciseness is a sufficient solution to a candid mind, without
resorting to the supposition that there was no observance of the
institution. Moreover, any one that peruses with attention the
accounts of pious characters contained in the word of God, will see
that no express mention is made of their acts of religion, unless
something remarkable attaches to them.[2] Abraham's faith is
mentioned, because it was remarkable. So of Abel, of Noah, and of
Enoch. But in regard to their observance of the Sabbath in particular,
it is not probable that anything remarkable or extraordinary was
connected with it, rendering it of sufficient importance to the world
at large to be recorded.

The position that we have taken is, that the Sabbath was instituted in
Paradise, when man was innocent; that it was binding before Judaism
had any existence. We have seen that the silence of scripture as to
any reproof given to the transgressor of it, does not shake this
position; that its silence as to any commendation bestowed upon the
pious for keeping it, does not shake it; and that its entire silence
is no more than what obtains with regard to the Sabbath from Moses to
David, or with regard to circumcision from Joshua to Jeremiah, or with
regard to the red heifer from Moses to the end of the Old Testament.
Is there any thing yet remaining to weaken the force of our arguments?

In the opinion of our opponents there is one thing more. It is argued,
from Ex. xvi., that the Sabbath was first made known to the Israelites
in the wilderness, by the falling of the manna. But we can discover
nothing in the whole history of the matter, as given by Moses, which
intimates that the Sabbath was then made known for the first. On the
contrary, the abruptness of the reference implies very strongly the
previous knowledge of it. This idea receives strong confirmation from
the fact, that when the people were reminded of the institution,
nothing was said to them concerning the reason of its being their duty
to keep it; which would hardly have been the case, had the subject
been then presented to them for the first time. For it is worthy of
note, that God condescends to give the reason of this command; a thing
which he does not for moral precepts in general. He gives the reason,
because man cannot discover it for himself, it being purely a matter
of revelation that God made the world in six days, and rested on the
seventh. Whereas, other moral precepts are more readily discoverable
from the light of nature. Now, if God condescends in any place, and at
any time, to give the reason for a command, we might expect it would
be at the time of its first promulgation. In Gen. ii., where we
suppose the law to be first given, the reason accompanies it; but in
the passage now under consideration it does not.

Again, it is nowhere in the context intimated that the object of
giving the manna was to make known the Sabbath. On the contrary, the
declared object of supplying their wants in this miraculous manner,
was to make the Israelites know that it was the Lord Jehovah who
brought them out of Egypt, v. 6, and not Moses and Aaron, as they
intimated, v. 3, to make them know that the Lord was their God, v. 12,
and to prove them, whether they would manifest their gratitude for his
merciful interposition in their favor, by walking in his law, or no,
v. 4. This was the express and primary object. To make known the
Sabbath is not even hinted as having been the _subordinate_, much less
the _principal_ object.


SECTION II.

ARGUMENT FROM THE DECALOGUE.

We commenced this essay with the design of showing that the Sabbath is
a necessary part of the immutable law of God--that law which is "holy,
and just, and good;" which is "spiritual;" to which nothing is opposed
but that which is carnal. Hitherto, we have rested none of our proofs
upon the fact, that it was incorporated in the Decalogue; that it is
one of the TEN WORDS "which God spake in the Mount, out of the midst
of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great
voice; and he added no more." Deut. v. 22. For to assume that the
Decalogue, as such, is the moral law, and that the Sabbath, because it
makes a part of it, is therefore everlastingly binding, may not be
satisfactory to some of our readers.

That the Decalogue, as such, held a peculiar aspect towards the Jews,
different from that which it holds towards any others, is freely
admitted. It made a part of their civil code; it was incorporated with
their political laws, and, therefore, temporal penalties were annexed,
which were inflicted by the civil magistrate. Offences against the
most of its precepts were punishable by death, Sabbath-breaking not
excepted. Hence some contend that these precepts ought not to be
called, by way of eminence, "_the_ Moral Law;" that the fact of their
having been graven upon stone, and given under circumstances of
greater pomp and glory than the other precepts of the Old Testament,
constitutes no solid argument for their being so called. The greater
glory of their promulgation from the Mount of God, is supposed to be
sufficiently accounted for, by considering them as the _Constitution_,
or _Grand Platform_, upon which was based the whole of that system
which was peculiar to the Jews. The Decalogue, therefore, is supposed
to bear about the same relation to the other precepts spoken by Moses,
as _constitution_ bears to _statute law_. This view is thought to be
favored by those passages which call the stone tables "the tables of
the Covenant." Heb. ix. 4. Hence, as they say, the Covenant being
abrogated, the tables of the Covenant are set aside also; on the same
principle that when a political government is dissolved the
constitution is of no farther use.

Upon this seemingly plausible argument we offer the following remarks:

1. Admitting that the Decalogue is the grand constitution of the
Jewish polity, and that it has an excellence over the other precepts
spoken by Moses, precisely like that of constitution over statute law;
still we think it could not, in the nature of things, be any thing
less than a code of morals. There was a necessity of the strongest
kind, that it should embody all the essential elements of the moral
law. For, as obedience to statute law must proceed from constitutional
principles, so the obedience of the Israelites to the whole system of
Moses must proceed upon moral footing. Any other obedience than
this--any obedience which is of an inferior kind, God does not
require, and cannot, consistently with his holy nature. No matter what
is the nature of the precepts He gives, obedience to them must be upon
moral principle. A love for the great principles of righteousness must
regulate it all; for this only is the pledge that they will rigidly,
and without deviation, conform to any system that He enjoins upon
them. Therefore, the Moral Law, or rather the essential elements of
it, go before all the other laws He gave to the children of Israel. If
they will keep this law, which they promised to do, Exod. xix. 8, it
is a pledge that they will keep all the rest.

2. Though the covenant character of the Decalogue is abolished, by
reason of the Sinaitic Covenant being entirely abrogated, the moral
character of it remains untouched, and just the same as it was before
a covenant was based upon it. Hence, though we are under no covenant
obligation to its precepts, we are under a moral obligation to them.
The Jews were under a covenant obligation to the Decalogue, brought
upon them by the transaction at Sinai. But Jews and Gentiles were
alike under moral obligation to its precepts, antecedently to the
covenant made at Sinai. Let men learn to distinguish between covenant
obligation and moral obligation, and they will have no difficulty on
this point.[3]

3. If the covenant character of the Decalogue is abolished, and all
covenant obligation destroyed along with it, of course those temporal
penalties which were annexed to its precepts are also abolished. But
the moral penalty, the death of the soul, remains to be inflicted upon
every impenitent transgressor. Hence the Sabbath-breaker, as well as
the idolator, the profane swearer, and the adulterer, though not
obnoxious to death, as the despiser of Moses' law, is yet obnoxious to
the curse of God, and must inherit it by being punished with
everlasting destruction from His presence, and from the glory of His
power.

What is it then? Not only do the ten commandments possess a moral
character, independent of their inscription upon the stone tablets, as
the grand constitutional platform of the Jewish Theocracy; but they
possess this moral character BECAUSE they compose this constitution.
For the constitution, as we have already proved, could not, in the
nature of things, be any thing else than a summary of moral precepts.
Therefore, as the Sabbath is one of these precepts, it is a part of
the moral law, and remains of everlasting force and obligation.

In our defense of the ten commandments, we do _not_ "contradistinguish
them from the rest by calling the former exclusively _the_ moral law,
and all the other divine instructions of the Jews, through Moses,
_the_ ceremonial law." We not only admit, but strongly insist, that
moral duties are inculcated elsewhere besides in the Decalogue. "When
the Jews are told, Exod. xxii. 22, _Ye shall not afflict any widow or
fatherless child_, we need no scholastic definitions to enable us to
recognize this as a part of the moral code."[4] But we _do_ suppose
that the Decalogue comprises the _elementary principles_ of the moral
law. We suppose, that whatever moral duty is inculcated elsewhere, it
is deducible from one or other of the ten commandments. We can hardly
imagine a single condition in which it is possible for man to be
placed in this life, or a relation that he sustains, which is not
cognizable by this code.

Our doctrine receives strength from the prominence given to the
Decalogue in the New Testament. No small degree of honor is put upon
it by the Savior, in his Sermon on the Mount, an important part of
that celebrated discourse being occupied with expositions of its
precepts, and applications of them to the conduct of men, as the
subjects of God's moral government. Again, when the young man came to
Christ, and asked, "What good thing shall I do that I may inherit
eternal life," he was told to keep the commandments. That by these
were meant the precepts of the Decalogue, is evident from the Savior's
immediately beginning to quote those precepts. Matt. xix. 16-19. The
fact that they were enjoined with reference to _eternal_ life, proves
conclusively that their bearing was not merely upon the conduct of men
as citizens of the Jewish commonwealth, but upon their conduct as
moral and accountable creatures.[5] Again, when the Apostle inculcates
those duties which are the mark of love to our neighbor, he quotes the
precepts of the second table of the Decalogue. Rom. xiii. 9. It is
evident, also, that Paul refers particularly to the Decalogue as the
law which convinced him of sin. Rom. vii. 7. For he cites the tenth
precept of it, as showing him that strong desire after things
forbidden is sin. This is the commandment which, being powerfully
applied to his heart, made sin to revive, and he died: ver. 9. Hence
he includes the Decalogue, when he speaks of that law which is
"spiritual, and holy, and just, and good:" vs. 12, 14; to which the
carnal mind, refusing subjection, is therefore enmity against God.
Rom. viii. 7. One more example. Paul writing, not to Jews, but to
converts from among the Gentiles, recognizes the usual arrangement of
the Decalogue, and its validity as a rule of duty under the Gospel,
when he says, concerning filial obedience, that it is the first
commandment which has a promise annexed to it. Eph. vi. 1, 2. In the
following verse he states what the promise is, presenting it as a
motive to obedience. This proves that no commandment had been changed
or dispossessed of its place.

In asserting the importance of the Decalogue, the reader will observe
that we do not particularly insist upon the manner and circumstances
of its promulgation. We dwell not upon the fact of its having been
written with God's own finger upon stone, while Mosaic institutions
were engrossed by Moses himself upon parchment. We dwell not upon the
thunderings, lightnings, thick clouds, the loud blast of the trumpet,
and the voice of Jehovah from the midst of the fire; all which
conspire to throw around the ten commandments a glory not belonging to
the ceremonial precepts. These things we pass, aware that men will
evade the argument from them, by the supposition that they prove
nothing more than that kind of superiority which the constitution of a
state has over statute law. We can hardly refrain, however, from
observing, as we pass, that as the ark was the throne of God, Exod.
xxv. 22, Num. vii. 89, xvii. 4, Ps. xcix. 1--it is difficult to
conceive how righteousness and judgment were the habitation of his
throne, Ps xcvii. 2, if the "ten words" which were there deposited
were not designed to be an expression of His perfections, and the
eternal rule of right to His creatures.

But we think we have placed the morality of the Decalogue upon grounds
that cannot be successfully disputed. Having thus secured it, we
advert to the foregoing circumstances, not as direct proof of the
truth of our argument, but as so much collateral evidence. There is
one circumstance, however, which ought not to be passed over lightly.
The tables of stone were deposited in the ark, and covered over by the
mercy seat. On the great day of atonement, when the High Priest
entered into the Most Holy, he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice
upon this mercy seat, and upon the floor before it, thus making an
atonement for the sins of the people. But did this blood in reality
atone for the sins of the people against that law which was concealed
under the mercy seat? No. Not only was it no atonement for moral
offences, Heb. x. 4, but it was not even an atonement for their
political violation of this code. For such violation, in regard to
most of its precepts, was a capital crime, and could not be expiated
under that covenant. The whole process, therefore, was typical or
prefigurative of the grand atonement made for the sins of the world by
Jesus Christ, the High-Priest of our profession. Heb. iii. 1. The
argument derived from it in favor of the Decalogue is, that what the
law by its offerings could not do, God, sending his own son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
Rom. viii. 3. For Christ enters into the Most Holy, even unto Heaven
itself, with his own blood, and makes a real atonement for sins. In
other words, the legal sacrifices could not reach to sins against the
Decalogue, but Christ's sacrifice did, and therefore the superiority
of the gospel over the law is fully established. But the whole
argument for the superiority of the Christian sacrifice becomes null
and void, on the supposition that the atonement had reference to any
other law than the Decalogue.

Now if the Decalogue, as a whole, has a claim to be called a summary
of the moral law, the Sabbath derives in this way no small degree of
authority, For it is a very important part of the Ten Words, standing
right in the very heart of them, and bound up along with them; so
that, whatever dignity and excellence the rest have, this has also. We
are, therefore, driven to the conclusion, that when the Savior says,
"One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," the
Sabbath is alluded to as much as any other precept. That when the
Apostle teaches, the law is not made void through faith, Rom. iii. 31,
he means, among other things, that the Sabbath is not made void by the
gospel, but rather established. That when he says "the law is
spiritual," Rom. vii. 14, he means that the Sabbath law, as well as
all other precepts, is spiritual; and that none reject it but those
who are "carnal, sold under sin."

But we shall hear it objected, that the fourth commandment is not
transferred to the New Testament, and re-enacted there, while all the
other commandments are. This, however, is taking a wrong view of the
case, altogether. The truth is, that no moral precept is re-enacted in
the New Testament. What necessity is there for re-enacting laws which
never expired? The very notion of re-enacting implies their previous
expiration. Wherefore, if those precepts of the moral law which we
find in the New Testament are there for no other reason than because
they are re-enacted, it follows that they must have expired with the
Old Covenant. If they expired with it, they were peculiar to it, and
must have had their origin in it. If they were peculiar to it, and
originated in it, then all obligation to obey them was merely covenant
obligation, while moral or natural obligation is supposed to have had
no existence. But this conclusion is an absurdity, and if carried out
still farther, leads to multiplied absurdities.

Whatever laws are enacted in the New Testament, are altogether new and
peculiar to that covenant of which Jesus is the mediator. They
emanated from him in his character of Head of the Church. Baptism is
one of them. It is, however, a new institution, peculiar to the New
Covenant, and was not brought over from the old. The Lord's Supper is
another, yet it is a new Covenant ordinance entirely, and therefore,
like baptism, is to be observed only by believers. But as for the
_re-enacting_ of laws, it is a thing altogether unknown in the New
Covenant, and inconsistent with its nature.

The notion of the necessity of re-enacting the Sabbath in the New
Testament, arises altogether from supposing that it is a covenant
institution or church ordinance. But if it is a church ordinance, it
can be binding upon none but believers; on the same principle that the
ordinances of the Mosaic church were binding upon none but Jews. Is
any one prepared to take this ground? We think not. Those who
acknowledge the necessity of any Sabbath whatever, consider the
observance of it a duty devolving upon men irrespective of their
connection with the church, binding them in the isolated and
individual capacity, even though church privileges were altogether out
of the question. Were an individual abiding in some lone cavern of the
Rocky Mountains, or roaming the uninhabited and trackless wastes of
the earth, far, far from scenes of busy life, the law of God still
binds him "to remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy."

The truth is, the Sabbath is not properly an ordinance of either of
the covenants. It originated in neither of them, but was in existence
long before any covenant was revealed to man. Hence, after the Old
Covenant was abrogated, it remained just what it was before. So that
if, in the history of the New Covenant, or what is commonly called the
New Testament, there was not one word of allusion to the Sabbath in
particular, it would not affect the argument in the least.[6]

But is it true, that the Sabbath is not sanctioned by the New
Testament? What means our Savior's course in regulating the manner of
its observance, in vindicating it from Pharisaic austerities,
determining what is lawful to be done, &c., Matt. xii. 1-13. It can
mean nothing else than sanctioning it, as a precept of the moral law,
as we have already shown in our remarks upon this text, p. 10. But
even if this express sanction were wholly wanting, inasmuch as it is a
part of the moral law, as we have clearly proved, it stands firm,
unaltered, and unalterable, receiving, from the very nature of the
case, all the sanction of the New Covenant. It is impossible for the
New Covenant to affect it in any other way than to strengthen and
uphold it.


SECTION III.

RELATION OF THE SABBATH TO POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS

Is there then no difference between the law of the Sabbath and the
other precepts of the decalogue? We do not mean to say there is no
difference whatever. There is something in it which partakes of the
nature of a _positive institution_, as theologians are pleased to term
it. Positive institutions are generally considered to be such as are
not discoverable by the light of nature, their obligation resting upon
the mere will of the Lawgiver. While on the other hand, moral precepts
are supposed to be ascertained by the light of nature, and to be
binding independently of any appointment of the Lawgiver.

We are free to admit the positive nature of the Sabbatic institution,
so far as it respects the particular day to be observed, and the
proportion of time; also as it respects the great reason on which the
law is founded. For it is not a dictate of nature, that one seventh
part of time is more holy, or has any more demand upon us in a
religious way, than one tenth, or one fifth, or any other proportion.
Nor is it a dictate of nature, that God created the world in six days,
and rested on the seventh, blessing and sanctifying _it_. The light of
nature, it is true, teaches that the world was created by eternal
Power; but it gives no information of the time occupied in it, nor of
the fact of His resting on the seventh day, after it was finished.
Therefore, so far as the mere light of nature is concerned, we are
left in the dark respecting what constitutes the very foundation of
the institution.

But after all, we very much doubt the propriety of classing all those
precepts which we cannot discover by the mere light of nature, under
the sweeping name of positive institutions, as if they were on the
same level with the passover, circumcision, the ordinance of the red
heifer, &c. Indeed, we utterly protest against it, if the intention is
to underrate their importance, or to depreciate them as
"_non-essential_," according to the cant term of the day. For what in
such case would become of the whole system of Christianity itself? We
mean the system of appointing a Mediator, and the redemption of the
world through him. It is a positive institution, that is, purely a
matter of revelation, and wholly undiscoverable by the light of
nature. But shall we therefore call it a non-essential? Shall we
regard it as something of minor importance in comparison with the
religion of nature? Does it not devolve upon us with obligations just
as strong and overwhelming as the moral law? Most certainly it does;
not only because it is enjoined by the same authority, but also
because it is the only means of promoting a conformity to the moral
law. The same may be said of all positive institutions: they are
designed to promote a conformity first to that dispensation to which
they are peculiar, and second, to the moral law.

Whoever attempts a close investigation of the nature of positive
institutions, will find that the line of separation between them and
moral duties, is not always so easy to be drawn as might at first be
imagined. We say, indeed, that the former are not discoverable by the
light of nature. The reason of that, however, may be, not because they
do not in reality originate in the nature of things, but merely
because, our powers of discovery are so feeble. Were these powers
expanded, and the range of our intellectual vision widened, we might
possibly see that those very institutions we call positive, grow
naturally and necessarily out of the relation between God and us. Not
only might we see the reasons of positive institutions in general,
(which indeed is already sufficiently obvious,) but with such enlarged
capacities, we might see the reason why such particular ones are
pitched upon rather than others. The real difference between moral and
positive duties may, after all, be nothing more than this, that the
former we can readily discover for ourselves, narrow as the range of
our vision is--while the latter, we are so short-sighted, we cannot
discover, and are therefore wholly dependent on revelation for them.
Hence we suppose it is assuming more than can be proved, when it is
argued that positive appointments are altogether arbitrary, and have
no real foundation in the nature and fitness of things.[7]

Now when we admit that the Sabbath is a positive institution, we mean
that it is not discoverable by the light of nature, but is purely a
matter of revelation; and this is all we mean. It still possesses the
main attributes of a moral precept. For as we have already shown, any
duty which has its origin in the natural relation of creature to
Creator, must be of a moral nature, whether we can discover it for
ourselves, or whether by reason of our short-sightedness, we are
altogether dependent on revelation for it. That such is the origin of
the Sabbath law, is plain from the most casual inspection of it. It
grew out of God's creating the world in six days, and resting on the
seventh, and is a constant memorial of it. Besides, it provides for
the performance of the worship of God, which is confessedly a moral
duty; while the satisfaction it yields to the conscience of every man,
is a sufficient indication of its parity with other moral precepts.[8]

But to dismiss all further argument concerning the distinction between
moral and positive duties, let it be admitted that the Sabbath is a
positive institution in the very strictest sense; let it be admitted
to be nothing more than an arbitrary appointment, having no foundation
in the natural and primary relation of man to his Creator--it must
nevertheless remain in force so long as that dispensation lasts to
which it is peculiar. Hence it must still be in force; for the
dispensation to which it belongs, is the dispensation of nature
itself. While the dispensation of nature lasts, the day which God the
Creator originally "blessed and sanctified," will continue to be
sacred. It is utterly impossible that it should be otherwise; and
therefore all speculations about its changeable nature, resulting from
its being a positive appointment, are vain. Changeable and positive as
were the carnal ordinances of the old economy, they were not
changeable while that economy lasted, but were sacred throughout the
whole of it. Changeable and positive as are the ordinances of Baptism
and the Lord's Supper, they are not changeable while the dispensation
to which they belong continues, but are sacredly binding until the
dispensation ends. So of the Sabbath; yes, even of the very day
originally appointed.

Customary as it is with writers to draw the broad line of distinction
between what they call the _moral_ and _positive_ parts of the
institution, and whatever advantage it may have in _theory_, so far as
_practice_ is concerned, nothing is gained by it. Indeed, with those
who pretend to be guided by divine revelation, rather than by the
unaided deductions of their own minds, it is always an unnecessary
distinction. He whose heart is subdued to the will of God, will not be
studious to inquire which of his commands are of a moral, and which of
a positive nature. His inquiry will be simply this: "Lord, what wilt
thou have me to do?" If God command, he will obey, let the nature of
the command be what it will. Were man left to deduce the knowledge of
his duty from the nature and fitness of things, without the aid of any
light from above, God would not blame him if he should wholly neglect
to practice those duties, which are commonly called positive. All that
would be required of him in such case, would be the practice of those
duties which are most obviously of the moral kind. But with the
statute book of Almighty God in his hand, he stands on very different
ground. He is thus brought under obligation--yea, under _moral_
obligation, to esteem ALL the divine precepts concerning _all things_,
to be right. Psalm cxix. 128.


SECTION IV.

THE IMPORTANCE AND NECESSITY OF THE SABBATIC
INSTITUTION.

There are very few bearing the Christian name--perhaps none except
such as are a scandal to the profession--who do not feel the
importance of a weekly day of rest, which shall be dedicated to the
service of the Most High God. Whatever may be their scruples in regard
to the application of the term _Sabbath_, to such a day, and though
they may suppose that it is not to be observed according to the
rigorous exactness of the ancient law, they nevertheless feel that it
would be sapping the foundation of religion, morality, and good order,
to abolish all distinction of days, leaving none for religious and
moral improvement. Nay, even those who, in theory, maintain that under
the gospel all days are alike, still feel--though it is difficult for
them to account for it--that their theory and their experience will
not harmonize together. Their very nature calls for a day of repose,
while the wants of their souls are so clamorous as to drive them to
some moral and religious improvement of it. If they heed not these
monitions, they do but feel some aching void, some uneasy distress,
wholly unlike those peaceful feelings which result from a due
improvement of the season. Whatever be a man's _theory_, he _feels_
better when he sanctifies one day in seven to the Lord: his body feels
better--his soul feels better. This feeling is not one which grows out
of the airy visions of a distempered brain; but it is one which is
capable of being resolved into solid arguments.

Without a Sabbath, it would be utterly impossible to promote the
interests of religion. Were there no set time for suspending the
business of the world, the church of God would soon lose its
visibility, and hell obtain complete triumph over the fallen soul of
man. Ministers might preach, embodying in their discourses the most
powerful reasoning, and garnishing the whole with the sweetest flowers
of rhetoric; but, to whom would they preach? A few, of exalted piety,
who rejoice in the sacred testimonies more than in all riches, and who
feel that "a day in the courts of the Lord is better than a thousand,"
Psalm lxxxiv. 10, would perhaps be there. But the mass--the
throng--the great multitude--would be elsewhere. They would be
immersed in the service of the world, their souls perishing for lack
of knowledge. It would be impossible, utterly impossible to bring the
word of God to bear upon their minds. How then could they be saved?
For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Rom.
x. 17. And if men are not brought to believe the gospel, what becomes
of the church? Its visibility is gone--the gates of hell have
prevailed against it. But God has sworn that the church shall stand;
nay, that all nations shall flow unto it, Isa. ii. 2. Wherefore, He
who said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," Matt. xvi.
18, is also Lord of the Sabbath for the benefit of the church. As Lord
of the Sabbath, he will forever perpetuate an institution so necessary
to the interests of his kingdom.

This object--the promotion of Zion's welfare--could not be
accomplished, unless the day were strictly a Sabbath; that is, a day
of rest from all sorts of work. It is not sufficient that the day be
merely an honorable day--a notable season, or a day for holding
religious meetings. If men are not obliged to intermit their worldly
business, and that too by the express authority of God, they will give
themselves but little trouble to repair to a place of worship. Or even
should they go, their minds would be so filled with the world, that
the instructions from the desk would be as seed cast upon the way
side. Even with regard to the Christian himself, how could the life of
God be maintained in his soul, by an attention to religious duties
just barely for the short space allotted to the public assembly? It
would be impossible. His soul would be eaten up by the world. Public
opportunities must be followed up by secret prayer, and close
meditation in the sacred word. For this, one entire day in seven is
little enough. The experience of all devoted Christians--let their
theory about the Sabbath be what it may--has taught them, that nothing
less will suffice to keep their souls in prosperity and health.

It appears, then, that we need just such a Sabbath as the fourth
commandment enjoins; one, the law of which is, "in it thou shalt not
do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant,
nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates." If the great object of evangelizing men, and bringing them
to the knowledge and worship of Jehovah cannot be accomplished with
any thing less than one entire day in seven, sanctified for the
purpose, then unquestionably we need a Sabbath. It is therefore fair
to presume, that the Sabbath of the Decalogue was given with special
reference to man's necessities, and was not a mere _shadow_ to be
annulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

The Sabbath is necessary to promote the growth and strength of the
moral principle. A man may render obedience to all the other precepts
of the moral law; we may suppose them to be written on his heart; we
may even suppose them to be so perfectly wrought into the temper and
texture of his soul, that there is no deviation whatever. By his
obedience he gives evidence of being in possession of the great
principle of holiness. But this principle lives not by its own
inherent vitality; it must be nourished and fed continually, or it
withers and dies. However holy, however perfect the creature may be,
he possesses no self-replenishing, self-renovating principle,--he must
constantly resort to the great uncreated source for new supplies. The
contrary supposition makes him independent of his Maker. Now the
Sabbath is the season set apart and sanctified by God Almighty for
this very purpose. It is the means of grace for keeping alive the
great moral principle--the season when the creature goes right up to
the Great Fountain, and drinks of its invigorating streams, whereby he
comes forth rejoicing as a strong man to run a race. Hence we find
that even when man was innocent; when he was in possession of the
moral principle to perfection, still he was not left without a Sabbath
season for the replenishing of his spiritual powers. If he needed a
Sabbath then, much more does he need it now. For though he has been
created anew in Christ Jesus,--the principle of holiness being thus
re-implanted--yet has he a harder task to live holy to the Lord,
inasmuch as there is "a law in his members warring against the law of
his mind," "the flesh lusting against the spirit." Therefore he needs
all the aid the Sabbath can bring to his soul. He needs "the
restoring, the awakening day--the day of recovery and reformation--the
day that brings him back to recollection, to seriousness, to
penitence, to prayer." And when the last traces of sin shall have
become obliterated, and man put in possession of all that perfection
which pertains to the glorified state; still that perfection, we
believe, will not be sustained by its own vitality, but will be
preserved by means having a similarity to those employed on earth. For
it is an everlasting Sabbath there, Heb. vi. 9. Yes,

  "----there's a nobler rest above,
  To which our lab'ring souls aspire,
  With ardent pangs of strong desire."

But that the great importance of the Sabbatic Institution may be more
distinctly felt, let it be blotted out from existence. Not only let
the day which God himself "sanctified and blessed," be disregarded;
but let there be no day whatever devoted as a season of rest and
religious improvement. Let every thing which has the least semblance
of the Sabbatic rest be annihilated. What now is the state of morals?
What kind of order prevails in society? Why, men are not ashamed when
they commit abomination, neither can they blush. They can glory in
their shame, and hell seems to be let loose. What is true of
communities, is also true of individuals. Such as have disregarded all
seasons and opportunities for instruction in those principles which
serve as restraints upon the heart, have proceeded from bad to worse;
have become perfect pests of society, the ringleaders of all
wickedness, at the head of every miscreant gang, foaming out their own
shame, and ending their career in a prison or on the gallows. Witness
the poor criminal, as he stands on the dividing line between time and
eternity, and his long-slumbering conscience wakes up, and begins to
speak out its thunders. What does he say in that dread moment, when he
feels that the eye of God is directly upon him? What!--Why, that in
the beginning of his career, all the powers of his nature called him
to a day of rest, and warned him not to trample upon seasons devoted
to moral and religious improvement;--that he disregarded these
monitions, until at length the voice of conscience was hushed in
silence, and the work of death was easy. Therefore, says he, I am a
ruined man. Reader, when you contemplate such facts, can you say that
a Sabbath is not necessary? Do you not see that the obliteration of it
is the brand upon the forehead of morality?

Need we, in this little essay, pause to consider the bearing of the
Sabbath upon the temporal welfare of man? It is a matter so obvious,
that we are almost ashamed to make it the subject of a separate
paragraph. It is a fact well attested by experience, that the human
frame sinks under uninterrupted toil. The utmost productive labor of
man is in the proportion of six days exertion to one of repose. So
that the Sabbath, instead of being an interruption to our necessary
business, is really a help to it. The utmost prolongation of human
life also, is in the like alternation of toil and rest. While the poor
beast of burden, if doomed to continued service, drags out a miserable
existence, and at length sinks under the premature exhaustion of his
powers. What lustre, then, does the Sabbath cast upon the benevolence
of its Author. What mercy, what God-breathed humanity appear in this
holy Institution. Let those who dwell in the habitations of cruelty,
be its enemies.


SECTION V.

MANNER OF OBSERVING THE SABBATH.

Notwithstanding God has given the Sabbath for the spiritual and
temporal benefit of man, it is manifest that we may suffer a woful
loss of all the good it proposes, if we neglect to make a proper
improvement of it. Like all the other means of grace, it may prove a
savor of death unto death to those who abuse it. It therefore becomes
a momentous inquiry, How shall this holy day be observed?

This great institution is to be regarded as a weekly testimony of our
allegiance to Him who created us. It thus becomes the mark of
distinction between the worshipers of Jehovah and heathens. This being
the case, it becomes a matter of thrilling importance that the
testimony of our allegiance be sincere, characterized by nothing of
hypocrisy or formality. If, in all our acts of worship, we must be
careful to worship "in spirit and in truth," surely it is of the
highest importance to do so on this solemn occasion, when the Great
King comes down to test our loyalty. Let it be remembered, too, that
in this business there can properly be no uninterested spectators. It
is not for a few to go through with the solemn act of dedicating
themselves, while the rest make it a mere holiday, in which they look
on, as boys witness the manouverings of soldiers on parade day. But
_all_ the sons and daughters of Adam--for all are alike the
workmanship of the Divine Being--are equally bound to direct their
eyes and their hearts to Him who made them, and to say, "Come, let us
join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be
forgotten."

On this day we should by no means omit to celebrate the praise of
creation. To be a memorial of this great work of the Almighty, the
Sabbath was originally instituted. Shall we then lose sight of the
original design of the institution, or even throw it into the shade as
a matter of secondary importance? Is not the soundness of that system
of theology to be suspected, which would teach us to do so? Some, it
is true, teach us that the work of Redemption being much more
stupendous than that of creation, is therefore to be made the chief
object of our praise. But however plausible this sentiment may seem,
it is a sufficient answer to say it is not contained in the
Scriptures. How much more vast the work of Redemption is than that of
creation, we pretend not to say, as we are not able to measure the
extent of either. To say which work makes the most powerful impression
upon our minds, and fills us with more sublime ideas, is more easy.
But that is no criterion by which to judge of their relative
magnitude. Let it even be conceded that Redemption exceeds in glory
the work of creation, still, whence do we _derive_ those powers by
which we estimate its glory? Whence did we obtain those faculties by
which we contemplate the great scheme of Redemption, and know that it
is glorious? Is it not to the wisdom and goodness of God as displayed
in creation, that we are indebted for all these? And what are the
_objects_ upon which Redemption is accomplished? Are they not
_created_ objects? And what is the _effect_ which redemption has upon
them? Is it not that of putting an end to the disorders which sin has
introduced, and bringing them to their original glory? Is not the
final result of redemption to be that of bringing man back to that
state of holiness and rectitude which the work of creation originally
bestowed upon him? How then can the praise of Redemption be
celebrated, without celebrating the praise of creation also? The one
certainly leads directly to the other. So that if Redemption
accomplish its proper fruits upon us, it will lead us to be still more
devout in observing the proper memorial of the Creator's works.

But let it not be thought, because the work of creation holds so
prominent a place in our Sabbath meditations, that redemption is
therefore cast into the shade. It is rather the contrary. For as those
powers by which we contemplate the work of creation, and become
acquainted with its grandeur and with its author, are impaired by sin,
so it is impossible for us to enter into the subject profitably,
except by the aid which Redemption affords. If we attempt to bring our
mental powers to act upon the works of creation, and to "look through
nature up to Nature's God," we shall find them slow and lifeless to
perform their duty, until first purified and invigorated by the
influence of the great Atonement. Much, therefore, as it is our duty
to celebrate the praise of creation, we cannot do so to the glory of
God, without recognizing at the same time the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus, as the means by which we do it. From which it appears,
that the praises of creation and of redemption go hand in hand in this
matter. There is no clashing,--no contrariety,--nor even such an
elevation of one above the other in respect to glory, that they cannot
be celebrated together, and upon the very day which most fitly serves
as the memorial of the former; which memorial cannot be transferred to
another day without manifest incongruity.

It is manifest from the slightest consideration of the nature and
design of the Sabbatic institution, that Redemption cannot be excluded
from our meditations on this holy day, but must hold a very prominent
place. For one great design of the Sabbath is, to promote our
conformity to holiness. But man partakes of no holiness except through
the gospel. The mediation of Christ is the only channel through which
it is communicated to him, and this always in connection with the most
vigorous action of his mind on the subject.

Another very important thing among the duties of the Sabbath, is the
cultivation of a right spirit with reference to it. We should "_count
it a delight_," Isa. lviii. 13. Can that man be called a Christian,
who counts it an irksome season? Is he spiritually minded to whom it
is an unwelcome interruption of his worldly business, who in the
avariciousness of his heart says "when will the Sabbath be gone that
we may set forth wheat?" Amos. viii. 5. Surely not. His temper is any
thing but in accordance with the sacredness of the Sabbath season. His
thoughts, his feelings are a direct violation of that law which says,
"Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy." To a real Christian,
however, the Sabbath is the most delightful season he enjoys on earth.
It is something like a heaven below; for the things of God and Christ
come then into direct contact with his holy soul. He is as eager for
the approach of this holy season, as a child is for his holiday.
Instead of it being too long for him, it is too short; and with joy
does he look forward to a Sabbath which shall never end, that which
remaineth for the people of God, Heb. iv. 9. Such a spirit ought ever
to be cultivated. In no other way can the Sabbath become a means of
grace to the soul. What will mere abstinence from labor do? It will
only contribute to the renovation of the corporeal system; which, it
is true, is one design of the institution. But this is a small part.
Shall we take care of the body, and not of the soul! Yet the soul
suffers unto death, if there be no care to cherish a right spirit with
reference to the day which is "the holy of the Lord." Our very
thoughts must be put under restraint, and the greatest care taken that
nothing of a worldly nature intrude into the mind.

This leads us to observe, that our conversation should have no
reference to worldly things, but should be upon such subjects as are
spiritual and tend to the furtherance of the soul in the divine life.
"Not speaking thine own words," Isa. lviii. 13. But, alas! we shall
enter the dwellings of some, and when the Sabbath approaches, we shall
not know it by any difference that we can discover in their
conversation. It is still upon subjects that have not the remotest
connection with the glory of God. Follow them to the place of public
worship, and up to the very threshhold of the door, their speech still
savors of this world. Follow them through the whole of the day--the
state of their crops, the currency of the country, the political
aspect of things, banks, bonds, mortgages; these are the themes upon
which they expatiate. These render them animated, and even eloquent.
"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Reader,
thinkest thou that such persons can say in truth, "O how I love thy
law." That law says, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.
Thinkest thou that the love of God reigns in their hearts? This is the
love of God, that we keep his commandments. John. v. 3.

All visiting for pleasure is inconsistent with a right observance of
the Sabbath. Express and plain is the word of God--"Not finding thine
own pleasure." Isa. lxviii. 13. Visiting the sick for the purpose of
alleviating their sufferings, and rendering what help we can, either
as it regards their bodies or their souls, is not only allowable, but
is a Sabbath duty. But even this is liable to abuse. Multitudes take
the Sabbath to visit the sick, merely because they are not willing to
take time on any other day; and it is to be feared that if there were
no Sabbath, the sick would be sadly neglected by them. Others go
merely because the rigid improvement of the day at home is irksome to
them. They watch the occasion, and convert it as much as possible into
a visit for their own pleasure, while they quiet their consciences by
the reflection that they have been visiting the sick. Reader! be
careful how you seek to evade the restraints of Heaven's law. Every
attempt on your part to convert the season of holy rest into a day of
pleasure, evinces a heart that counts the commandments of God
grievous. Is this a _renewed_ heart? Impossible. Remember, too, that
while you visit others for your own pleasure, you drive them to a
violation of the Sabbath, as well as yourself. You take them from
their closet, their reading, their meditations.

All traveling, for business or for pleasure, is also forbidden by the
Sabbath law. Such traveling as may be necessary in order to promote
the due sanctification of the day, is of course not included.
Harnessing our horses and riding to our accustomed places of worship,
may be necessary to promote the sanctification of the Sabbath, and is,
therefore, no breach of it. It stands on the same level with the
labor performed by the priests of the Old Economy in the temple, for
which they were "blameless." Matt. xii. 5. Yet traveling one half the
distance for pleasure, is a profanation of the day, inasmuch as the
word of God says, "not finding thine own pleasure." For the same
reason, and because there are six days in which men ought to work,
journeying for business on the Sabbath, is a violation of it. Take the
following case: Brother A. is out on a journey. The Sabbath comes, and
instead of putting up and resting until the sacred season is past, he
keeps right forward just as he had done every other day of the week.
True, he professes to regret the necessity of traveling on this day,
but pleads in excuse that he cannot afford to stop at a public house
during the time. He is too poor; or, he says, the tavern is a noisy,
bustling place, and unfavorable to his religious enjoyment, and,
therefore, he concludes it will be no greater violation of the Sabbath
to proceed quietly on his journey than it would be to spend it in such
a situation. But, brother, let me talk with you about this. How much
would it cost you to stop at the public house? A dollar, or two
dollars; or it may be, if your family is with you, five dollars. Well,
will you barter away the sanctity of the Sabbath for five dollars!
Poor as you are, will you make sale of the ordinance of God for money?
For this is what you do in reality. Turn it and turn it whichever way
you will, it comes at last to this. Pause, then, and consider whether,
under such circumstances, and actuated by such principles, you can
class yourself with those who "esteem the law of God better to them
than thousands of gold and silver." Ps. cxix. 72. The true Christian
would rather impoverish himself to the last farthing than violate one
of God's precepts. "But the tavern was noisy and bustling." How came
you to put up at such a tavern? Those who _remember_ the Sabbath, and
are anxious to spend it to the glory of God, will carefully look out
and make their inquiries beforehand, and in most cases will not have
much difficulty in lodging themselves at a quiet place. But if through
circumstances beyond their own control, they are lodged in a place of
different character, their duty is to submit to it, and do the best
they can. Your enjoyment may not be so great; but what of that? Your
spiritual prosperity does not always depend on your enjoyment; nor
does God's glory depend upon it. God's glory depends upon your
obedience to his law, and so does your prosperity. It is a mistaken
notion that Christians are never in the way of duty but when they are
in the way of enjoyment. Besides, dare you prescribe terms to the
Almighty, and say you will obey him, provided he will grant you such
enjoyments and privileges as you want, otherwise you will not? How
daring the impiety! What if God lodged you at such a wicked place on
purpose that you might, by your conduct and your words, be a reproof
to the ungodly sinners that frequented there. Will you be ashamed of
your duty, and shrink from the trial? "He that is ashamed of me and of
my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed." Luke ix. 26.
Remember, my brother, God's law says, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it
holy." The exceptions which you make, God has not made.

After what has been offered, it seems almost needless to add, that
Sabbath-keeping includes abstinence from labor. The Divine law enjoins
us "to keep it holy." The plain meaning of which is, that it is a day
peculiarly sacred to the Lord. For the word _holy_, when applied to
things inanimate, or to portions of time, denotes them to be set apart
exclusively for religious purposes. If, then, the day in question,
according to the divine mandate, is to be kept holy, it is manifestly
a sin to devote it, or any part of it, to secular pursuits. Wherefore
the law is express--"in it thou shalt not do any work." All that work
which on other days is perfectly lawful, is on the holy Sabbath to be
laid aside, except such as may be absolutely necessary for the
prevention of distress, or the relief of objects of mercy. But alas!
what kind of commentary upon this law is the conduct of many who call
themselves by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us see.--Neighbor
B. has a large grass farm, and milks daily from thirty to fifty cows.
The product of his dairy is cheese, of which he makes one or perhaps
two each day during the proper season. The Sabbath comes, and the cows
must be milked. Well, that is right and necessary for the prevention
of distress. But then the milk must be subjected to the same operation
as on other days, and the accustomed cheese must be made, because
otherwise it would be lost. Lost!--well, suppose it should be, how
much is it worth? Why, five dollars, more or less. And so he barters
away the sanctity of the Sabbath for _five dollars_! Well, Judas sold
his master for thirty pieces of silver, and how much better is your
conduct than his? Or what better is your conduct than mine would be in
the following case? I have a valuable horse, which I will sell for one
hundred dollars. A traveler passes my door on Sabbath day, and offers
me my price. Now the times are hard, and by closing the bargain it
will be a profit to me of twenty or twenty-five dollars. By refusing
to do so, I lose the chance of selling him, and he remains on my
hands. Rather than lose so good an opportunity, I strike the bargain,
Sabbath though it be. Thus have I sold the sanctity of the Sabbath for
twenty dollars! Neighbor B., who makes his cheese on the Sabbath, is
horror-struck, and comes over to admonish me. But, "_Physician heal
thyself_."

We might multiply cases to illustrate our argument, but it is
needless. Every instance of departure from God's law, we believe, will
be found to have originated in selfishness. But that manner of keeping
the day which looks at our own interest, rather than the honor of God,
can in no way be called "keeping it holy." For if it is holy, it is
consecrated to the Lord, not to ourselves. But in all the foregoing
instances, it is manifest, the individual looks first to himself. Such
selfishness is idolatry, and is the very spirit that governs the
carnal mind. But God, in the just retributions of his providence,
sometimes defeats the very end proposed to be obtained by it. For
instance, the cheese, which is the product of Sabbath labor, spoils on
the dairyman's hands; or if that does not take place, he fails of
getting his pay for it. The farmer who was in haste to gather in his
hay or his grain on the Sabbath for fear of a shower, has no sooner
secured it than the storm begins, and a single flash of lightning
consumes the whole. Or, it may be, when winter comes, he takes it to
market, trusts it out, and finally gets nothing for it. The man who
could not afford the expense of stopping at the hotel over Sabbath
while on his journey, gets home, and finds perhaps that on the very
day he was profaning God's holy institution, some person's cattle
broke into his grain-field and destroyed enough to pay for his lodging
at the hotel half a dozen times. What then did he gain by it? That
such retributions overtake those who violate the law of God, is not
merely imaginary. On the contrary, it is believed, that were men more
close observers of the dealings of Providence, they would be sensible
that such things take place often. But, alas! "God speaketh once, yea,
twice, and man perceiveth it not."

It seems almost superfluous to say any thing about public worship, as
an important part of Sabbath exercises. If it were necessary to their
spiritual prosperity that Jews should meet together in "holy
convocation," Lev. xxii. 3, and be instructed in the testimonies
concerning a Messiah to come, it cannot be less important that
Christians should now assemble and celebrate the fulfilment of those
testimonies, and "the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ." Our
Lord has ordained public worship to be a means of promoting the growth
of his people in holiness; and if the Sabbath is a means to the same
end, they ought both to go together, unless our situation render it
impossible. If on the holy Sabbath we cannot say, "How amiable are thy
tabernacles, O Lord of hosts," when can we? If on this holy day we
cannot say, "I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my God,
than to dwell in the tents of wickedness," when will it ever be the
language of our hearts?

But we cannot enlarge. Our essay has already exceeded the limits we
had designed. We submit the subject to your consideration, as being
one of incalculable importance. Reader, what course will you take? God
Almighty has separated one day in particular from all others, and
pronounced it holy. Will you then say that all days are alike? Or will
you assume to yourself the prerogative of setting apart whatever
portion of time you choose, in open disregard of that particular
portion which God "sanctified and blessed," saying, "it is the Sabbath
of the Lord thy God?" Will you suffer your convenience or your
selfishness to come into conflict with the claims of your Maker? Who
is it that said, "If any man will come after me, let him DENY
himself?" Pause then, before you suffer yourself to be lulled into
indifference on this matter. A vain sophistry insinuates that it is a
subject of minor importance--a _non-essential_. But be not deceived.
God has magnified its importance throughout his holy oracles. It is
God the Lord that speaks, will you obey or will you turn again to
folly?

[1] Wilson.

[2] Burnside.

[3] "The Decalogue, as to the form of it, and as delivered through the
hand and ministry of Moses, only concerned that people (Israel), and
was calculated for their use; though, as to the matter of it, and so
far as it is of a moral nature, and agrees with the law and light of
nature, it is equally binding on the Gentiles."--_Dr. Gill._

[4] Bap. Advocate of Jan. 16, 1841.

[5] Christ inculcates only the precepts of the second table of the
law, not because they are of more importance than those of the first,
but because they are less easily counterfeited. Such duties are by far
too weighty to be permanently sustained by the hollow-heartedness of
the hypocrite.

[6] Most writers on this subject, though they admit the morality of
the Sabbath, and the claims it has upon all men indiscriminately,
appear to reason in a manner entirely different, when they come to
contend for a change from the seventh to the first day of the week.
Their arguments which before were predicated upon the nature and
fitness of things, and the requirements of God, as the natural
Lawgiver of mankind, are suddenly changed and based upon the new
dispensation of Jesus Christ. Now this is an inconsistency; but it is
one to which they are necessarily driven, in order to give
plausibility to the claims of their new Sabbath. The fact that Christ
introduced a new dispensation, does not argue a change of the Sabbath,
or an institution of a new one, unless it can be proved that the old
Sabbath was a church ordinance. If it was, then, as there is a new
church state, of course we must look for new church ordinances.

How, then, will it be proved, that the old Sabbath was a church
ordinance? Will it be said that the observance of it was indispensable
to membership in the Jewish church? Very true. But the same may be
said of the laws concerning murder, and theft, and adultery. Yet these
were not, properly speaking, church ordinances. Concerning these
things men were bound, though no church had ever existed. The sin of
murder lay at Cain's door, long before any church was formed. The
earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence,
before the Jews were organized into a church; and the sin of
dishonoring his father blackened the character of Ham, long before the
fifth commandment was published from Sinai. So, too, the Sabbath was
set apart by God sanctifying it and blessing it, more than two
thousand years before it entered into the statute law of Israel. It
cannot, therefore, be a church ordinance.

Will it be said, that the Sabbath, though not altogether a church
ordinance, is nevertheless so in part? If this can be established,
then certainly so much of it as partook of this character must
necessarily have been abolished by the death of Christ, and that part
only remains which had no such character. But I ask, what part of the
Sabbath law can claim to be a church ordinance, peculiar to the old
dispensation. It will be said that the particular day of the week set
apart for observance, was such. This, as all the world confesses, was
the seventh in distinction from every other. But the same rule which
determines every other part of the Sabbath law to be something else
than a church ordinance, determines the same thing with regard to the
seventh day of the week. If the Sabbath was not a church ordinance,
but obligatory upon all men indiscriminately, long before any church
existed, the same is true of the seventh day of the week. One part of
the law was not brought into existence without the other, nor one part
before the other. We conclude, therefore, that the particular day
which was consecrated, partook no more of the nature of a church
ordinance, than all the rest of the law did.

[7] "The reason of positive institutions in general, is very obvious;
though we should not see the reason why such particular ones are
pitched upon, gather than others. Whoever, therefore, instead of
caviling at words, will attend to the thing itself, may clearly see,
that positive institutions in general, as distinguished from this or
that particular one, have the nature of moral commands, since the
reasons of them appear. Thus, for instance, the _external_ worship of
God is a moral duty, though no particular mode of it be so. Care then
is to be taken, when a comparison is made between moral and positive
duties, that they be compared no farther than as they are
different--no farther than as the former are positive, or arise out of
mere external command, the reasons of which we are not acquainted
with; and as the latter are moral, or arise out of the apparent reason
of the case, without such external command. Unless this caution be
observed, we shall run into endless confusion."--_Butler's Analogy of
Religion to Nature. Part II. Chap. 1._

It is very commonly said, that positive institutions are changeable,
and therefore are unlike moral precepts, which are unchangeable and
eternal in their nature. But we deny that positive precepts are
changeable, so long as the relation subsists in which they originate.
Such positive institutions as originated in the peculiar relation
which God sustained towards the Jews, by reason of the Sinaitic
covenant, remained unchanged and unchangeable so long as that relation
subsisted. Such as originate in the relation He sustains towards man
as his Redeemer through Jesus Christ, also remain unchangeable so long
as such relation remains. On the same principle, such as originate in
the natural relation He bears to man as his Creator, remain just as
long as this relation exists; which is forever.

[8] President Dwight observes, [Sermon 185,] "The distinction between
_moral_ and _positive commands_, has been less clearly made by moral
writers than most other distinctions." He says the law of the Sabbath
is entirely of a moral nature, as to the whole end to which it aims,
so far as man is concerned; that "it makes no difference here, whether
we could have known it without information from God, that one day in
seven would be the best time and furnish the best performance of these
[religious] things, or no. It is sufficient that we know them."

"The decalogue exhibits _a perfect standard of morality_; and a
standard of morality not providing for the public acknowledgement and
stated worship of God as the Creator, would be _essentially
defective_."--_Parkinson's Letters to Elder W. B. Maxson._


THE SIXTH-DAY NIGHT.

  "Sweet to the soul the parting ray,
    Which ushers placid evening in,
  When with the still expiring day,
    The Sabbath's peaceful hours begin;
  How grateful to the anxious breast,
  The sacred hours of holy rest!

  I love the blush of vernal bloom,
    When morning gilds night's sullen tear:
  And dear to me the mournful gloom
    Of Autumn--Sabbath of the year;
  But purer pleasures, joys sublime,
  Await the dawn of holy time.

  Hushed is the tumult of the day,
    And worldly cares, and business cease.
  While soft the vesper breezes play
    To hymn the glad return of peace;
  O season blest! O moments given,
  To turn the vagrant thoughts to Heaven.

  What though involved in lurid sight,
    The loveliest forms in nature fade,
  Yet mid the gloom shall heavenly light
    With joy the contrite heart pervade;
  O thou, great source of light divine,
  With beams etherial gladden mine.

  Oft as this hallowed hour shall come,
    O raise my thoughts from earthly things,
  And bear them to my heavenly home,
    On living faith's immortal wings--
  Till the last gleam of life decay
  In one eternal Sabbath Day!"




No. 3.

THE SABBATH:

AUTHORITY FOR THE CHANGE OF THE DAY.


It being clear from the Scriptures, that the seventh day was
instituted by divine authority for a weekly Sabbath, and religiously
regarded throughout the times of the Old Testament, those who now
relinquish its observance, and keep the first day of the week, take
the ground that the Sabbath was either abrogated and a new institution
introduced in its room, or that the time of its observance was changed
from the seventh to the first day of the week, in commemoration of the
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. To be consistent with
themselves, therefore, they are bound to evince one or the other of
these positions. The burden of proof evidently lies on their part. For
unless it can be shown, that the fourth commandment, which requires
the sanctification of the seventh day, has been abolished, or amended
by the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week, it
is clear that the original appointment remains obligatory and is now
binding on the entire human family. And to substantiate either of
these points, the proof must be clear and decisive. It will not do to
rest upon doubtful deductions. We have an unquestionable right to
demand that divine warrant, in either case, which pertained to the
institution as originally delivered.

We will therefore first examine the proofs adduced in favor of the
abrogation of the former weekly Sabbath and the introduction of a new
institution.

       *       *       *       *       *

To sustain this position, the broad ground is taken by some, that the
Decalogue itself, in which the law of the Sabbath is contained, was
abrogated; and that, under the new dispensation, no part of it is
binding but what is newly enjoined or expressly recognized, either by
Christ or his Apostles.

The perpetual obligation of the Decalogue implies, of course, the
perpetual obligation of the Sabbath as enjoined in the fourth
commandment. But if _that_ was abrogated, the Sabbath which it
enjoined was also abrogated; and, consequently, it ceases to be
binding, unless renewed under the new economy. What, then, is the
proof here relied upon? One of the principal passages in which this
proof is supposed to be contained is 2 Corinthians 3:7, 8, 13. "But if
the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was
glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold
the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to
be done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather
glorious?... And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that
the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that
which is abolished." It is argued from this passage, that the clauses
"which glory was to be done away," and "to the end of that which is
abolished," refer to the whole law, _moral_ as well as _ritual_,
because mention is made of "that which was written and engraven in
stones," which is an evident allusion to the Decalogue. But, on
careful examination, it will be found that "that which was to be done
away," was not the _Decalogue itself_, but "the _ministration_ of it,"
which was then appointed--the same being emblematically illustrated by
the glory of Moses' countenance, which was merely temporary. This
clause refers expressly to the glory of his countenance, and not to
the glory of the law itself. So also the clause "that which is
abolished," does not refer to the Decalogue, but to the ministration
of Moses, including the appended rites and usages, the priesthood and
its sacrifices, which were useful merely for the time being. It cannot
be supposed that the Decalogue was abolished, without expressly
contradicting Christ's testimony, Matt. 5:17-19, as well as many other
representations of the Scriptures. The abolishment spoken of,
therefore, evidently respected no other than what the Apostle calls in
another place "the law of commandments contained in ordinances,"
inclusive of the entire ministration of Moses. There is unquestionably
a reference in this chapter to the Decalogue, but not as abolished. It
was merely the ministration of it, or the then instituted manner of
teaching, illustrating, and enforcing it, which was abolished, to be
succeeded by a new ministration of the same law by the Spirit. For it
is written, "I will put my law"--(the very law of the ten
commandments)--"in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts."
Again, "We are not without law to God, but under the law to Christ."
What law but the Decalogue is here referred to? Evidently none. For
surely we are not under the Mosaic ritual. Again, "Do we make void the
law through faith?... Yea, we establish the law." The same, no doubt,
which was contained in the Decalogue. Hence, the Apostle James says,
"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself, ye shall do well." Here the title "the
royal law" is given by way of eminence to the Decalogue; and its
permanent obligation is manifestly recognized; for the precept alluded
to is a summary of the last six commandments of this code, and the
allusion is so made as to imply the continued obligation of the first
four, which are summed up in supreme love to God. Again, the Apostle
John testifies, "Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments." And again, "Blessed are they that do his commandments,
that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through
the gates into the city." In both these passages reference is
evidently had to the precepts of the Decalogue, as the essential and
permanent rule of obedience for Christians. The doing away or
abolishment, therefore, spoken of in the above passage, cannot refer
to the Decalogue or the moral law _itself_, but to the Mosaic
dispensation or ritual.

Another of the proofs alledged for the abrogation of the Decalogue,
and consequently of the Sabbath, is Colossians 2:14-17. "Blotting out
the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary
to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and,
having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them
openly, triumphing over them in it. 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."

By "the hand-writing of ordinances," is most evidently meant the
ceremonial law--not the Decalogue, or the moral law. This is never
characterized as "the hand-writing of ordinances." Therefore, the
"blotting out," "taking away," and "nailing to the cross," spoken of,
have no reference to this law, but to the Mosaic ritual. This is
particularly distinguished from the Decalogue, and fitly described as
"the law of commandments contained in ordinances." It was this, and
this only, which was "blotted out" and "nailed to the cross." As,
therefore, the reference made by the Apostle is expressly to this law,
it follows, by a fair inference, that "the sabbath days" alluded to,
or, strictly rendered, "sabbaths," are those which were contained in
this law, or among these "ordinances," and do not include the Sabbath
of the fourth commandment. There were, besides the weekly Sabbath,
various other sabbaths appointed, which belonged to that ritual, and
not to the Decalogue. Accordingly, these were expressly included in
"the hand-writing of ordinances," and like the rest were "a shadow of
things to come," and ceased to be obligatory at the death of Christ.
There is evidently no authority in this passage for including any
sabbaths but what properly belonged to the Mosaic ritual. This view of
the matter is corroborated by a more literal rendering of the 17th
verse, viz: "Let no one therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in a part or division of a festival, or of a new moon, or of
sabbaths." The sabbaths alluded to are obviously those which are found
in the same place with meats and drinks, festivals and new moons, and
which were of the same general character. The weekly Sabbath,
therefore, is not affected at all by their abrogation, but remains in
full force, as does every other precept of the Decalogue.

We find the same distinction as to the law which was abolished, in
Ephesians 2:14, 15. "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and
hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man,
so making peace." Here the middle wall of partition between Jews and
Gentiles, called "the enmity," is expressly defined, as before, to be
"the law of commandments contained in ordinances." This, and this
only, therefore, was abolished, leaving the Decalogue, or the moral
law, in its original character and obligation. This is the language of
the whole Bible. There is no proof in any of these passages, that the
law of the ten commandments was abolished, or that the Sabbath
enjoined therein was done away.

Nor is there such proof in Romans 14:5, 6. "One man esteemeth one day
above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be
fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth
it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth
not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God
thanks: and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth
God thanks." This passage is frequently adduced as proof that the
obligation to keep the ancient Sabbath has ceased, and that under the
Gospel dispensation there is no divinely authorized distinction in the
days of the week; that there is no one constituted _holy_ in
distinction from the _rest_; and consequently that every one is left
at his own liberty to keep a Sabbath or not. It will be easily
perceived, that if this argument has any weight in reference to the
_seventh_ day as the Sabbath, it operates equally against the
obligation to keep the _first_ day, either as a substitute for the
seventh, or as a memorial of the resurrection, seeing it places all
distinctions whatever as to days on the same ground with the
confessedly obsolete rites of the Mosaic ritual. According to this
view of the passage, we have under the Gospel dispensation _no Sabbath
at all_--not so much as an _authorized_ memorial of the resurrection.
He who claims the least authority for the observance of the _first_
day of the week for _any_ purpose, takes a course which completely
overthrows the argument based upon this passage. But, in reality, this
text has nothing more to do with the subject before us, than either of
those which have been examined. It respects merely the distinctions
which formerly existed in regard to the six working days of the
week--some of them being appointed in the Mosaic ritual as sabbaths,
others as days of atonement and purification, and others as festivals.
Some of the early Christians thought these distinctions still binding,
as also the distinctions in regard to meats and drinks; others thought
they were not. Hence the exhortation which is subjoined to mutual
forbearance. That the distinctions referred to as to days, were those
noted in the Mosaic ritual, and did not include the one contained in
the fourth commandment, is manifest from the whole scope of the
chapter. There is particular reference made to one's freely eating all
things, while another would eat only herbs; and accordingly the
following rule, to be respectively observed, is laid down: "Let not
him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him that
eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him." This
quotation clearly evinces that the Apostle was treating of _ritual_
distinctions, and not of _that_ distinction of days which was
constituted by the ancient law of the Sabbath.

Again, the abrogation of the Decalogue is supposed to be taught in
Romans 7:4, 5, 6. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to
the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another,
even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth
fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin
which were by the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit
unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead
wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and
not in the oldness of the letter." But if the term law here includes
the _moral_ as well as the _ceremonial_ law, it is manifest that
believers are not said to be delivered from it, considered in any
other light than as _a covenant of works_. Certainly they are not
delivered from it as _a rule of obedience_. To suppose this, is
inconsistent with Christ's sermon on the mount, before alluded to, and
many other decisive proofs of the perpetual obligation of the
Decalogue. It is probable the Apostle had special reference to the
deliverance of believers from the _curse_ of the moral law. This is
reasonably inferred from the clause, "that being dead wherein we were
held." If any thing more pertaining to this law be intended, it must
be its original character when given to Adam as a covenant of works or
of life. For surely we are not and cannot be delivered from it as a
rule of obedience, so long as God is what he is, and we are what we
are. Seeing that as long as the relation constituted by his character
as Supreme Ruler, and by ours as moral subjects, exists, we shall be
bound to love him supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves, which is
the fulfilling of this law. And to suppose that this law, as a rule of
obedience, was actually annulled, and that those precepts only are now
to be considered obligatory, which are enacted or published anew under
the Gospel, is to suppose that God, at a certain time, actually
rescinded the rule requiring supreme love to him, and to our neighbor
as ourselves, which is palpably inconsistent, and contrary both to the
current of Scripture and the nature of things. It would be maintaining
that to be changed which is manifestly unchangeable. It would imply
that, for the time being, the obligation recognized by the law did not
exist; that the tie by which God and moral beings are united, was
sundered, not by rebellion on the part of his subjects, but by his own
act of abrogation. Can this be admitted?

But if it _were_ admissible, and if no part of this law is binding on
Christians but what is newly enacted or particularly recognized under
the Gospel dispensation, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment could
not in this way be set aside; because its continued obligation is
plainly taught in the New Testament. It is altogether a mistake, that
we have no express recognition of this precept under the Christian
dispensation. It is plainly recognized by the Savior in Matthew
5:17-19, where he says, that he "came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill;" that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled;" and that "whosoever shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them,
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." If any commandment of
this law is binding, the fourth is binding of course, even if it
should be called the least. It is also recognized in the following
declaration of Christ, Mark 2:27--"The Sabbath was made for man, and
not man for the Sabbath." The word _man_ is here obviously used for
the entire race--not for a part--not for the Jews in distinction from
the Gentiles--not for those who lived under the Old Testament
dispensation, or till the time of Christ's death; but for man in his
protracted existence during all future periods of time, i. e. _for
mankind in general_. This is the plain import of the declaration. And
if we render the original with the article, it is still more evident
that the entire race is included. "The Sabbath was made for _the
man_," i. e. for Adam, the original parent of man, including, of
course, his posterity. But, according to either rendering, the entire
human race is manifestly included in the term. The Sabbath, then, was
as truly made for the Gentiles as for the Jews; and for those who
should live after the crucifixion, as for those who lived before;
which is an explicit recognition of its perpetual obligation.

The same recognition also appears from its continued observance under
the ministry of the Apostles, and there being not the least hint or
stir in reference to its abrogation, or to the substitution of another
day in its room. The weekly Sabbath is frequently mentioned in the
Apostolic records, as a part of practical duty, and it was
unquestionably the seventh day. Thus we have the continued obligation
of the Sabbath sanctioned by Apostolic example. If, therefore, a new
edition, or an express recognition of the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment be considered necessary, to bind the consciences of men
under the new dispensation, the foregoing considerations will show
that we have such an edition or recognition, as truly as we have of
the other precepts of the Decalogue. So that nothing is gained in
regard to setting aside the seventh day of the week, by attempting to
show the abrogation of the Decalogue. If those precepts of that law
which require that we should have no other gods before the Lord--that
we should not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal--are newly enjoined
or expressly recognized under the present dispensation, and,
consequently, universally binding, the same is true of the fourth
commandment, which requires the keeping of the seventh day.

Again, an attempt is made to prove the abrogation of the original
Sabbath, by showing that the entire Decalogue was peculiar to the
Jewish nation, constituting a national covenant, which, at the coming
of Christ, was annulled, and a new covenant introduced. But admitting
that it was delivered immediately to them, in the form of a national
covenant, this does not in the least imply that it was not equally
binding, as a rule of obedience, upon other portions of the human
family. We might as well argue that the New Testament belonged merely
to the primitive Christians, because it was delivered directly to
them, and constituted the rule of their conduct and the basis of their
hopes. Yea, we might as well suppose that no nation except the Jews
were bound not to have any other gods before the Lord, not to kill,
not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, as to
suppose that the Decalogue was purely of a national character, and
binding merely on that people during their continuance as a national
church. And, as the Decalogue was not merely national _as a whole_, so
there was nothing national in the fourth commandment. It belonged,
equally with the other nine, to the entire family of man, inasmuch as
the essential reasons of all and of either of the commandments, were
of universal obligation.

Again, that the original Sabbath was peculiar to the Jews, and
consequently abrogated by the introduction of the new dispensation, is
argued from its being specially urged upon them by the consideration
of their deliverance from Egypt. But this argument is of no force,
because the same reason is urged in the preface to the entire
Decalogue.

For the same purpose, also, an argument is founded upon the fact that
the fourth commandment was enforced with a deadly penalty. But this
argument also fails; because a similar penalty was annexed to the
breach of the other precepts of this law. The truth of the case is,
that these penalties belonged not to the Decalogue itself as first
promulgated, any more than they belong to it now under the milder
dispensation of the Gospel. They were added in the Mosaic ritual, and
constituted a part of the political arrangements for the time being.
Their abrogation, therefore, affects not the original law. Though
there be no civil power now given to the church to enforce obedience
to this precept by temporal punishments, as formerly, the sacredness
and obligation of the institution are not thereby at all affected. The
sin of disobedience will be visited in God's own time.

Again, some have inferred the abrogation of the former Sabbath, or at
least its change, from our Lord's vindication of the act of the
disciples, in plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing them in their
hands, as they passed through the corn-fields on the Sabbath day, and
from his saying, that "the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath
day," Mark 2:23-28. But there is evidently nothing in this narrative,
or in this declaration, to justify such an inference. It must be
admitted on all hands, that the fourth commandment was obligatory, as
originally given, till the death of Christ, if no further; and
therefore Christ, who "was made under the law," was bound to obey it
in its original strictness. Admitting that he possessed the right, in
a given instance, to intermit its obligation, it is not consistent to
maintain that he did it; because he came to render perfect and
universal obedience. Hence he affirmed, that one jot or one tittle
should in no wise pass from the law "till all be fulfilled." His whole
life was a perfect comment on the requirements of the law. Had he
failed in the least particular, he would have been inadequate to the
great purposes of our salvation. It is obvious, therefore, that the
transaction alluded to was not, under the circumstances, a breach of
the fourth commandment, but in perfect accordance with its
prescriptions--the labor implied by the act of the disciples being a
matter of urgent necessity. "It is lawful," said he, "to do well on
the Sabbath day." Neither does the declaration, that "the Son of Man
is Lord also of the Sabbath day," imply that he abrogated or changed
it, but rather that he was bound and engaged to protect it as a divine
institution, and to enforce an enlightened and strict obedience to its
requirements.

The foregoing being the principal proofs adduced for the abrogation of
the Decalogue, and the original Sabbath, it is evident that this view
of the subject cannot be sustained. It is not sanctioned by any plain
scriptural evidence. It is, therefore, palpably absurd to rest so
important a matter upon so slender a basis. It is laying violent hands
on a code of moral and immutable precepts, given by God, and
promulgated under peculiar and terrible signs of purity and majesty,
to vindicate a practice which was introduced long after the
commencement of the Christian era.

Another portion of the observers of the first day, seeing the
absurdity of holding to the abrogation of the Decalogue, and,
consequently, of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, readily admit
its perpetual obligation, but alledge that the Sabbath is changed,
under the new dispensation, from the _seventh_ to the _first_ day of
the week--thus transferring the authority for keeping the seventh day
to the first. It is not pretended that we have an explicit warrant
from God, pointing out and authorizing the change in question, but
that we have what is tantamount to such a warrant. We will examine the
principal arguments for this supposed change.

In the first place, this change is inferred from the resurrection of
Christ on the first day of the week, which is supposed to be an event
of such magnitude as to constitute an _equal_ and even _greater_
reason for observing the first day of the week as the weekly Sabbath
under the new dispensation, than that which existed for observing the
seventh under the old. But what does this argument amount to? It is
not perfectly clear that the resurrection occurred on the first day of
the week. Very plausible reasons may be assigned for the opinion, that
it occurred on the evening of the seventh day, although it was not
publicly declared till the morning of the first. But admitting that it
occurred on the morning of the first day, how does this prove that it
was substituted for the seventh day as the Sabbath? Is the inference
absolutely necessary? Is there any designation of the first day for a
sabbatic purpose? If another than the seventh day was in any wise
admissible, as according better with the Christian dispensation and
the work of redemption, why should we fix upon the day of Christ's
resurrection, rather than the day of his birth, or of his crucifixion,
or of his ascension? Will it be alledged, as a reason for the
preference, that he finished the work of redemption on the day of his
resurrection? This reason might be offered with equal if not superior
propriety, for commemorating the day of his crucifixion; because, when
he bowed his head and gave up the ghost; he said, "_It is finished_,"
which is more than is said in reference to the day of his
resurrection. If a day were to be selected as a weekly Sabbath, which
was "validly the day of redemption," it seems most proper to select
the day of his death, which was the end of his temptation and conflict
with the powers of darkness, and the severest test of his obedience;
or the day of his final ascension, when he emphatically entered into
his rest, and was crowned King in Zion. If, therefore, a day were to
be selected, under the new economy, for the appropriate commemoration
of the work of redemption, as the seventh day was for the
commemoration of the work of creation, it is by no means clear that it
should be the day of the resurrection. It might with equal, perhaps
greater propriety, be some other day of the week. And hence, the
different preferences of Christians might clash, and by that means
counteract in a great measure the design of a Sabbath. But, in truth,
the argument from the resurrection in favor of the first day of the
week, rests upon the wisdom of man and not upon the appointment of
God. It seems to men befitting the ends of a weekly Sabbath, under the
Christian dispensation, to observe the first rather than the seventh
day, and hence a change is inferred, without any express authority
from God to that effect; as though it were lawful to change a divine
institution when it _appears to us_ that greater reasons exist for a
change, than for its unamended continuance--a principle which would
justify all the innovations and extravagancies of Popery. But no such
power is given unto men. However many and important the reasons which
exist in human view for the change in the Sabbath contended for, it is
invading God's prerogative to make a change without his express
warrant. So long, therefore, as there is no divine enactment which
goes to authorize this change, but the permanent and unvaried nature
of the entire Decalogue expressly forbids it, as does the continued
practice of the primitive church, it is grossly erroneous and
presumptuous to make it. This argument for the supposed change is
surely without any validity.

In the next place, it is alledged that Christ's appearance to the
disciples, after his resurrection, on the first day of the week, marks
this as the Christian Sabbath. This argument is adopted both by those
who hold to the abrogation of the former institution, and those who
contend for its change. But, in reality, it is as devoid of solid
weight as the one previously examined. It is easy to account for his
appearing in the course of the day of his resurrection, or of the
first declaration of it, because the earliest information of this
great event was of the utmost importance to the afflicted and
desponding disciples. It was important, also, as a testimony to the
truth of the Savior's prediction that he would rise on the third day.
There is nothing in his several appearances during that day, which
seems intended for any other purpose than giving the necessary proof
of his resurrection, and the light and consolation which the
circumstances of the disciples required. There is nothing in either of
them which favors the idea of a new Sabbath. But the circumstance of
his appearing to the two disciples who were on a journey to Emmaus,
and traveling a while with them, which was a distance much too long
for a Sabbath day's journey, expressly forbids it, as it shows that it
was regarded as a day for labor. And as to his appearance the
following evening, there is nothing in that circumstance which savors
of a newly appointed Sabbath. The disciples were not assembled
together to keep a Sabbath, but "for fear of the Jews." Besides,
according to the Jewish method of reckoning time, this evening
actually belonged to the second day of the week. So that all which is
said concerning his appearances on this day and evening, is perfectly
devoid of proof of a change of the Sabbath.

As to the next appearance recorded, there is no evidence that it
occurred on the first day of the week. The record states, that "After
eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them.
Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and
said, Peace be unto you." Surely the phrase, "and after eight days,"
cannot be fairly construed to mean a week. Who can tell but that he
appeared on the _ninth_ day after his first appearance? But even if it
could be so interpreted as to mean precisely a week, and hence to show
that his second appearance took place on the first day, as before, it
would be no proof of the point in question, because the subject of the
Sabbath was not introduced in any form.

The next instance of his appearing is very far from corroborating the
opinion that he sanctioned the first day as the New Testament Sabbath
by appearing on it; for the disciples, or some of them, were fishing
at the sea of Tiberias, and consequently were not observing the first
day as a Sabbath. Indeed, this appearance must have taken place as
late as the second day of the week, if not later; for they had been
engaged in fishing, as the record will show, the day before he
appeared to them. And they could not have been so engaged on the
_seventh_ day, because it would have been contrary to the universal
and unbroken practice of their nation. Hence it could not have been on
the first day of the week that Christ appeared to them. It must have
been on the second or some later day of the week. The argument,
therefore, from the several appearances of Christ, amounts to nothing.

The next, and the principal argument for the change of the Sabbath, is
the supposed Apostolic practice of meeting on the first day of the
week for public worship and the breaking of bread. It is often
confidently affirmed, that the keeping of the first day instead of the
seventh is sanctioned by Apostolic usage. The proof of this position
rests mainly on two passages. Let us examine them.

The first is Acts 20:7. "And upon the first day of the week, when the
disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready
to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight." But
is there any thing in this transaction, or the attendant
circumstances, which clearly and undeniably proves an Apostolic
example in favor of a new Sabbath, or of keeping the first day of the
week, in any manner, as a substitute for the former institution?
Surely there is not. The passage does not so much as prove that the
practice of meeting for worship on the first day of the week was then
common and general. But if it did, it would not determine the change
contended for. There is nothing said in the narrative, which
characterizes it as a Sabbath. Assembling for public worship is proper
on any day of the week; and so is the breaking of bread. The Supper
was first administered on one of the six working days; and there is
nothing in the Scriptures which restricts its subsequent
administration to a particular day--not even to the authorized
Sabbath. Besides, in this case, the breaking of bread was deferred
till after midnight. Of course, according to the Jewish reckoning of
time, it was attended actually on the second day; and this must have
been the case, also, according to the prevailing custom among
observers of the first day, of commencing the day at midnight. It
seems, therefore, that the Apostle and his brethren were not very
precise in regard to its being done on the first day. Let the most be
made of this passage, and it lacks a divine designation of the first
day as the Christian Sabbath; and hence it is entirely wanting as to
the requisite evidence of a change in the sabbatic law. Surely, if
there had been such a change, and this, with one more instance of
meeting on the first day of the week, were to contain the evidence for
all after generations, we should have been informed of the fact.
Something would have been said to determine that the first day of the
week was regarded as a Sabbath, and that it had taken the place of the
seventh. But there is nothing of this. The record is perfectly silent
in regard to either point. Besides, it is evident that the original
Sabbath continued to be observed, as already noticed, throughout the
entire period of New Testament history. This is so plain a fact, that
no one who gives the subject a candid examination will deny it. This
shows the opinion of a new Sabbath--observed, as it must have been, in
connection with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and without a
word being said on the subject, or the least objection, stir, query,
or excitement whatever being raised--to be perfectly preposterous.
Such is the result of this reasoning from a supposed Apostolic
example, giving the passage its widest possible scope, as implying a
common practice of meeting for public worship on the first day of the
week. But in reality there is nothing in this text which proves or
implies that such a practice was common at that period. For aught
appears, it might have been an occasional meeting, appointed merely in
consequence of Paul's being about to depart on the morrow. Therefore,
to adopt a practice so important as the one in question, upon such
vague, uncertain, and inadequate testimony--especially when, in order
thereto, we must dispose of a plain and positive command of God
respecting the observance of the seventh day, and of a usage as old as
the completion of the creation--is unreasonable in the extreme.

Another passage quoted in proof of an Apostolic example of keeping the
first day of the week, and, consequently, in support of the opinion
that the Sabbath is changed, is 1 Corinthians 16:2. "Upon the first
day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath
prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." This passage,
like the others, does not imply that the first day was then commonly
and generally regarded as a day for public worship. Indeed, it does
not necessarily imply a public meeting of any kind. The direction for
"every one to lay by him in store," for the benefit of the poor saints
at Jerusalem, "on the first day of the week," necessarily amounts to
no more than an appointment of this day to make up their bounty _at
home_, so that it might be sure to be ready when the Apostle should
come--a very judicious arrangement, as the time of his coming for it
was uncertain, and he would not know how to wait. But if it be
understood to imply anything more, it is simply that they should bring
their donations together publicly on the first day of the week, so as
to be prepared in the fullest sense for the Apostle's visit.
Therefore, according to this view of the case, it proves no more than
an occasional meeting on this day for the purpose of a public
contribution for an important object of benevolence. But even if it
could be so construed as clearly to imply that it was then a common
and general practice to meet for public worship and instruction on
this day, it would not thereby be pointed out to us as the Christian
Sabbath, and a substitute for the seventh day, seeing that it contains
no information to that effect, and that no divine warrant appears on
any part of the New Testament records for the supposed change.
Meetings for public worship, taking up of collections, and even
breaking of bread, do not constitute a Sabbath, though they are proper
exercises for such a day. _To sabbatize_ is to rest from our own
secular labors, and keep a season holy to God. These proofs for a
change of the Sabbath, therefore, which are unquestionably the best
that can be produced, are utterly deficient, and the argument
therefrom, as generally presented, is deceptive, and unworthy of
confidence.

Another of the proofs adduced for the supposed change of the Sabbath,
is the following prediction. Psalm 118:22-24. "The stone which the
builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the
Lord's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the
Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." But this, like all
the previous quotations, wants solidity. The main points in the
argument are _assumed_. First, it is assumed, that Christ's becoming
the head of the corner refers to the day of his resurrection; whereas
there is no conclusive evidence that it refers to this rather than to
the day of his birth, or of his entrance on his public ministry, or of
his final ascension into heaven. Next, it is assumed that the day
spoken of is a natural day of twenty-four hours; whereas this word is
often used to designate an indefinite period of time--particularly the
Gospel era (John 8:56)--and may very probably be so used here. Again,
it is assumed, that the day mentioned is the first day of the week;
whereas there is nothing which designates this rather than some other
in the course of his mediatorial work, allowing a natural day to be
referred to. And even if the resurrection day be intended, it is not
certain that this occurred on the first day of the week. It is further
assumed, that the emphasis which is laid on the day alluded to as "the
day which the Lord hath made," and in which the church would "rejoice
and be glad," determines it to be the New Testament Sabbath in
distinction from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; whereas there
is nothing in these circumstances which necessarily intimates any such
change, while there are various important considerations by which this
opinion is absolutely precluded. The entire argument, therefore, fails.

Another argument for the change of the Sabbath is based upon the
supposition that the day of Pentecost occurred on the first day of the
week, which was a remarkable season of the outpouring of the Spirit,
and of Christ's triumph as the risen and exalted Savior. But this will
appear, on a very little examination, to be wholly inconclusive. In
the first place, it is far from being conclusively proved that this
event occurred on the first day of the week. It is much more likely to
have occurred either on the _fifth_ or the _seventh_. Indeed, it is
quite manifest from the best calculations that can be made, from the
time of eating the passover supper, the first paschal sabbath, the
crucifixion and the resurrection, that it occurred on one or the other
of these days. Secondly, if the feast of Pentecost had actually
occurred on the first day of the week, this would furnish no proof of
its being the New Testament Sabbath, in the absence of a divine
warrant to that effect.

There is one other argument for the change in question, founded on the
supposed application of the title "the Lord's day," to the first day
of the week. The only passage referred to for the purpose of
sustaining it, is Revelation 1:10. "I was in the spirit on the Lord's
day." But that the day here called the Lord's day, is the first day of
the week, is merely assumed, and hence is not to be considered as
proved. It is not, in fact, _probable_ that this is the day referred
to. It is much more likely that the expression here used refers to the
day of Christ's reign; and that St. John meant to declare that in
spirit he had a view of the scenes of that period. This use of the
term _day_ is sanctioned by the Savior's declaration, "Abraham
rejoiced to see my day," (John 8:56,) as well as by the Psalmist's,
who, when speaking of the glories of Christ's kingdom, says, "This is
the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it,"
(Psalm 118:23.) The nature of the visions afterwards described also
corroborates this view of the passage, and warrants the opinion that
the expression "Lord's day," (or, as some translate it, _lordly_ day,)
here used, does not refer to a natural day, but to a longer period of
time. If, however, these words be understood to refer to a natural
day, it is more likely to be the seventh day, which God had blessed
and sanctified for his special service, than the first day. The
seventh day is called by Him "_my holy day_," and "_the holy of the
Lord_"--phrases very similar to the one in this passage. This was also
the Sabbath which was made for man, and of which Christ says he is
Lord. And since it was observed up to the close of the New Testament
history, it would be perfectly natural for John to speak of it as "the
Lord's day." Further, there is no evidence that the first day of the
week was denominated the Lord's day, at so early a period. Only one
writer mentions the expression till towards the close of the second
century; and the reputed author of this passage, when speaking, in his
Gospel, (which was written some years later than the Apocalypse,) of
the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week; never
intimates that the day should be called by any other name. The learned
Morer, though an advocate for the first day, in mentioning the
different days to which this phrase may be applied, acknowledges the
entire uncertainty as to what day is intended, and says, "It is very
likely that the more solemn and public use of the words was not
observed until about the time of Sylvester II., when, by Constantine's
command, it became an injunction." It is evident, therefore, that this
passage cannot justly be used as proof that the Sabbath had been
transferred to the first day of the week.

       *       *       *       *       *

We have now examined the proofs commonly adduced for the abrogation or
change of the original Sabbath, and have found them utterly
insufficient and deceptive. Hence the claims of the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment, without alteration, are fully sustained. The
advocates for the first day are aware that if an abrogation or change
of the original Sabbath law cannot be made out, the seventh day is
still the true Sabbath. Dr. Dwight, for instance, makes the following
admission: "If we cannot find in the Scriptures plain and ample proof
of the abrogation of the original day, or the substitution of a new
one, the seventh day undoubtedly remains in full force and obligation,
and is now to be celebrated by all the race of Adam." Here, then, the
laboring oar is confessedly put into the hands of the advocates of the
first day; and with what success they have used it, the foregoing
examination will show. We ask, is it not a total failure? Has such
"plain and ample proof" been produced from the Scriptures for the
supposed abrogation or change? Indeed, it is evident that neither one
nor the other of these things is _practicable_. An _abrogation_ is not
practicable; for the Decalogue, in which the law of the Sabbath is
contained, is unchangeable. "Not one jot or one tittle shall in any
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;" which implies its
continued obligation, as long as moral beings exist. And the _change_
contended for is not practicable; because the substitution of another
day for the seventh would annul the institution. It contains no
warrant to keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath, but the
seventh only. Its authority is limited to the seventh day, and cannot
be transferred. The reason given for its institution, likewise, is
limited to this day. It is obvious that it will not apply to another.
The Sabbath law, therefore, contains no warrant whatever for the
observance of the first day of the week. If the day is changed, the
institution is annulled; and another institution, in some respects
similar, but not in all, is introduced, in the total absence of
_divine_ authority, and hence rests altogether upon that which is
_human_. This consideration, of itself, shows the absurdity of holding
to the change of the original day, while the validity of the entire
Decalogue is admitted.

From what has been here presented, it is evident that the Scriptures
do not authorize the abrogation or change of the original Sabbath, but
enforce its observance by precept and example. The opposite view is
supported wholly by tradition and human authority, as an impartial
examination of the history of the change will show. Have we not a
right to expect, then, that when the great body of professing
Christians shall become enlightened on this subject, and have
sufficient grace and fortitude to act up to their convictions, the
result will be, a general return to the faithful keeping of the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment?

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.




[No. 4.]

THE SABBATH AND LORD'S DAY;

A HISTORY OF THEIR OBSERVANCE

IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

 NEW YORK:
 PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,
 No. 9 Spruce-Street
 1852.


In the preceding numbers of this series of Tracts, we have given an
account of the institution of the Sabbath, and the reasons for
believing it to be moral and perpetually binding, together with an
examination of the authority for a change of the day. As the result of
this examination, we have been driven to the conclusion, that the
Sabbath was given to man in Paradise; that the fourth commandment was
but a reenforcement of it; that the Scriptures do not authorize a
change of the day of the Sabbath; and that, therefore, _the seventh
day of the week ought now to be observed by all men_. But there are
many persons who admit the early institution of the Sabbath, and the
absence of any authority from the Scriptures for a change, yet suppose
that the example of the early Christians, and the sayings of "the
Fathers," warrant them in observing the first day of the week, to the
neglect of the seventh. For the benefit of such, we now come to
consider the history of the Sabbath since the establishment of the
Christian Church. By consenting to do this, it is not meant to admit,
that if a regard for the first day of the week can be traced to near
the time of the Apostles, it is necessarily of apostolic authority;
for it is affirmed by St. Paul, that even in his time "the mystery of
iniquity had begun to work." We believe that "the Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is
not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of
any man;" and we cannot admit, therefore, that the early existence of
the practice is sufficient to give it divine authority, unless
sanctioned by the inspired writings. In order to establish the claims
of the first day of the week to be the Sabbath, two things are
indispensable: 1. To prove from the Scriptures that the seventh day
(which all acknowledge to have been originally the Sabbath) has been
abrogated. 2. To show from the same source that the first day has been
appointed in the place of the seventh. It is not sufficient to prove
that a religious regard was early paid to the first day. There is an
important distinction between _the Sabbath_ and a _religious
festival_; the former requiring abstinence from all ordinary labor,
and devotion of a whole day to the public and private duties of
religion; the latter requiring only the commemoration of some
important event, and allowing the time not occupied in the public
celebration of it to be devoted to labor or amusement. That this
distinction was understood to exist between the regard for the seventh
day and that for the first day, seems evident from the fact that in
the early history of the church no Christians are charged with
abandoning the Sabbath, while we are assured that after the meetings
on the first day of the week they went about their ordinary labor.
This apparently innocent regard for the day on which Christ first
appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, it is believed, has
given rise to the whole apostacy from the Sabbath. The following pages
are designed to show the steps by which it was brought about.


The Sabbath in the Apostolic Church.

Before entering upon the history of the Sabbath, as it is derived from
uninspired records, it is proper to inquire how it was regarded by
Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

That Jesus Christ embraced the observance of the Sabbath among other
duties enjoined in the Decalogue, is evident from Matt. 5:17:--"Think
not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfill; for verily I say unto you, till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled." He here declared the precepts of this law,
without distinction, to be permanent and unchangeable. Had he
commanded his disciples to keep the Sabbath, by enacting a new
precept, it would have been equivalent to saying that he considered it
in the light of a ceremonial and expiring institution, which, in
truth, it was not. He therefore most wisely enforced all those
precepts as inseparable, unchangeable, and unrepealable. And he
plainly said, in the connection referred to, that no person is worthy
of a place in his church, who will break any one of these
commandments, or teach others to do so. In all his subsequent
allusions to this subject, he speaks of the Sabbath as an ancient and
well-established ordinance, founded in the nature and fitness of
things, made for and adapted to the uses of mankind. (Mark 2:27.) His
_example_ was in strict conformity with his teachings on this subject.
His "_custom_" was to go to places of public worship, and to preach
the Gospel on the Sabbath. His _disciples_, being educated in the
observance of the Sabbath, could have entertained no doubts as to its
perpetuity, nor have reasons to suppose that Christianity relaxed
their obligation to observe it. It is very certain, that during the
whole time that our Lord was with his disciples before his death, he
gave no intimation to them that the duty of keeping the Sabbath was to
be in any wise affected by his death; and we find that after this
event, the disciples "rested the Sabbath day, according to the
commandment." (Luke 23:56.) Further, our Saviour himself, when
speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, an event not to take place
until forty years after his death, tells his disciples to pray that
their flight might not be on the Sabbath day. It is difficult to
conceive why this day should be spoken of at so late a period, unless
it was to continue.

The same views respecting the sacredness of the Sabbath seem to have
been entertained by the Apostles, after the resurrection of Christ,
that they held before his death; and they appear to have occupied that
day as they had formerly done, in attending places of public worship,
and preaching the Gospel. See Acts 13:14, 42, 44, where it is said,
"They came to Antioch, in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the
Sabbath day." After Paul had preached Christ as the true Messiah, "and
when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought
that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." "And the
next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word
of God." Or, see Acts 16:13, where, "on the Sabbath we went out of the
city, by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made." Or Acts
15:21--"For Moses, of old time, hath in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day." This last passage
is given by St. James as a reason why they should write to the Gentile
converts only that "they abstain from things offered to idols," &c.
From this it is apparent that the custom was common, both to hold
meetings on the Sabbath day, and for the Gentile Christians to attend
those meetings. If it was not common, the reading of Moses would not
benefit them. If it was common, then they kept the Sabbath.

St. Paul, in 1 Thess. 2:14, says to the Thessalonians, "For ye,
brethren, became followers (imitators) of the churches of God, which
in Judea are in Christ Jesus." And as these Gentile Christians were
followers of the churches in Judea, so they were ensamples, or
patterns, to all the believers in Macedonia, and Achaia. (Ch. 1:7.) As
to the character of the churches in Judea touching the Sabbath, we
need only to consult Acts 21:20. It is there asserted, that there were
many thousands of the Jews who believed, and that they were all
zealous of the law. And the context shows that they were zealous of
even the ceremonies of the Jewish ritual. Hence we infer, that there
was uniformity with the Jewish and Gentile Christians, in the
observance of the Sabbath, and that the whole apostolic church
religiously kept it.

Notwithstanding the Sabbath continued to be observed until the sacred
canon was closed, it has been quite common, since the Reformation, to
refer to certain passages of Scripture as indicating that the first
day had been, or was to be, substituted for the seventh. It is said
that Christ's meeting with his disciples on the evening of his
resurrection day indicates that it was to be religiously regarded
thereafter. Those who make such use of this circumstance seem to
overlook, what it is very important to remember, that two of the
disciples traveled from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back on that day, a
distance of fifteen miles, and a part of this in company with the
Saviour. This fact alone shows that it could not have been regarded as
a Sabbath. Nor is there any thing in the circumstances of the meeting
to indicate it. The disciples were not all present, and those who were
present had assembled for other reasons, without any expectation of
seeing the Master.

The meeting "_after eight days_" affords no help. Who can say
positively that this expression means a week? Or, granting that it
does mean a week, what does the passage make for the religious
character of the first day? Jesus met his disciples on one occasion
when fishing, and was seen of them forty days. Now, if his meeting
with them proves the day of that meeting to be a Sabbath, a fishing
day would be such, and the whole forty.

In regard to those two places, (Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2,) where the
expression "_first day of the week_" occurs, they make nothing for the
sanctification of the day, since there is no hint of any such thing.
The meetings there spoken of were for special purposes, and nothing
was done at either which might not with perfect propriety have been
done on any day. It is not quite certain that the passage, "They came
together to break bread," refers to the Lord's Supper. Indeed, both
St. Chrysostom among the ancients, and Calvin among the moderns, deny
that it was to celebrate the Supper, and refer it to a friendly meal.

The text, Rev. 1:10, where St. John was "_in the spirit on the Lord's
day_," is likewise not a good proof text. That reference is there had
to the first day of the week, is by no means certain. There are some
who refer it to a much longer period--to the gospel era; while others,
among whom is Bede, refer it to the day of judgment. The fact that
none of those who early mention the Lord's day refer to this passage,
is much against it. In these circumstances, it would not be safe to
draw conclusions in regard to practice therefrom. Indeed, none of the
earliest writers found the observance of the Lord's day upon the
Scriptures.


Observance of the Sabbath from the time of the Apostles to Constantine.

Thus far we have been guided by the inspired Scriptures, and we think
they prove beyond dispute, that the Christians of the apostolic age
had received no new doctrine concerning the Sabbath, but continued
without any change to devote the seventh day of the week to the duties
of religion. But we now enter a period in which the history of the
Sabbath must be derived from other sources. It may be difficult to
trace exactly every step which has been taken, as the histories of the
early ages are very defective on many subjects. They have come to us,
to a considerable extent, through the church of Rome; and since she
claims to have changed the day of the Sabbath, it is not to be
expected that testimony against herself would be very faithfully
preserved. In pursuing our sketch, we shall follow the best lights we
have to guide us.

After the period described in the Acts of the Apostles, Christianity
soon became widely spread in the Roman empire, which, at that time,
extended over most of the civilized world. But as it receded from the
time of the Apostles, and the number of its professors increased, the
church became gradually less spiritual, and more disposed to deck the
simple religion of Jesus with mysteries and superstitious formalities;
and the bishops or pastors became ambitious of their authority over
the churches. Those churches, even in Gentile cities, appear to have
been composed, at first, principally of converted Jews, who not only
observed the weekly Sabbath, but also the feast of the Passover,
adapted particularly to Christian worship; respecting which, there was
much contention. In the mean time, converts were greatly multiplied
from among the Gentiles and were united with those from the Jews, who,
not without reason, considered themselves entitled to some distinction
as the original founders of the gospel church, and as being better
informed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, having been in the
habit of reading them every Sabbath in the synagogues.

About three years after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, according to
the common account, Judea was invaded by the Roman armies, and
Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed, as our Lord had predicted. By
this awful calamity, it is supposed that most of the churches in Judea
were scattered; for they fled their country at the approach of their
enemies, as they were taught by Jesus Christ to do. (Matt. 24:16.)
This war resulted not only in the breaking up of the nation, and the
destruction of a great portion of the people, but also in bringing a
general odium upon the Jews wherever they were found; so that even the
Christians of Judea suffered what our Saviour taught them to expect,
(Matt. 24:9,) "And ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's
sake." These circumstances, added to the enmity which formerly existed
between the Gentiles and the Jews, produced a prejudice which had its
influence in the church in bringing into disrepute, and in fixing a
stigma upon, whatever was regarded as Judaism. "The doctrines of our
Saviour and the church, flourishing from day to day, continued to
receive constant accessions," says _Eusebius_, "but the calamities of
the Jews also continued to grow with one accumulation of evil upon
another." The insurrectionary disposition of the conquered Jews in the
reign of _Trajan_, in the early part of the second century, and the
calamities that followed them, seemed to confirm the opinion that the
Jews were given over by the Almighty to entire destruction. But their
calamities increased in the reign of _Adrian_, who succeeded _Trajan_,
in whose reign the revolt of the Jews again proceeded to many and
great excesses, and _Rufus_, the lieutenant governor of Judea, using
their madness as a pretext, destroyed myriads of men, women and
children, in crowds; and by the laws of war, he reduced their country
to a state of absolute subjection, and the degraded race to the
condition of slaves. The transformation of the church in Jerusalem is
thus described by _Eusebius_: "The city of the Jews being thus reduced
to a state of abandonment for them, and totally stripped of its
ancient inhabitants, and also inhabited by strangers; the Roman city
which subsequently arose changing its name, was called _AElia_, in
honor of the emperor AElias Adrian; and when the church was collected
there of the Gentiles, the first bishop after those of the
circumcision was _Marcus_." Thus was extinguished the Hebrew church in
Jerusalem, having had a succession of fifteen pastors; "all which,"
says _Eusebius_, "they say, were Hebrews from the first. At that time
the whole church under them," he adds, "consisted of faithful Hebrews,
who continued from the time of the Apostles to the siege that then
took place."

This church, which heretofore held the first rank in regard to its
influence, being now composed entirely of Gentiles, and stripped of
its apostolic character and influence, could no longer successfully
oppose the growing ambition and influence of the bishops of the church
in the metropolis of the empire.

Up to this period, and for some time after, there does not appear to
have been any change in the sentiments or practice of the church, in
any place, relative to the Sabbath; but from what is related by
subsequent writers, which will be noticed in its place, it is certain
that it was observed by the churches universally. This fact is so
generally acknowledged by those acquainted with the history of the
matter, that we need refer to only a few passages in proof.

The learned _Grotius_ says, in his Explication of the Decalogue,
"Therefore the Christians also, who believed Christ would restore all
things to their primitive practice, as Tertullian teacheth in
_Monogamia_, kept holy the Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that
day, in which the law was read to them, as appears in Acts 15:21,
which custom remained till the time of the council of Laodicea, about
A. D. 365, who then thought meet that the gospels also should be read
on that day."

_Edward Brerewood_, Professor in Gresham College, London, in a
Treatise on the Sabbath, 1630, says: "It is commonly believed that the
Jewish Sabbath was changed into the Lord's day by Christian emperors,
and they know little who do not know, that _the ancient Sabbath did
remain and was observed by the eastern churches three hundred years
after our Saviour's passion_."

At what time the first day of the week came into notice as a festival
in the church, it is not easy to determine. The first intimation we
have of this, in any ancient writer of acknowledged integrity, is from
Justin Martyr's Apology for the Christians, about A. D. 140. He is
cited as saying, "that the Christians in the city and in the country
assembled on the day called Sunday, and after certain religious
devotions, all returned home to their labors;" and he assigns as
reasons for this, that God made the world on the first day, and that
Christ first showed himself to his disciples on that day after his
resurrection. These were the best, and probably all the reasons that
could then be offered for the practice. He also speaks of Sunday only
as a festival, on which they performed labor, when not engaged in
devotions, and not as a substitute for the Sabbath. From this author
we can learn nothing as to the extent of the practice; for though he
says this was done by those "in the city and in the country," he may
have intended only the city of Rome and its suburbs, since _Justin_,
although a native of Palestine in Syria, is stated by _Eusebius_ to
have made his residence in Rome. Nor can we determine from this, that
he intended any thing more than that they did thus on the Sunday in
which the church of Rome, a short time after this, is known to have
closed the paschal feast, which was observed annually.

It is contended, however, that mention is made of keeping the first
day previous to _Justin_. The first intimation of this kind, it is
believed, is from an apocryphal writing, styled the _Epistle of
Barnabas_; but to this epistle it is objected, that there is no
evidence of its genuineness. _Eusebius_, who lived near the time when
it was written, mentions it as a spurious writing, entitled to no
credit. _Dr. Milnor_ says it is an injury to St. Barnabas to ascribe
this epistle to him. _Mosheim_ says it is the work of some
superstitious Jew of mean abilities. And we think it has but little to
recommend it besides its antiquity. Barnabas' theory for observing the
first day, rests upon the tradition that the seventh day was typical
of the seventh millennium of the age of the world, which would be
purely a holy age, and that the Sabbath was not to be kept until that
time arrived; and he says, "We keep the eighth day with gladness, in
which Jesus rose from the dead."

The citations from _Ignatius_, are as little to the purpose. In the
passage of which most use has been made, he did not say that himself
or any one else kept the Lord's day, as is often asserted. His own
words are, that "the prophets who lived before Christ came to a
newness of hope, not by keeping Sabbaths, but by living according to a
lordly or most excellent life." In this passage, Ignatius was speaking
of altogether a different thing from Sabbath-keeping. There is another
quotation from him, however, in which he brings out more clearly his
view of the relation existing between the Sabbath and Lord's day. It
is as follows: "Let us not keep the Sabbath in a Jewish manner, in
sloth and idleness; but let us keep it after a spiritual manner, not
in bodily ease, but in the study of the law, and in the contemplation
of the works of God." "And _after_ we have kept the Sabbath, let every
one that loveth Christ keep the Lord's day _festival_." From this it
seems that he would have the Sabbath kept first, _as such_, and in a
manner satisfactory to the strictest Sabbatarian, after which the
Lord's day, not as a Sabbath, but as a festival. Indeed, with this
distinction between the _Sabbath_ and a _festival_ before us, it is
easy to explain all those passages from early historians which refer
to the first day. We shall find them to be either immediately
connected with instructions about such seasons as _Good Friday_ and
_Holy Thursday_, or in the writings of those who have recommended the
observance of these festival days.

It is also said that _Pliny_, Governor of Bithynia, A. D. 102, in a
letter to _Trajan_, states that the Christians met on the first day of
the week for worship; but by no fair interpretation of his words can
he be so understood. He says, in writing about those of his own
province, "that they were accustomed to assemble on a _stated day_."
This might be referred to the first day, if there were credible
testimony that this day was alone regarded at that time; but as there
is no evidence of this, and as the Sabbath is known to have been the
stated day of religious assembling a long time after this, it seems
more proper to refer it to the Sabbath.

We will mention but one more of these misinterpreted citations, and
this is from _Dionysius_, bishop of Corinth, who lived a little after
_Justin_. His letter to _Soter_, bishop of Rome, is cited as saying,
"This day we celebrated the holy Dominical day, in which we have read
your epistle." As given by _Eusebius_, it is thus: "To-day we have
_passed the Lord's holy day_," &c. The only ground upon which this
phrase can be referred to the first day, is, that this day was at that
time known by the same title that God has given to the Sabbath, (see
Isaiah 48:13,) of which there is no proof. Therefore it is not just to
cite this passage as evidence of the observance of the first day at
that time.

It is, indeed, a well-known fact, that the first day has come into
very extensive use among the great body of Christians, as the only day
of weekly rest and worship. The origin of this practice does not
appear, however, to be as ancient, by some centuries, as many suppose;
nor was its adoption secured at once, but by slow and gradual advances
it obtained general notice in Christian countries. This is frankly
admitted by _Morer_, an English Episcopalian, in his _Dialogues on the
Lord's day_, p. 236. He says, "In _St. Jerome's_ time, (that is, in
the fifth century,) Christianity had got into the throne as well as
into the empire. Yet for all this, the entire sanctification of the
Lord's day proceeded slowly; and that it was the work of time to bring
it to perfection, appears from the several steps the church made in
her constitution, and from the decrees of emperors and other princes,
wherein the prohibitions from servile and civil business advanced by
degrees from one species to another, till the day got a considerable
figure in the world." The same author says, on the same page: "If the
Christians in St. Jerome's time, after divine service on the Lord's
day, followed their daily employments, it should be remembered, that
this was not done till the worship was quite over, when they might
with innocency enough resume them, because the length of time and the
number of hours assigned for piety were not then so well explained as
in after ages."

It is probable that no other day could have obtained the same notice
in ancient times as the first day of the week did; for there were
circumstances, aside from the resurrection, that had an influence in
promoting its observance. It was at first a celebration of the same
character as the fourth and sixth days of the week, and the annual
festivals of saints and martyrs. These celebrations were comparatively
unobjectionable, when not permitted to interfere with a divine
appointment; but when they were made to supersede or cause a neglect
of the Sabbath, they were criminal. In respect to these days of weekly
celebration, _Mosheim_, when remarking upon this early period, and the
regard then paid to the seventh and first days, says, "Many also
observed the fourth day, in which Christ was betrayed, and the sixth
day, in which he was crucified." He adds, "The time of assembling was
generally in the evening after sunset, or in the morning before the
dawn."

_The respect which the Gentiles had for the first day_, or Sunday,
_while they were Pagans_, contributed much to render its introduction
easy, and its weekly celebration popular, among such materials as
composed the body of the church of Rome in the second, third, and
fourth centuries. The observance of the first day of the week as a
festival of the Sun, was very general in those nations from which the
Gentile church received her converts. That an idolatrous worship was
paid to the Sun and other heavenly bodies by the Gentiles, the Old
Testament abundantly testifies; and this kind of adoration paid to the
Sun in later times, is as plainly a matter of historical record.
_Thomas Bampfield_, an English writer of the seventeenth century,
quoting _Verstegan's_ Antiquities, p. 68, says: "Our ancestors in
England, before the light of the Gospel came among them, went very far
in this idolatry, and dedicated the first day of the week to the
adoration of the idol of the Sun, and gave it the name of Sunday. This
idol they placed in a temple, and there sacrificed to it." He further
states, that from his historical reading, he finds that a great part
of the world, and particularly those parts of it which have since
embraced Christianity, did anciently adore the Sun upon Sunday. It is
also stated by _Dr. Chambers_, in his Cyclopedia, that "Sunday was so
called by our idolatrous ancestors, because set apart for the worship
of the Sun." The Greeks and the Latins also gave the same name to the
first day of the week. _Dr. Brownlee_, as quoted by _Kingsbury_, on
the Sabbath, p. 223, also says, "When the descendants of Adam
apostatized from the worship of the true God, they substituted in his
place the Sun, that luminary which, more than all others, strikes the
minds of savage people with religious awe; and which, therefore, all
heathens worship." Attachment to particular days of religious
celebration, from habit merely, is well known, even in our own day, to
be very strong, and powerful convictions of duty are often required to
produce a change. This was no doubt well understood by the teachers of
Christianity in those times. _Dr. Mosheim_, when treating on that age,
says, "that the leaders imagined that the nations would the more
readily receive Christianity when they saw the rites and ceremonies to
which they had been accustomed established in the churches, and the
same worship paid to Jesus Christ and his martyrs which they had
formerly offered to their idol deities. Hence it happened, that in
those times, the religion of the Greeks and Romans differed but little
in its external appearance from that of Christians."

_Prejudice against the Jews_, was another influence against the
Sabbath, and in favor of the first day. This was very strong, and
directly calculated to lead the Gentile Christians to fix a stigma
upon every religious custom of the Jews, and to brand as _Judaism_
whatever they supposed had any connection with the Mosaic religion.
Hence it was that in those times, as often occurs in our own, to
produce disaffection and disgust to the seventh day as the Sabbath,
they spoke of it and reproached its observance as Judaizing. This
feeling in relation to Judaism led _Athanasius_, bishop of Alexandria,
in Egypt, in the fourth century, who with his people then observed the
Sabbath, to say, in his _Interpretation of the Psalms_, "We assemble
on Saturday, not that we are infected with Judaism, but to worship
Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath." In a community of Christians whose
religion was formal, and whose celebrations were designed more to act
upon their passions and senses than to improve their hearts or to
conform them to divine requirements, a more powerful argument could
scarcely be used against the Sabbath day, or one that would more
effectually promote the observance of the first day, which was raised
up as its rival. _Dr. Neander_ says distinctly, "Opposition to Judaism
introduced the particular festival of Sunday very early."

_The observance of the Passover, or Easter, by the early Christians_,
aided the introduction of the first day as a religious festival in the
church, if it was not indeed the direct cause of it. This feast was
held by the Asiatic Christians, who began it at the same time the Jews
began their Passover, and ended it in like manner, without regard to
the particular day of the week. The church of Rome does not appear to
have observed it until the latter part of the second century, when, in
the time of _Victor_, bishop of Rome, it seems that it was observed by
the Roman and western churches. _Victor_ insisted upon the fast being
closed on the first day of the week, on whatever day it might
commence; and he claimed the right, as bishop of Rome, to control all
the churches in this matter. "Hence," says _Eusebius_, "there were
synods and convocations of the bishops on this question, and all (i.
e. the western bishops) unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree,
which they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the
mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated on no other
day than the Lord's day, and that on this day alone we should observe
the close of the paschal feasts." The bishops of Asia, however,
persisted for a considerable time in observing the custom handed down
to them by apostolic tradition, until, either by the threats of
excommunication which were made, or by a desire for peace, they were
induced partially to adopt the custom of the western churches. This
change was made, as we are told, "partly in honor of the day, and
partly to express some difference between Jews and Christians." But
the question does not appear to have been fully settled; for we find
_Constantine_, in an epistle to the churches, urging them to
uniformity in the day of the celebration, wherein, after a strong
invective against the practice of the Jews, he says, "For we have
learned another way from our Saviour, which we may follow. It is
indeed most absurd that they should have occasion of insolent boasting
on account of our not being able to observe these things in any manner
unless by the aid of their instruction." "Wherefore, let us have
nothing in common with that most odious brood of the Jews." By this
contest an important point was gained for the first day, although it
was but an annual celebration. The Sabbath, however, does not appear
to have been laid aside in any place, but continued to be the
principal day of religious worship throughout the whole Christian
church.

At what time the first day began to be observed weekly, we have no
particular account; but from the favor it received from the bishops of
Rome, and some of the Christian fathers, at the close of the third and
beginning of the fourth century, we suppose it had then become a
practice in Rome and some of the western churches.

This brings us to near the close of the third century. And here it
ought to be noted, that Lord's day, or Sunday, was not the only
holy-day of the Church during these three centuries. _Origen_ (as
quoted by Dr. Peter Heylyn in his History of the Sabbath) names the
_Good Friday_ as we call it now, the _Parasceve_ as he calls it there;
the feasts of _Easter_ and of _Pentecost_. And anciently, not only the
day which is now called _Whitsunday_ or _Pentecost_, but all the fifty
days from Easter forward, were accounted holy, and solemnized with no
less observance than the Sundays were. Of the day of the _Ascension_,
or _Holy Thursday_, it may likewise be said, that soon after, it came
to be more highly esteemed of than all the rest. Such was the
estimation in which the Lord's day was held. It was on a level with
those other holy days which are now disregarded by the body of the
Protestant Church. It is to be remembered, farther, that the term
Sabbath was applied exclusively to the seventh day of the week, or
Saturday. Indeed, wherever, for a thousand years and upwards, we meet
the word _Sabbatum_ in any writer, of what name soever, it must be
understood of no day but Saturday.


The Sabbath from the time of Constantine to the Reformation.

We have seen how the matter stood until the commencement of
Constantine's career. The Sabbath was generally observed, while the
Lord's day was regarded as a festival of no greater importance or
authority than Good Friday or Holy Thursday. No text of Scripture, or
edict of emperor, or decree of council, could be produced in its
favor. But from this time forth may be found emperors and councils
combining to give importance to the Lord's day and to oppose the
Sabbath.

An important change in the regard paid to the first day was produced
soon after the accession of _Constantine_, the first Christian
emperor, in the early part of the fourth century. When he became
master of Rome, he soon gave himself up to the guidance of the
Christian clergy. According to Jones' Church History, "He built places
of public worship; he encouraged the meeting of synods and bishops;
honored them with his presence, and employed himself continually in
aggrandizing the church. He was scrupulously attentive to the
religious rites and ceremonies which were prescribed to him by the
clergy. He fasted, observed the feasts in commemoration of the
martyrs, and devoutly watched the whole night on the vigils of the
saints," and showed great anxiety for uniformity in the doctrines and
observances of religion in the church. He was, therefore, exactly
suited to the wishes of the Roman bishop and clergy, in establishing,
by his imperial authority, what they had no Scripture to support, and
what their influence had hitherto been insufficient to effect, viz. a
uniformity in the celebration of Easter and the first day. In 321,
_Constantine_ first published his edicts enjoining upon his subjects
these superstitious celebrations.

_Eusebius_, in his Life of Constantine, says: "He appointed as a
suitable time for prayers the Dominical day, which then was an
especial day, and now is undoubtedly the very first. His body guard
observed the day, and offered on it prayers written by the Emperor.
The happy prince endeavored to persuade all to do this, and by degrees
to lead all to the worship of God; wherefore he determined that those
obeying Roman power should abstain from every work upon the days named
after the Saviour, that they should venerate also the day before the
Sabbath, in memory, as seems to me, of the events occurring on those
days to our common Saviour." He says again, "An edict also, by the
will and pleasure of the Emperor, was transmitted to the Prefects of
the provinces, that they thenceforth should venerate the Dominical
day; that they should honor the days consecrated to the martyrs, and
should celebrate the solemnities of the festivals in the churches, all
which was done according to the will of the Emperor." And, as quoted
by _Lucius_, he says, that he admonished his subjects likewise that
those days which were _Sabbaths_ should be honored or worshiped.

_Sozomen_, in his Ecclesiastical History, b. 1, c. 8, says, "He
(Constantine) also made a law that on the Dominical day, which the
Hebrews call the first day of the week, the Greeks the day of the Sun,
and also on the day of Venus, (i. e. Friday,) judgments should not be
given, or other business transacted, but that all should worship God
with prayer and supplications, and venerate the Dominical day, as on
it Christ rose from the dead, and the day of Venus, as the day on
which he was fixed to the cross."

_Dr. Chambers_ says, "It was Constantine the Great who first made a
law for the observance of Sunday, and who, according to Eusebius,
appointed that it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman
empire. Before him, and even in his time, they observed the Jewish
Sabbath as well as Sunday, both to satisfy the law of Moses, and to
imitate the Apostles, who used to meet together on the first day." He
adds, "Indeed, some are of opinion that the Lord's day mentioned in
the Apocalypse is our Sunday, which they will have to have been so
early instituted." By Constantine's laws, made in 321, it was decreed
that for the future the Sunday should be kept a day of rest in all
cities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their
work. In 538, the Council of Orleans prohibited this country labor.

To give the more solemnity to the first day of the week, (as we learn
from Lucius' Ecclesiastical History,) _Sylvester_, who was bishop of
Rome while Constantine was Emperor, changed the name of Sunday, giving
it the more imposing title of _Lord's day_.

It cannot be doubted, that the laws of _Constantine_ did much to make
the first day conspicuous throughout the empire, as all public
business was forbidden upon it. They changed its character from a
special day, in which, as a weekly festival, all kinds of business and
labor were performed in city and country, to be, as _Eusebius_ says,
_the very first_. This imperial favor for the first day operated
against all who conscientiously regarded the Sabbath from respect to
the fourth commandment, in obedience to which the seventh day had
always been observed; and if it had produced a general abandonment of
its observance, it would not have been very surprising, considering
the influence of court example, and the general ignorance and darkness
of the age. This, however, does not appear to have been the case. The
Sabbath was still extensively observed; and to counteract it the
Council of _Laodicea_, about A. D. 350, passed a decree saying, "It is
not proper for Christians to Judaize, and to cease from labor on the
Sabbath, but they ought to work on that day, and put especial honor
upon the Lord's day, as Christians. If any be found Judaizing, let him
be anathematized."

But this did not produce any material change, for _Socrates_, a writer
of the fifth century, who resided at Constantinople, makes the
following remarks upon the celebration of the Sabbath at the time he
wrote, A. D. 440. He says, "There are various customs concerning
assembling; for though all the churches throughout the whole world
celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath day, yet the
Alexandrians and the Romans, from an ancient tradition, refuse to do
this; but the Egyptians who are in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and
those inhabiting Thebais, indeed have assemblies on the Sabbath, but
do not participate in the mysteries, as is the custom of the
Christians. At Caesarea, Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, on the Sabbath and
Dominical day, at twilight, with lighted lamps, the presbyters and
bishops interpret the Scriptures. At Rome they fast every Sabbath."

This account of the manner of celebrating the Sabbath in the fifth
century, is corroborated by _Sozomen_, in his Ecclesiastical History,
b. 7, c. 9. He says, "At Constantinople, and almost among all, the
Christians assembled upon the Sabbath, and also upon the first day of
the week, excepting at Rome and Alexandria; the ecclesiastical
assemblies at Rome were not upon the Sabbath, as in almost all other
churches of the rest of the world; and in many cities and villages in
Egypt, they used to commune in the evening of the Sabbath, on which
day there were public assemblies."

In regard to fasting on the Sabbath at Rome, referred to by Socrates,
it ought to be said, that from the earliest times to the fourth
century, the practice had been to observe the Sabbath as a holiday.
But the Church of Rome, in its opposition to the Jews, made it a fast
day, that the separation might be marked and strong. In the eastern
churches they never fasted upon the Sabbath, excepting one Sabbath in
the year, which was the day before the Passover. But in the western
churches they celebrated a fast every week. It was in reference to
this that _Ambrose_ said, "When I come to Rome, I fast upon the
Sabbath; when I am here, I do not fast." _Augustine_ also said
concerning this, "If they say it is sinful to fast on the Sabbath,
then they would condemn the Roman Church, and many places near to and
far from it. And if they should think it a sin not to fast on the
Sabbath, then they would blame many eastern churches, and the far
greater part of the world." This Sabbath fasting was opposed by the
eastern church; and in the sixth general council, held at
Constantinople, it was commanded that the Sabbath and Dominical days
be kept as festivals, and that no one fast or mourn upon them. The
practice of fasting, therefore, was chiefly in the western churches,
about Rome.

It is perhaps difficult to determine exactly the relative importance
attached to the seventh and first days of the week at this time.
Sufficient may be found, however, to assure us, that the Sabbath was
observed, and that no one regarded Sunday as having taken its place.
This is shown by the provision of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 365,
that the Gospels should be read on that day. It is shown by the action
of a Council in 517, (mentioned in _Robinson's History of Baptism_,)
which regulated and enforced the observance of the Sabbath. It is
shown by the expostulation of _Gregory of Nyssa_, "How can you look
upon the Lord's day, if you neglect the Sabbath? Do you not know that
they are sisters, and that in despising the one you affront the
other?" And as sisters we find them hand in hand in the ecclesiastical
canons. Penalties were inflicted by the council; both of Laodicea and
Trullo, on clergymen who did not observe both days as festivals.

How the first day of the week, or Lord's day, was observed in the
early part of the fifth century, we may learn from the words of _St.
Jerome_. In a funeral oration for the Lady _Paula_, he says: "She,
with all her virgins and widows who lived at Bethlehem in a cloister
with her, upon the Lord's day, repaired duly to the church, or house
of God, which was nigh to her cell; and after her return from thence
to her own lodgings, she herself and all her company _fell to work_,
and they all performed their task, which was the making of clothes and
garments for themselves and for others, as they were appointed."

_St. Chrysostom_, patriarch of Constantinople, "recommended to his
audience, after impressing upon themselves and their families what
they had heard on the Lord's day, to return to their daily employments
and trades."

_Dr. Francis White_, Lord Bishop of Ely, speaking of this matter,
says, "The Catholic Church, for more than six hundred years after
Christ, permitted labor, and gave license to many Christian people to
work upon the Lord's day, at such hours as they were not commanded to
be present at the public service by the precepts of the church."

In the sixth century efforts were made to prevent this labor. The
following promulgation of a synod held by command of King _Junthran_,
of Burgundy, will show the condition of things, and the means used to
improve it; "We see the Christian people, in an unadvised manner,
deliver to contempt the Dominical day, and, as in other days, indulge
on continual labor." Therefore they determined to teach the people
subject to them to keep the Dominical day, which, if not observed by
the lawyer, he should irreparably lose his cause, and if a countryman
or servant did not keep it, he should be beaten with heavier blows of
cudgels. The council of Orleans, held 538, prohibited the country
labor on Sunday which Constantine by his laws permitted. According to
Chambers, this council also declared, "that to hold it unlawful to
travel with horses, cattle, and carriages, to prepare food, or to do
any thing necessary to the cleanliness and decency of houses or
persons, savors more of Judaism than Christianity." According to
Lucius, in another council held in Narbonne, in France, in the seventh
century, they also forbid this country work.

Early in the seventh century, in the time of Pope _Gregory I._, the
subject of the Sabbath attracted considerable attention. There was one
class of persons who declared, "that it was not lawful to do any
manner of work upon the Saturday, or the old Sabbath; another, that no
man ought to bathe himself on the Lord's day, or their new Sabbath."
Against both of these doctrines Pope _Gregory_ wrote a letter to the
Roman citizens. _Baronius_, in his Councils, says, "This year (603) at
Rome, St. Gregory, the Pope, corrected that error which some preached,
by Jewish superstition, or the Grecian custom, that it was a duty to
worship on the Sabbath, as likewise upon the Dominical day;" and he
calls such preachers the preachers of Antichrist.

Nearly the same doctrine was preached again in the time of _Gregory
VII._, A. D. 1074, about five hundred years after what we are now
speaking of. This is sufficient to show that the Sabbath was kept
until those times of decline which introduced so many errors in faith
and practice. Indeed, it is sufficient to show, that wherever the
subject has been under discussion, the Sabbath has found its
advocates, both in _theory_ and in _practice_.

According to _Lucius_, Pope _Urban II._, in the eleventh century,
dedicated the Sabbath to the Virgin Mary, with a mass. _Binius_ says,
"Pope _Innocent I._ constituted a fast on the Sabbath day, which seems
to be the first constitution of that fast; but dedicating the Sabbath
to the Virgin Mary was by _Urban II._, in the latter part of the
eleventh century." About this time we find _Esychius_ teaching the
doctrine that the precept for the observance of the Sabbath is not one
of the commandments, because it is not at all times to be observed
according to the letter; and _Thomas Aquinas_, another Romish
ecclesiastic, saying, "that it seems to be inconvenient that the
precept for observing the Sabbath should be put among the precepts of
the Decalogue, if it do not at all belong to it; that the precept,
'_Thou shall not make a graven image_,' and the precept for _observing
the Sabbath_, are ceremonial."

The observance of the first day was not so early in England and in
Scotland as in most other parts of the Roman Empire. According to
_Heylyn_, there were Christian societies established in Scotland as
early as A. D. 435; and it is supposed that the gospel was preached in
England in the first century by St. Paul, For many ages after
Christianity was received in those kingdoms, they paid no respect to
the first day. _Binius_, a Catholic writer, in the second volume of
his works, gives some account of the bringing into use of the
Dominical day [Sunday] in Scotland, as late as A. D. 1203. "This
year," he says, "a council was held in Scotland concerning the
introduction of the Lord's day, which council was held in 1203, in the
time of Pope _Innocent III._," and he quotes as his authority Roger
Hoveden, Matth. Paris, and Lucius' Eccl. Hist. He says, "By this
council it was enacted that it should be holy time from the twelfth
hour on Saturday noon until Monday."

_Boethus_ (de Scottis, p. 344) says, "In 1203, _William_, king of
Scotland, called a council of the principal of his kingdom, by which
it was decreed, that Saturday, from the twelfth hour at noon, should
be holy, that they should do no profane work, and this they should
observe until Monday."

_Binius_ says that in 1201 _Eustachius_, Abbot of Flay, came to
England, and therein preached from city to city, and from place to
place. He prohibited using markets on Dominical days; and for this he
professed to have a special command from heaven. The history of this
singular document, entitled, _A holy Command of the Dominical Day_,
the pious Abbot stated to be this: "It came from Heaven to Jerusalem,
and was found on St. Simeon's tomb in Golgotha. And the Lord commanded
this epistle, which for three days and three nights men looked upon,
and falling to the earth, prayed for God's mercy. And after the third
hour, the patriarch stood up; and Akarias the archbishop stretched out
his mitre, and they took the holy epistle of God and found it thus
written."

 [We give some extracts from this epistle, partly as a matter of
 curiosity, and partly to show the credulity of our ancestors, and the
 means by which they were awed into what was to them a new religious
 observance.]

 "I, the Lord, who commanded you that ye should observe the Dominical
 day, and ye have not kept it, and ye have not repented of your sins,
 as I said by my gospel, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word
 shall not pass away; I have caused repentance unto life to be
 preached unto you, and ye have not believed; I sent pagans against
 you, who shed your blood, yet ye believed not; and because ye kept
 not the Dominical day, for a few days ye had famine; but I soon gave
 you plenty, and afterwards ye did worse; I will again, that none from
 the ninth hour of the Sabbath until the rising of the sun on Monday,
 do work any thing unless what is good, which if any do, let him amend
 by repentance; and if ye be not obedient to this command, amen, I say
 unto you, and I swear unto you by my seat, and throne, and cherubim,
 who keep my holy seat, because I will not change any thing by another
 epistle; but I will open the heavens, and for rain I will rain upon
 you stones, and logs of wood, and hot water by night, and none may be
 able to prevent, but that I may destroy all wicked men. This I say
 unto you, ye shall die the death, because of the Dominical holy day
 and other festivals of my saints which ye have not kept. I will send
 unto you beasts having the heads of lions, the hair of women, and
 tails of camels; and they shall be so hunger-starved that they shall
 devour your flesh, and ye shall desire to flee to the sepulchres of
 the dead, and hide you for fear of the beasts; and I will take away
 the light of the sun from your eyes; and I will send upon you
 darkness, that without seeing ye may kill one another; and I will
 take away my face from you, and will not show you mercy; for I will
 burn the bodies and hearts of all who keep not the Dominical holy
 day. Hear my voice, lest ye perish in the land because of the
 Dominical holy day. Now know ye, that ye are safe by the prayers of
 my most holy mother Mary, and of my holy angels who daily pray for
 you. I gave you the law from Mount Sinai, which ye have not kept. For
 you I was born into the world, and my festivals ye have not known;
 the Dominical day of my resurrection ye have not kept; I swear to you
 by my right hand, unless ye keep the Dominical day and the festivals
 of my saints, I will send pagans to kill you."

Provided with this new command from heaven, "_Eustachius_ preached in
various parts of England against the desecration of the Dominical day,
and other festivals; and gave the people absolution upon condition
that they hereafter reverence the Dominical day, and the festivals of
the saints." And the people vowed to God, that thereafter they would
neither buy nor sell any thing but food on Sunday.

"Then," says _Binius_, "the enemy of man, envying the admonitions of
this holy man, put it into the heart of the king and nobility of
England, to command that all who should keep the aforesaid traditions,
and chiefly all who had cast down the markets for things vendible upon
the Dominical day, should be brought to the king's court to make
satisfaction about observing the Dominical day."

Binius relates many miraculous things that occurred on the Sabbath to
those that labored after the ninth hour (i. e. after three o'clock in
the afternoon) of the seventh day, or Saturday. He says, that upon a
certain Sabbath, after the ninth hour, a carpenter, for making a
wooden pin, was struck with the palsy; and a woman, for knitting on
the Sabbath, after the ninth hour, was also struck with the palsy. A
man baked bread, and when he broke it to eat, blood came out. Another,
grinding corn, blood came in a great stream instead of meal, while the
wheel of his mill stood still against a vehement impulse of water.
Heated ovens refused to bake bread, if heated after the ninth hour of
the Sabbath; and dough, left unbaked out of respect to Eustachius' new
doctrine, was found on Monday morning well baked without the aid of
fire. These fables were industriously propagated throughout the
kingdom; "yet the people," says Binius, "fearing kingly and human
power more than divine, returned as a dog to his own vomit, to keep
markets of saleable things upon the Dominical day."

_Mr. Bampfield_, in his Enquiry, p. 3, says, "The king and princes of
England, in 1203, would not agree to change the Sabbath, and keep the
first day, by this authority. This was in the time of _King John_,
against whom the popish clergy had a great pique for not honoring
their prelacy and the monks, by one of whom he was finally poisoned."

_Binius_ (Councils, cent. 13) states that King John of England, in
1208, in the tenth year of his reign, for not submitting to popish
impositions upon his prerogatives, was excommunicated by the Pope, and
his kingdom interdicted, which occasioned so much trouble at home and
abroad, that it forced him at last to lay down his crown at the feet
of Mandulphus, the Pope's agent. After he was thus humbled by that
excommunication and interdiction, the king, in the fifteenth year of
his reign, by writ, removed the market of the city of Exon from
Sunday, on which it was held, to Monday. The market of Lanceston was
removed from the first to the fifth day of the week. In the second and
third years of Henry III. many other markets were removed from the
first to other days of the week, which the King at first would not
permit. He also issued a writ which permitted the removal of markets
from the first day to other days without special license.

The Parliament of England met on Sundays until the time of Richard
II., who adjourned it from that to the following day.

In 1203, according to _Boethus_, "a council was held in Scotland to
inaugurate the king, and concerning the feast of the Sabbath; and
there came also a legate from the Pope, with a sword and purple hat,
and indulgences and privileges to the young king. It was also there
decreed, that Saturday, from the twelfth hour at noon, should be
holy." The _Magdeburgenses_ say that this Council was about the
observance of the Dominical day _newly brought in_, and that they
ordained that it should be holy from the twelfth hour of Saturday even
till Monday.

_Binius_ says, "A synod was held in Oxford, A. D. 1223, by _Stephen_,
Archbishop of Canterbury, where they determined that the Dominical day
be kept with all veneration, and a fast upon the Sabbath."

According to Bampfield, the first law of England made for the keeping
of Sunday, was in the time of Edward VI., about 1470. "Parliament then
passed an act, by which Sunday and many holy days, the feasts of all
Saints and of holy Innocents, were established as festivals by law.
This provided also, that it should be lawful for husbandmen, laborers,
fishermen, and all others in harvest, or at any other time of the year
when necessity should require, to labor, ride, fish, or do any other
kind of work, at their own free will and pleasure, upon any of the
said days."

By such means as these, the observance of the first day was gradually
forced upon the people wherever they owned allegiance to the Pope as
head of the church, and the Sabbath was as gradually brought into
contempt and disuse.

The process by which the change was effected appears to be this: By
first obtaining an annual celebration of the first day at the close of
the Passover, in honor of the resurrection; then a partial observance
of the day weekly, it being generally so observed among the heathen;
then obtaining for it the support of civil laws, ecclesiastical canons
and penalties, and by giving it the title of Lord's day; then by
requiring the consecration of the entire day. To abate and ultimately
eradicate all respect for the Sabbath, it was first turned into a
fast; then it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, resting upon it was
stigmatized as Judaism and heresy, and the preaching of it was called
Antichrist; and finally the fourth commandment was pronounced
ceremonial, and was effectually abstracted from the Decalogue. And
thus, so far as the Roman church was concerned, the point was gained;
and thus, probably, she performed her part in the fulfillment of the
prophecy of Daniel, (7:25,) "He shall think to change TIMES and LAWS;
and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the
dividing of time."

The cause of the Sabbath must also have been seriously affected by the
rise of the Ottoman Empire in the seventh century, and the success of
the Mahometans in conquering the eastern division of the church.
Mahomet formed the plan of establishing a new religion, or, as he
expressed it, of replanting the only true and ancient one professed by
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the prophets; by destroying
idolatry, and weeding out the corruptions which the later Jews and
Christians had, as he supposed, introduced. He was equally opposed to
both Jews and Christians. To distinguish his disciples from each, he
selected as their day of weekly celebration the sixth day, or Friday.
And thus, as a writer of the seventeenth century remarks, "they and
the Romanists crucified the Sabbath, as the Jews and the Romans did
the Lord of the Sabbath, between two thieves, the sixth and the first
day of the week."

We have thus traced the history of the Sabbath in the Roman church
down to the thirteenth century; and we see that through the whole of
this period, the seventh day every where retained the honor of being
called the Sabbath, and that no other day had ever borne that title;
that not until the remarkable letter found on St. Simeon's tomb, had
it been asserted by any one, that the observance of the _first day_,
_Lord's day_, or _Sunday_, was enjoined by the authority of Jesus or
his apostles, nor was any example of theirs plead in its favor. Even
then it was not pretended that the Scriptures required its observance.

There are some traces of the Sabbath among those Christians who
separated from the Catholic communion, or were never embraced in it.
The Greek church separated from them about the middle of the eleventh
century, and had a larger extent of empire than the <DW7>s. According
to _Brerewood's Enquiries_, p. 128, this church solemnized Saturday
festivals, and forbade as unlawful to fast on any Saturday except in
Lent, retaining the custom followed before their separation. The same
author states that the Syrian Christians, who composed a numerous body
in the East, celebrated divine worship solemnly on both the Sabbath
and first day, continuing the custom of the Roman church at the time
they separated from that community. _Sandy's Travels_, p. 173, speak
of a Christian empire in Ethiopia that celebrate both Saturday and
Sunday, "that they have divers errors and many ancient truths." The
Abyssinian Christians, another numerous body, are represented as being
similar in some respects to the <DW7>s; and _Purchase_ speaks of them
as "subject to Peter and Paul, and especially to Christ," and as
observing the Saturday Sabbath. They are also mentioned by
_Brerewood_. _Mosheim_ mentions a sect of Christians in the twelfth
century, in Lombardy, called _Pasaginians_, charged with circumcising
their followers, and keeping the Jewish Sabbath. _Mr. Benedict_
considers the account of their practicing the bloody rite a slander
charged on them on account of their keeping the Jewish Sabbath.
_Binius_ says that in 1555 there were Christians in Rome who kept the
Sabbath, and were therefore called _Sabbatarii_, and they are
represented as differing in other respects from the Romanists. Many of
the Armenian Christians are believed to observe the ancient Sabbath.
_Dr. Buchanan_, in his Researches, when speaking of those of them who
are settled in the East Indies, says, "Their doctrines are, as far as
the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. Besides this, they
maintain the solemn observation of Christian worship throughout our
empire on the seventh day."

Probably there has not existed a class of Christians since the times
of the Apostles, who could more justly claim to be Apostolic than the
_Waldenses_, formerly a numerous people living in the valleys of
Piedmont; whither they retired, says Burnside, on the promulgation of
Constantine's laws for the observance of the first day, in the fourth
century; and where they remained, according to Scaliger and Brerewood,
in the time of Elizabeth of England, in the latter part of the
sixteenth century. They adhered firmly to the apostolic faith, and
suffered severe persecutions from the Catholics. _Robinson_, in his
_History of Baptism_, says, "They were called _Sabbati_ and
_Sabbatati_, so named from the Hebrew word _Sabbath_, because they
kept the _Saturday_ for the Lord's day." They were also called
_Insabbatati_, because they rejected all the festivals, or Sabbaths,
in the low Latin sense of the word. The account the <DW7>s gave of
their sentiments in 1250, was briefly this: That they declared
themselves to be the apostolic successors, and to have apostolic
authority; that they held the church of Rome to be the 'whore of
Babylon;' that none of the ordinances of the church which have been
introduced since Christ's ascension ought to be observed; that baptism
is of no advantage to infants, because they cannot actually believe.
They reject the sacrament of confirmation, but instead of that their
teachers lay their hands upon their disciples. _Jones_, in his Church
History, says that because they would not observe _saints' days_, they
were falsely supposed to neglect the Sabbath also. Another of their
enemies, an Inquisitor of Rome, charged them with despising all the
feasts of Christ and his saints. Another, a Commissioner of Charles
XII. of France, reported to him, "that he found among them none of the
ceremonies, images, or signs of the Romish church, much less the
crimes with which they were charged; on the contrary, they kept the
Sabbath day, observed the ordinance of baptism according to the
primitive church, and instructed their children in the articles of the
Christian faith and commandments of God."


The Sabbath since the Reformation.

With the commencement of the Reformation, a new spirit of religious
inquiry was awakened. Nearly every item of Christian practice was
brought under review, and not dismissed until either approved or
rejected. Among the subjects for discussion we find the Sabbath early
introduced and thoroughly examined. There were three leading views
then maintained by different classes of Reformers, which deserve
particular notice.

1. One class of Reformers there was, who, dwelling alone on the
sufficiency of faith, and the freeness of the Gospel, trembled at the
thought of imposing rules upon men, and seemed to fear the term _law_.
These declared, that the law of the Sabbath was abolished; that Sunday
was no Sabbath, only a festival of the church, which had been
appointed and might be altered at her pleasure. That we may not be
thought in error here, as well as to give a full understanding of the
opinions of that time, we will present the assertions of some of these
men.

_Bishop Cranmer's Catechism_, A. D. 1548, says: "The Jews were
commanded in the Old Testament to keep the Sabbath-day, and they
observed it every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday; but we
Christian men are not bound to such commandments in Moses' law, and
therefore we now keep no more the Sabbath, or Saturday, as the Jews
did, but we observe the Sunday, and some other days, _as the
magistrates do judge convenient_."

_William Tindal_ says, in his answer to More, chap. 25: "We be lords
over the Sabbath, and may change it into Monday, or any other day, as
we see need; or may make every tenth day holy-day, only if we see
cause why; we may make two every week, if it were expedient, and one
not enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change
it from the Saturday, other than to _put a difference between us and
the Jews_, and lest we should become servants to the day after their
superstition."

_Bullinger_, on Rev. 1:10, says: "Christian churches entertained the
Lord's day, not upon any commandment from God, but according to their
free choice."

_Melancthon_ says: "The Lord's day, from the Apostles' age, hath been
a solemn day; notwithstanding, we find not the same commanded by any
apostolic law; but it is collected from hence that the observance
thereof was free, because Epiphanius and St. Augustine testify that on
the fourth and the sixth days of the week church assemblies were held,
as well as upon the Lord's day."

_The Augustan Confession_, drawn up by Melancthon, and approved by
Luther, says: "We teach that traditions are not to be condemned which
have a religious end,... namely, traditions concerning holy-days, the
Lord's day, the feast of the nativity, easter, &c."

These passages distinctly do away with the Sabbath, and place the
observance of the Lord's day on the ground of human authority. In the
books of some early authors who adopted those views, may be found
frequent references to a difficulty which drove them to deny the
perpetuity of the Sabbath. Bishop _White_, in 1635, says: "If the
fourth commandment, concerning the keeping of the seventh day, is
moral and perpetual, then it is not such in respect to the first and
eighth day; for this precept requireth the observance of that one day
only which it specifieth in that commandment." In speaking of the
Lord's day, he says: "Every day of the week and of the year is the
Lord's; and the Sunday is no more the Lord's by the law of the fourth
commandment, than the Friday, for the Lord's day of that fourth
commandment is the Saturday."

From each of these quotations, it appears to have been felt to be
inconsistent to admit the perpetuity of the Sabbath, without keeping
the seventh day. But to come back to this ancient day, and keep it in
company with Jews, seemed too great a change. Hence the abrogation of
the institution was asserted, as the easiest way of escaping from the
dilemma. John Milton, speaking of this difficulty, says: "If we under
the Gospel are to regulate the time of our public worship by the
prescriptions of the Decalogue, it will surely be far safer to observe
_the seventh day_, according to the express command of God, than, on
the authority of mere human conjecture, to adopt the _first_."

Another influence which led to the rejection of the Sabbath by these
men, was the view of it which was held by the Romish Church. When the
leaders of the Reformation separated from that church, it was claimed
that all her festival days, including Sundays, were holier than other
days, not only in relation to the use made of them, but to a natural
and _inherent holiness_ wherewith they thought them to be invested. In
addition to this, many and hurtful restraints had been imposed upon
the consciences of God's people, until these were days of
_punishment_, rather than of holy pleasure and profit. Seeing these
days perverted from their real design, and made the means of
strengthening papal power, it is not surprising that they were
discarded together. Anxious to escape one error, they fell into
another equally dangerous.

2. But another class of Reformers, (probably somewhat fearful of the
consequences of those lax notions to which we have just referred,)
considering that the Sabbath was given in Paradise, rehearsed at
Sinai, and placed among the precepts of the Decalogue, declared that
it must be moral in its nature, and perpetually binding. But having
admitted its perpetuity, and having rested its claims upon the fourth
commandment, the way of explaining and enforcing the change of the day
presented an obstacle to the spread of this view. How this was
treated, let their own words answer. _Dr. Bound_, in 1595, says, "The
fourth commandment is simply and perpetually moral, and not ceremonial
in whole or in part." _Richard Byfield_, 1630, says, "The fourth
commandment is part of the law of nature, and thus part of the image
of God, and is no more capable of a ceremony to be in it than God is."
Afterwards he says, "The institution of the Lord's day is clearly in
the work of Christ's resurrection, as the institution of the seventh
day was in the work of finishing the creation." "The resurrection
applieth and determineth the Sabbath of the fourth commandment to the
Lord's day." Such was the course of reasoning adopted by this class of
persons. Having established the morality and perpetuity of the Sabbath
by means of Scripture, and brought the sanctions of the Word of God to
sustain them, they apply all this to the support of an institution,
the existence and time of keeping which is inferred from Christ's
resurrection. It is easy to see what must have been the consequence.

3. There was another class among the disputants about the Sabbath, who
endeavored, by strict adherence to the Scriptures, to escape the
difficulties and inconsistencies into which others had been led. They
contended for the early institution of the Sabbath, for its morality
and perpetuity as inferred from its being placed in the Decalogue, and
for _the seventh day of the week_ as an essential and necessary part
of the commandment. _Theophilus Brabourne_, in 1628, says: "1. The
fourth commandment of the Decalogue is a divine precept, simply and
entirely moral, containing nothing legally ceremonial, in whole or in
part, and therefore the weekly observation thereof ought to be
perpetual, and to continue in full force and virtue to the world's
end. 2. The Saturday, or seventh day of the week, ought to be an
everlasting holy-day in the Christian church, and the religious
observation of this day obligeth Christians under the Gospel, as it
did the Jews before the coming of Christ. 3. The Sunday, or Lord's
day, is an ordinary working day; and it is superstition and
will-worship to make the same the Sabbath of the fourth commandment."
These opinions were vindicated by Brabourne in two volumes which
appeared, one in 1628, and the other in 1632. They have never been
answered to the satisfaction of many candid mind. It is true, an
answer has been attempted. But this answer, laboring as it did mainly
to prove that such doctrine "is repugnant to the public sentence of
the Church of England, and to the sentence of divines who lived at the
beginning of the Reformation," could not satisfy one who believed the
Scriptures to be a sufficient rule of faith and practice. To these
volumes might be added others, which appeared soon after, and to the
results of which, living witnesses have testified from that day to
this.

It was while the discussion just referred to was yet in progress, that
King James, in 1618, published his Book of Sports for Sunday, in which
is set forth, that "by the preciseness of some magistrates and
ministers in several places in this kingdom, in hindering people from
their recreations on the Sunday, the <DW7>s in this realm being
thereby persuaded that no honest mirth or recreation was tolerable in
our religion," wherefore, it pleased his majesty to set out his
declaration, "that for his good people's lawful recreation, his
pleasure was, that after the end of divine service, they should not be
disturbed, letted, or discouraged, from any lawful recreation, such as
dancing, either men or women, archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or
any other such harmless recreations; nor from having of May-games,
Whitsun-ales, or Morrice-dances, and setting up of May-poles, or other
sports therewith used; so as the same be had in due and convenient
time, without impediment or let of divine service." This book was
designed to counteract what was then called the Puritan notion, and
maybe regarded as expressing the opinion of the English Church at that
time in regard to the sacredness of the day. It was re-published in
1636, by Charles, with how much real effect upon the practices of his
subjects it is not easy to determine.

It is evident that a reaection in favor of the sabbatic institution had
already commenced; and the earnestness of Puritanism on this subject,
joined to the influence of Sabbatarianism, affected almost the whole
body of the English Church. To Puritanism and Sabbatarianism belong
the credit of having preserved to that country a regard for the day of
rest, which raises it indefinitely above many other Protestant
countries. Had Scriptural ground been taken, who can estimate the
results which would have followed?

In Germany, according to Ross' "Picture of all Religions," observers
of the seventh-day as the Sabbath were common in the sixteenth
century, their numbers being such as to lead to organization, and
attract attention. A number of these formed a church, and emigrated to
America in the early settlement of the country. There were
Sabbath-keepers in Transylvania, about the same time, among whom was
_Francis Davidis_, first chaplain to the Court of Sigismund, the
prince of that kingdom, and afterwards superintendent of all the
Transylvanian churches. In France, also, there were Christians of this
class, among whom was _M. de la Roque_, who wrote in defense of the
Sabbath, against Bossuet, the Catholic Bishop of Meaux. But it is
difficult to determine to what extent this day was observed in those
countries.

In England we find Sabbath-keepers very early. _Dr. Chambers_ says,
"They arose in England in the sixteenth century;" from which we
understand that they then became a distinct denomination in that
kingdom. They increased considerably in the seventeenth century; and
we find that towards the close of that century there were eleven
flourishing churches in different parts of that country. Among those
who held this view were some men of distinction. Theophilus Brabourne
was called before the Court of High Commission, in 1632, for having
written and published books vindicating the claims of the seventh day.
One Traske was about the same time examined in the Starr Chamber,
where a long discussion on the subject seems to have been held. Nearly
thirty years after this, John James, preacher to a Sabbath-keeping
congregation in the east of London, was executed in a barbarous
manner, upon a variety of charges, among which was his keeping of the
Sabbath. Twenty years later still, Francis Bampfield died in Newgate,
a martyr to non-conformity--especially as one who could not conform in
the matter of the Sabbath. It is needless to mention more names, or to
speak particularly of Edward, Joseph, Dr. Joseph, and Dr. Samuel
Stennett, John Maulden, Robert Cornthwaite, and others, who have
written and suffered in proof of their attachment to this truth.

But the Sabbath met with great opposition in England, being assailed,
both from the pulpit and the press, by those who were attached to the
established church. Many men of learning and talent engaged in the
discussion, on both sides of the question. It is evident that the
opposers of reform felt the difficulty of defending themselves against
the strength of talent and scripture brought to bear in favor of the
seventh day. The civil powers attempted to check the progress of all
Dissenters by means of the famous _Conventicle Act_. By that law,
passed in 1664, it was provided, that if any person, above sixteen
years of age, was present at any meeting of worship different from the
Church of England, where there were five persons more than the
household, for the first offense he should be imprisoned three months,
or pay five pounds; for the second, the penalty was doubled; and for
the third he should be banished to America, or pay one hundred pounds
sterling. This act was renewed in 1669, and, in addition to the former
penalties, made the person preaching liable to pay a fine of twenty
pounds; and the same penalty was imposed upon any person suffering a
meeting to be held in his house. Justices of the Peace were empowered
to enter such houses, and seize such persons; and they were fined one
hundred pounds if they neglected doing so. These acts were exceedingly
harrassing to those who observed the Sabbath. Many of their
distinguished ministers were taken from their flocks and confined in
prison, some of whom sunk under their sufferings. These persecutions
not only prevented those who kept the Sabbath from assembling, but
deterred some who embraced their opinions from uniting with them, and
discouraged others from investigating the subject. At present the
Sabbath is not as extensively observed in England as formerly. But the
extent of Sabbath-keeping cannot be determined by the number and
magnitude of the churches, either there or in other countries. For
many persons live in the observance of the seventh day and remain
members of churches which assemble on the first day; and a still
greater number acknowledge its correctness, who conform to the more
popular custom of keeping the first day.

At what time the Sabbath became the subject of attention in America,
we cannot definitely say. The intolerance of the first settlers of New
England was unfavorable to the Sabbath. The poor Christian who may
have been banished to this country for its observance could find no
refuge among the _Pilgrim Fathers_. The laws of Rhode Island were more
tolerant than those of some other States, and observers of the Sabbath
first made their appearance at Newport in 1671. The cause of the
Sabbath has gradually gained ground in this country from that period;
but it has found much to oppose its progress, even in Rhode Island. It
was in opposition to the general practice of Christians, on which
account an odium was put upon it, and those who have kept the Sabbath
have been reproached with Judaizing, and classed with Jews. Besides
this, they have ever been subjected to great inconvenience in their
occupations, especially in cities and towns.

At no time does there appear to have been in this country any general
excitement on the subject. The observers of Sunday have avoided as far
as possible its discussion; so that those who have observed the
Sabbath have had but little encouragement, as they have supposed, to
try to extend their sentiments. But the propagation of their opinions
has not depended exclusively on their efforts. The common English
version of the Bible has been found in many instances a sufficient
means of converting men to the truth. Churches observing the Sabbath
have been formed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and in most of the
Western States, embracing, as is supposed, a population of forty or
fifty thousand.


Conclusion.

From the foregoing historical sketch, it appears that through the
apostolic age, and for a long time after, the Sabbath was religiously
observed by the church of Christ; and that not until the latter part
of the second century was the first day introduced to religious notice
as a festival of the resurrection; and then, probably, as an annual
celebration at the close of the Passover only. It also appears, that
it was a work of some hundreds of years to establish the weekly
celebration of this day, even in the Romish church; and that this was
not done without the aid of ecclesiastical and civil laws and
penalties--the same instrumentalities used to bring the Sabbath into
disrepute in the popular branches of the church. Thus it appears that
the Romish clergy, and the princes under their control, have been the
principal actors in bringing about the change from the Sabbath to the
first day of the week.

For a long time before the Reformation the popular branches of the
Christian church were literally without a Sabbath. Until after that
period, it is not known that a single passage of Scripture was ever
cited as authority for the celebration of the first day, even as a
festival; the notion that the apostles observed it as a memorial of
the resurrection, being of comparatively modern origin. When, however,
the Reformers threw off the yoke of the Romish church, and protested
against her corruptions, some of them could no longer be satisfied to
let the observance of the first day rest upon her authority. They saw
that they must either give it up as a human invention, or find some
Scripture to support it. Hence the numerous theories which have been
invented to justify its observance--theories which necessarily
conflict with each other, as well as with Scripture, and are
altogether unsatisfactory to inquiring minds.

The history of this matter shows us, that neither the adoption of the
first day, nor the abandonment of the seventh, took place until the
corruptions of the Catholic church in other respects had become so
numerous and flagrant, as to drive from her communion many of her most
conscientious and apostolic members, who still retained the observance
of the Sabbath. The case of those sects in different ages of the
church who have kept the Sabbath in connection with the first day, and
practiced other things peculiar to the Romish church, furnishes
additional evidence that the observance of the first day was adopted
while the Sabbath was retained, and consequently that the first day
was not adopted as a substitute for the Sabbath, which it ultimately
displaced. The permitting of labor on the first day in the earlier
ages of the church, and the canons of Councils and Synods and the
edicts of Princes to bring about a general conformity in this respect,
together with the slow progress made, even in Catholic countries,
evince in the strongest manner that it was viewed in no other light,
even by its warmest advocates, than that of a human institution, and
one that could be enforced by human authority only. As such it was
looked upon by enlightened and conscientious Christians in every age,
who would not make void a commandment of God through a tradition of
men.

In the light of these facts, we are led to the conclusion of Dr.
Neander, set forth in his Church History, that "the festival of Sunday
was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention
of the Apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far
from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws
of the Sabbath to Sunday." As a "_human ordinance_," the observance of
Sunday has long been and is now considered by many. While they
consider it in this light, it is not to be expected that they will
render it that sacred regard which the Sabbath claims, and must have
in order to our safety and its usefulness.

What, then, shall be done? Shall we allow an institution of so much
importance to rest upon mere human authority? To such a proposition
every friend of the institution ought to say, No. To set it adrift, or
to attempt to enforce it upon such authority, would be to withdraw
from it the high sanction which it once had, and expose it to certain
contempt and neglect. There is but one course dictated by wisdom and
prudence. If we would save the Sabbath from threatened destruction, we
must come back to the law as it was originally given, place the
institution under the care of the Lawgiver, and enforce its claims by
his authority. We must join the commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day
to keep it holy," with the explanation of it, "The seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God," and united they shall stand. Let this be
done, and we need not fear. The Lord of the Sabbath is pledged for its
safety; and he will cause those who "call the Sabbath a delight, holy
of the Lord, honorable," to rejoice in Him, and ride upon the high
places of the earth.




No. 5.

A CHRISTIAN CAVEAT

TO THE OLD AND NEW SABBATARIANS.

BY EDWARD FISHER, ESQ.


 The following article is taken from the fifth edition of a work with
 the above title, printed in London, 1653. The book was written in
 defence of the "orthodoxal doctrine of the Church of England,"
 respecting festivals, against the "Sabbatarian novelties," as they
 were called, of the Puritans. While it demolishes the claims set up
 on behalf or _Sunday_ or _Lord's Day_, it fully establishes
 the claims of the _Sabbath_ or _Seventh Day_. And it is
 worthy of note here, that it is not possible to refute any of the
 erroneous views in regard to the Sabbath and Lord's Day, without
 taking positions which necessarily lead to the observation of _the
 Seventh Day_. How much easier it would be to fasten the claims of
 the Sabbatic institution upon the consciences of men, if we were
 satisfied to take the fourth commandment _as it reads_, and
 enforce it by "_Thus saith the Lord_."

"The third opinion is, of the new Sabbatarians, who dream of a middle
way betwixt a Jew and a Christian; and this they usually lay down in
two propositions. The first is, _That the Lord's Day, or first day of
the week, namely_ Sunday, _may be called_ the Sabbath: the next is,
_That the observation of the Lord's Day is a moral duty, enjoined by
God himself, and declared both by the doctrine and practice of Christ
and his apostles_. The first appearance of this kind of teachers was
in the year of our Lord 1595, near the end of the reign of Queen
Elizabeth: and because they are neither able to produce direct
Scripture, nor solid reason for what they say, they labor to support
their conceits by fallacies, falsities and wrestings of God's holy
word, as upon scanning their proofs will be manifest to the meanest
capacity.

"For their first proposition, they alledge two reasons why the _Lord's
Day_ may be called _the Sabbath_. One is because the Sabbath signifies
_a rest_; and therefore the Lord's Day being a _rest_, may be called
the Sabbath. But to this we answer, it is false that _the Sabbath_
signifies _a rest_; for when by custom of speech a common name is
restrained to a particular place, thing, or person, it then becomes a
proper name, and so losing its community, does signify that only
particular, unto which by custom of speech it is applied; as for
instance, _the temple_ is a common name, signifying _the Church_; yet
in London, where by custom of speech this name, _The Temple_, is
restrained to an Inns of Court, it is false and absurd to say you were
at _the Temple_, and mean _the Church of St. Giles_. In like manner
_the Sabbath_ is a common name, signifying _the rest_; yet in the
Christian Church, where by custom of speech, according to God's holy
phrase throughout the Old and New Testament, this name, _the Sabbath_,
is restrained to the Jewish weekly festival, it is false and absurd to
speak of _the Sabbath_, and mean _the Lord's Day_. Their other reason
why the Lord's Day may be called _the Sabbath_, is, because the Lord's
Day succeeded in the room of the Sabbath. But if this argument be
good, then may _baptism_ be called _circumcision_, the _Lord's Supper_
the _Passover_, and King _James_ Queen _Elizabeth_.

"As for the second proposition, wherein they assert the _morality and
divine institution of the Lord's Day_, we shall here notice only three
of their reasons. The first is, because Adam, according to God's
command, kept the Sabbath in the state of innocency.... But what is
the sanctification of the Sabbath spoken of by Moses in the second
chapter of Genesis, to our observing the Lord's Day? That was
appointed to be kept on _the seventh_ and _last_ day of the week; this
is kept on _the first_ day of the week: that was the day in which God
_rested_ from his work of creation; this is the day in which God
_began_ to create the heavens and the earth: that was our _Saturday_;
this is our _Sunday_. Their second proof for the morality of the
Lord's Day, is from the fourth commandment, where they seek to corrupt
the very text, and would persuade us that for _the_ seventh day, we
must read _a_ seventh day; as if God did not there set apart a certain
day of the week, but left it to man to keep which of the seven he
pleased. Unto which we answer, that this conceit is not only against
the letter of all our translations, but even repugnant to the sense of
the commandment; for the words are express that God blessed and
hallowed the Sabbath day; that Sabbath day was _the seventh_ day; that
seventh day was _the day in which God rested from his six days' work
of creation_. Nay, grant it were true (as these men would have) that
this special precept does exactly oblige us, and that no particular
day of the seven was by God appointed to be kept holy, then may we set
apart Monday, or Tuesday, or any other day to God's service, as well
as Sunday; and so, by their own argument, the Lord's Day is no more
moral than any other day of the week. Their third proof is from the
title or name, _Lord's Day_, which (say they) cannot be for any other
reason, but because it is of the Lord's institution. We answer, this
is false; for the Lord's Day was not so called because it was
_instituted by the Lord_, but because it was _dedicated to the Lord_;
as we commonly say, Saint Mary's Church, or Saint Peter's Church;
which no man did ever imagine were built or founded by Saint Mary or
Saint Peter."

 Near the close of his book, after having examined each of the
 positions here referred to, he comes directly to his design, and
 says:--

"In vain, therefore, it is, and most absurd, for you our opponents to
charge us with _befooling and misleading the people_. Your own
_practice_, your own _doctrines_, shall bear witness betwixt us.

"You who say one while, that God did not appoint _the_ seventh day,
the day on which he rested, to be kept holy, but _a_ seventh day, and
so one day in seven be observed, no matter which of them; another
while, that by this commandment God enjoins us to keep holy _the first
day of the week_ on which he _began_ his work of creation--Do you not
_befool and mislead the people_?

"You who (forgetting your own doctrine of the fourth commandment) do
teach, that the keeping holy the first day of the week, or Lord's Day,
was appointed and practised by Christ and his apostles, yet cannot
produce so much as one _example_ for it, much less a _precept_--Do you
not _befool and mislead the people_?

"You who infer, because St. Paul, and the disciples at Troas, spent
the whole night of the first day of the week in praying, preaching,
and heavenly conference, in regard he was to leave them and depart on
the morrow; _therefore_, St. Paul and the disciples at Troas met _that
night_ to keep holy _the day past_; _therefore_ the disciples at Troas
met _every first day of the week_, to keep that day holy; _therefore_
the Church at _Philippi_, the Church in _Cilicia_, and _all_ Christian
Churches, did then keep holy the first day of the week; _therefore all
the apostles_ did constantly keep holy that day; _therefore_ Christ
and his apostles _appointed the first day of the week_ to be for ever
celebrated, instead of the Sabbath--Is not this pitiful logic? Do you
not _befool and mislead the people_?

"You who tell stories of an _old_ Sabbath and a _new_ Sabbath, a
_Jewish_ Sabbath and a _Christian_ Sabbath, a Sabbath of the _seventh_
day and a Sabbath of the _first_ day of the week; that so you may
slily fix the name _Sabbath_ on _the Lord's Day_, and then persuade
the simple and ignorant that all those texts of Scripture wherein
mention is made of _the Sabbath day_, are intended of _the Lord's
Day_; when indeed to call the Lord's Day _the Sabbath_, is as
senseless as to call Sunday _Saturday_, or the _first_ day _the last
day_ of the week, when throughout the Old and New Testament we have
not the least intimation of any other weekly Sabbath, save the old,
Jewish, seventh day Sabbath; when you yourselves confess, that the
name Lord's Day, is more proper and particular, and less obvious to
exception, than the name Sabbath; and that the name Sabbath is in
dignity inferior to both Lord's Day and Sunday--Do you not _befool and
mislead the people_?

"You that condemn the yearly observance of Christ's birth-day as
heathenish, yet acknowledge this feast to be a constitution of the
ancient primitive Church--Do you not _befool and mislead the people_?

"Take ye heed; these are not small matters; consider well with
yourselves what it is to stand guilty before God of belying Christ and
his apostles, and wilfully wresting the Holy Scriptures. Be advised;
take time while time is to repent of those notorious slanders
wherewith you have aspersed the ancient approved ways of God's
worship; and let the sincerity of your repentance appear by the speedy
abandoning of your unchristian practices and principles; lest the
heavy judgment of seducers, _to wax worse and worse_, fall upon you,
and God in the end _deliver you up_ to such _strong delusions_, that
you _should believe your own lies_."

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.




No. 6.

TWENTY REASONS FOR KEEPING HOLY IN EACH WEEK,

THE SEVENTH DAY INSTEAD OF THE FIRST DAY.


1. Because the Seventh Day was blessed and sanctified for a Sabbath,
by God, immediately after the creation of the world, as a perpetual
memorial of that wonderful work, and of His own resting from it; and
because there is now as much need for man to remember God's creative
work, and to enjoy a weekly rest, as ever there was.

2. Because there is evidence that the Seventh Day was observed from
Adam to Moses, by Noah, Jacob, Joseph, and Job. (See Gen. vii. 4, 10;
viii. 10, 12; xxix. 27, 28; l. 10; Job. ii. 3.)

3. Because the Seventh Day is a necessary part of the fourth
commandment, given at Mount Sinai, graven on stone by the finger of
God, and incorporated with the other nine precepts of the Decalogue,
which are admitted to be moral in their nature, and perpetually
binding. "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy." "The Seventh Day
is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." "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."

4. Because the Old Testament abounds with declarations of God's
blessing upon those who keep holy the Seventh Day, and of his
vengeance upon those who profane it.

5. Because our Lord Jesus Christ enforced the claims of the law to the
fullest extent, saying in regard to the code to which the Seventh Day
belonged, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;" and because He
always kept holy the Seventh Day, in this doubtless "leaving us an
example that we should follow in His steps."

6. Because the holy women who had attended Jesus Christ at his death
and burial, are expressly said to have "rested the SABBATH DAY
_according to the commandment_," (Luke xxiii. 56;) and because, though
the narrative proceeds immediately to record the appearance of Jesus
Christ, on the morning of the _first day of the week_, neither there
nor elsewhere is one word said about a change of the Sabbath, or about
the sabbatic observance of the First Day of the Week.

7. Because the Apostles of our Lord constantly kept the Seventh Day,
of which there is abundant evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, and
it is declared of Paul, that, "_as his manner was_," he went into the
synagogue frequently on the Sabbath Day. (Compare Luke iv. 16 with
Acts xvii. 2; see also Acts xiii. 14, 42, 44, and xvi. 13.)

8. Because Jesus Christ, foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem,
warned his disciples to pray that their flight might not happen "on
the Sabbath Day;" and as that event was to take place almost forty
years after the resurrection of our Lord, it appears that the same
Sabbath was to be then observed by his disciples.

9. Because there is no other day of the week called by the name of
"Sabbath," in all the Holy Scriptures, but the Seventh Day alone; and
because, when "the First Day of the Week" is mentioned in the New
Testament, it is always clearly distinguished from "the Sabbath."

10. Because not one of those passages which speak of the "First Day of
the Week," records an event or transaction peculiar to the Sabbath.

11. Because when God had so carefully committed his Law to writing,
had repeated his precepts throughout the prophetic books, and had left
so many testimonies and examples of the Seventh Day Sabbath on His
sacred records, it is most unreasonable to suppose that He would have
repealed or changed one single article thereof, without recording it
among the words of our Lord Jesus or His Apostles, in the writings of
the New Testament.

12. Because the observance of the Moral Law, (without any exception
from it,) is constantly enjoined, in the writings of the Apostles; and
one of them says that "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all," quoting at the same time
the sixth and seventh commandments. (See Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14;
Eph. vi. 2, 3; and James ii. 8-11.)

13. Because the religious observance of the _Seventh Day_ of the Week
_as the Sabbath_, was constantly practised by the primitive
Christians, for three or four hundred years at least; and because,
though it gradually fell into disuse, the neglect of the Sabbath was
caused only by those corruptions of Christianity, which at length grew
up into the grossest idolatry; so that the second commandment was in
fact, and the fourth was in effect, abolished by an ignorant,
superstitious, and tyrannical priesthood.

14. Because it was only through the superstitious observance of the
anniversaries of saints and martyrs, and a multitude of other fasts
and feasts, with which the simplicity of revealed religion was
encumbered and overwhelmed, that the sabbatic observance of the
Seventh Day went out of use; and not (in fact) by any real or
pretended command of Christ or His apostles, nor at first by the
express authority of any Pope or Council: for it was kept _as a strict
fast_, for ages after it lost every other token of a holy day.

15. Because the leaders of the Reformation never claimed for the First
Day the name of the Sabbath, and never enforced the observance of that
day by any other authority than that of the Church.

16. Because it is obviously absurd--(_and it is an objection often
made by irreligious people_)--that the observance of the First Day of
the Week as the Sabbath, should be grounded on a divine precept which
commands the observance, not of the _First_, but of the _Seventh_ Day.

17. Because, if the fundamental principle of Protestantism be right
and true, that "the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants," then
the Seventh Day must be the true and only _Sabbath of Protestants_;
for, unless that day of the week be kept, they have no _scriptural_
Sabbath at all.

18. Because the pertinacious observance of the First Day of the Week,
in the stead of the Seventh, has actually given occasion of great
scandal to the Protestant faith; it has caused the <DW7>s to declare
that Protestants admit the _authority of human tradition_ in matters
of religion; and it has led to intolerance and persecution.

19. Because the observance of the First Day, and neglect of the
Seventh, having been adopted partly in contempt of the Jews, has
always laid a burden upon them, and presented an obstacle to their
receiving Christianity, which ought to be removed.

20. Because the observance of the Seventh Day obeys God, honors the
Protestant Principle, rebukes Papacy, removes stumbling-blocks, and
secures for us the presence and blessing of "the Lord of the Sabbath."

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.




No. 7.

PLAIN QUESTIONS.


Reader! be pleased to give a plain answer to each of these plain
questions, without equivocation or mental reservation.

1. Did God, after he had finished the work of creation, "bless and
sanctify" THE _seventh day of the week_; or simply the _seventh part
of time_, without reference to any _particular day_ of the seven?

2. Did He not sanctify THE _very day in which he rested_ from his
work? Was not that _the last day_ of the seven? Did He sanctify any
other?

3. WHY did He "bless and sanctify" _the_ seventh day? Was it not
because he _rested_ on that day? Will this reason apply to _any other
day_ of the seven? Did he not _work_ on EVERY other day? (See Gen.
2:2, 3.)

4. Is not God's example of resting on the seventh day enjoined upon us
for imitation? (Ex. 20:8-11.) Do we imitate him, when we rest upon
some other day than the one in which He rested?

5. Is it the special _appointment of God_ which renders a day holy, or
is it _our own act_? Is the day holy because we _count_ it so, or
because God has made it so?

6. When God enjoins us to count the Sabbath, "the holy of the Lord,"
(Isa. 58:13,) is it not equivalent to telling us that He himself has
_previously_ constituted it a holy day by blessing and sanctifying it?
Is it any thing more than requiring us to reckon the day to possess
that dignity which He _has already_ conferred upon it?

7. If God's blessing does not rest upon one particularly specified
day, to the exclusion of all others, and we are nevertheless required
to keep a day holy, are we not required to do what _is impossible_?
For how can we count a day to be holy, which God has not previously
made so? (Compare Quest. 5.)

8. If God's blessing did not rest upon one particularly specified day,
could he challenge to himself any propriety in one day more than in
another? Yet in the Sabbath day he claims a special propriety; "MY
_holy day_." (Isa. 58:13.)

9. Are we not commanded to refrain from labor in _that very day_ which
God once "blessed and sanctified," and thereby made holy time? "In IT
thou shalt not do any work," &c. Do we obey this command when we work
all of that day, and make it the busiest day of all the seven?

10. If it be downright disobedience to set about our work on the
seventh day, when God says, "in _it_ thou shalt NOT do any work," can
we think to make amends for this act of disobedience by ceasing from
work on another day? Even the performance of a required duty will not
make amends for another one neglected. How much less, then, the
performance of something which is not required! "Who hath required
this at your hand?"

11. Has God ever _taken away_ the blessing which he once put upon the
seventh day, and made that day a common or secular day?

12. Does not the _reason_ of the blessing (See Quest. 3,) possess all
the cogency now that it ever did? Has it lost force by the lapse of
time? And while the reason of an institution remains, does not the
institution itself remain?

13. Was the reason of the blessing which God originally put upon the
seventh day, founded upon any need that men then had of a Redeemer?
Was it therefore to receive its accomplishment and fulfillment by the
actual coming of the Redeemer? In what possible sense can it be said,
that Jesus Christ fulfilled and made an end of this reason?

14. Has God ever said of the first day of the week, In _it_ thou shalt
not do any work? Has Christ ever said so? Have the apostles?

15. Is there any scriptural proof that Christ, or his apostles, or the
Christian churches in the days of the apostles, _refrained from labor_
on the first day of the week?

16. As there is no transgression where there is no law, (Rom. 4:15;
John 3:4,) what sin is committed by working on the first day of the
week?

17. Does not the Sabbatic Institution RESULT from the blessing and
sanctifying of _a particular day_? Is not this _the very thing in
which it consists_? How then is the institution _separable_ from the
day thus "blessed and sanctified"? How can it be separated from that
upon which its very existence depends?

18. If the very life and soul of the institution consist in the
blessing which was once put upon a particular day, is it not idle to
talk of the _transfer_ of the institution to another day? If another
day has been sanctified and blessed, then it is an _entirely new_
institution, and not a transfer of the old.

19. Does not the law of the Sabbath require the weekly commemoration
of _that_ rest which God entered into after he had finished the work
of creation? By what principle of law or logic, then, can that law be
made to _require_ the commemoration of the work of redemption?

20. If it be necessary that the work of redemption be commemorated
weekly by a positive institution, must not the obligation so to
commemorate it arise from some law which directly and specifically
requires it? But when, instead of this, the attempt is made to derive
the obligation from the Sabbath law, is it not a tacit acknowledgment
that there is no law requiring the weekly commemoration of the work of
redemption?

21. Does the Scripture ever apply the name, _Sabbath_, to the first
day of the week? Even in the _New_ Testament, where the term is used,
is not the reference always to the _seventh_ day?

22. If Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles ful thirty years after
the death of Christ, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, still
calls the seventh day of the week the Sabbath, can it be wrong in us
to do so? (See Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 16:1, 3; 17:1, 2; 18:4.) If this be
the _inspired_ application of the term so many years after all the
ceremonial institutions were nailed to the cross, is it not our duty
to make the same use of the term now?

23. Is it not a manifest perversion of the scriptural use of terms, to
take away the sacred name from the seventh day of the week, and give
it to the first day?

24. When the first day of the week is so generally called the Sabbath,
are not the common people thereby led to suppose that the Bible calls
it so? Are they not thus grossly deceived?

25. If the name _Sabbath_ were no longer applied to this day, and it
should simply be called first day of the week, as in the Bible, is it
not probable that it would soon lose its sacredness in the eyes of the
people?

26. Is it possible, then, that God has not given the day a name
sufficiently sacred to secure for it a religious regard, nor even
guarded it with a law sufficient to prevent its desecration?

27. _What then?_ HAS GOD LEFT HIS WORK FOR MAN TO MEND! IS IT NOT SAFE
TO LEAVE THE DAY AS GOD HAS LEFT IT! "Who hath directed the Spirit of
the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?" (Isa. 11:13.)

28. Are you very sure that by the Lord's day, (Rev. 1:10,) is meant
the first day of the week? Have you any _Scripture_ proof of it? Have
you any other proof of it than the testimony of those who are called
the early Fathers?

29. If the testimony of the early Fathers is to be relied on, that the
Lord's day means the first day of the week, ought not their testimony
to be just as much relied on, as to the manner in which the primitive
Christians observed the day?

30. If it were even certain that by the Lord's day the writer of the
book of Revelations meant to designate the first day of the week,
would it thence follow that it is a day _sacred_ by _divine_
appointment, any more than that the "_Sabbath day's journey_" (Acts
1:12,) was a distance limited and prescribed by _divine_ authority? If
Luke could select the latter expression from the vocabulary of _human
tradition_, without intending to sanction it as being of divine
origin, could not John do the same with regard to the former
expression?

31. Do the Fathers, or any one of them, inform us that the Lord's day
was observed by _abstinence from labor_?--that it was observed as the
Sabbath? Mark the question. It is not, was the day _observed_, simply;
but, was it observed _as the Sabbath_?

32. Is there not an important distinction between the _Sabbath_ and a
_religious festival_? Does not the word Sabbath mean _rest_? Can any
day, therefore, be called a Sabbath day, which is not a day of rest
from ordinary labor?

33. Does a religious _festival_ require any thing more than the
commemoration of some important event, allowing the time not occupied
in the public celebration of it to be spent in labor or amusement? Is
not this precisely the manner in which the first day of the week was
observed, according to the testimony of the ancient Fathers?

34. Though the observance of the first day of the week as a religious
festival be in itself innocent, (Rom. 14:5,) so long as it is not made
a pretext for dispensing with an express law of God, (Matt. 15:6,) yet
do you find it any where in the word of God _commanded_ as a _duty_?

35. Do you believe that a Sabbath, in the true and proper sense of the
term; namely, a day of rest from all ordinary labor, is necessary and
indispensable to the well-being of mankind? If so, do you honestly
suppose that God would set it aside, and have its place supplied by
nothing more than a religious festival?

36. Is it not wicked to uphold a course which makes the commandment of
God of none effect? (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13.)

Reader! carefully ponder the foregoing questions, together with the
Scripture references. Answer them as you would if you stood at the
gates of death. Do not trifle with the Holy Spirit of God, by forcibly
wresting his word from its obvious meaning. Let conscience be
unfettered; and act, as fully realizing that "THOU, GOD, SEEST ME."

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.


DIALOGUE,

Between a Minister of the Gospel and a Sabbatarian

_Sabbatarian._ Did Jehovah ever sanctify one day above another?

_Minister._ He did.

_S._ And what day was that?

_M._ The seventh.

_S._ When?

_M._ When he finished his creative work.

_S._ Where?

_M._ In Eden.

_S._ On whom was it obligatory?

_M._ On our first parents, and all their posterity.

_S._ Did he ever unsanctify that day?

_M._ No.

_S._ Did he ever sanctify the first, or any other day than the
seventh, as a day of rest?

_M._ Not that I know of.

_S._ Then do not those who neglect the seventh day, take away
something from the word of God? And do not those who keep the first
day add to that word? Read the threatnings of the Lord against
such:--"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him
the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from
the things which are written in this book."


COUNTERFEIT COIN.

Being the substance of a recent Conversation between an eminent
Counsellor at Law and a Sabbatarian.

The Lawyer contended that although the first day of the week had no
divine authority for its sanctity or observance as a Sabbath, yet if
it be kept as scrupulously and conscientiously as the seventh day
demanded, _it could not but be_ as acceptable to God.

In answer to such sophistry, the Sabbatarian submitted the following
legal case to him:--

"I am told that I can purchase, in the State of Connecticut, _one
hundred_ copper cents, bearing the impress and superscription of the
United States Mint, and equal in every respect in value to the mint
coin, for _sixty-five_ cents, payable in gold or silver. But I admit
them to be counterfeit. I admit, also, that I circulate this spurious
coin. Now, will you undertake, for a fee of $10,000, to defend my
cause against a prosecution for passing such false coin, and exonerate
me from conviction in the United States' Courts."

The honest lawyer's answer unhesitatingly was, "I cannot argue your
cause in the very teeth of so unquestionable a law as appears to exist
on the Statute Books."[9]

The Sabbatarian replied:--"Then, as you admit _your first day Sabbath
a counterfeit_, allow me to answer you as the celebrated Mr. Whiston
did Chancellor King of England upon a similar question: 'If God
Almighty should be as consistent, as just, and as jealous of his laws
in the Court of Heaven, as my Lord Chancellor is in his, _where are we
then_?'"

THE INFERENCE.--If, then, I cannot obtain an advocate on earth, (for
no one of repute would undertake it,) to plead my cause with the offer
of a fee of $10,000, for the violation of a law of man's making, what
ground have I to expect that the only advocate to be obtained in the
Court of Heaven, i. e. _the Lord Jesus Christ_, will defend my cause
against a breach of that law which his father ever made punishable
with DEATH, temporal and eternal?--and who himself, when on earth, in
his comment on that law, averred that not one _jot_ or _tittle_ could
in any wise pass from it? (Matt. 5:18, 19.)

[9] If any person shall falsely make or counterfeit any copper coin of
the United States, or pass or publish the same, he shall be subjected
to a fine of $1000, and suffer imprisonment to hard labor for a term
not exceeding three years.--Gordon's Digest, p. 922.

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.




No. 8.

SABBATH CONTROVERSY.

THE TRUE ISSUE.


One of the greatest difficulties which we who observe the seventh day
have ever found in the Sabbath controversy, is to make our opponents
understand what is the real question at issue. So long have their
thoughts, feelings and habits, been moulded under one particular view
of the subject, that it seems almost a miracle if one is found who can
disregard all foreign matter, and look at the precise point in debate
long enough to come to any certain and intelligent conclusion about
it. But it is evident, that if an opponent is suffered to raise false
issues, or to be continually striking off into the discussion of some
point which does not affect the final question, we may prolong the
controversy _ad infinitum_.

Let us then endeavor to state distinctly what is, and what is not, the
issue between us and the observers of the first day of the week.

1. The issue is not whether the first day of the week was observed at
a very early period by Christians. We admit that it was. We admit that
its observance may be traced up to very near the borders of the
apostolic age. What more can a generous, conscientious opponent, who
scorns any other aid than what the truth will give him, ask? He knows
in his own soul that this is the very utmost that can be produced from
any of his histories. Let him ransack his old musty volumes all the
way backward, till he fancies he can almost talk to the "beloved
disciple" face to face, and what more can he find? Verily, nothing.

But when you have got this admission from us, then we have another
question to ask. _How_--don't dodge the question--HOW was the day
observed by the early Christians? We admit the observance of it; but
that is not the issue. The issue respects the _manner_ of observing
it. You, if you are consistent, will say that the early Christians
observed it not only by public worship, but by _abstaining from
labor_. We, on the other hand, deny that they abstained from labor. We
admit that they held public worship; but--we repeat it--_we deny that
they abstained from labor_. We deny that they regarded it as a
_Sabbath_, "resting according to the commandment." Now with the issue
thus fairly stated, we put the laboring oar into your hands, and
challenge you to prove your position. Bring proof, if you can, that
the early Christians regarded the first day of the week as any thing
else than a _religious festival_; between which and a _Sabbath_ there
is a very important difference, the latter requiring abstinence from
labor, the former merely requiring public worship in honor of the
event commemorated, and allowing the remainder of the day to be spent
in labor or amusement.

2. When it is once settled, that in a very early period of the church
the first day was observed as a festival; when our opponents have
fairly jaded themselves to a "weariness of the flesh," in their "much
study" of the old fathers, to find proof of it;--though we never
called it in question;--then the issue is, whether this festival was
_ordained_ by _Christ_?--whether the New Testament furnishes _inspired
example_ of such festival? Our opponents affirm; we deny. We maintain
that in every passage of the New Testament, where the first day of the
week is mentioned, the context furnishes a sufficient reason why it is
mentioned, without the least necessity of supposing it to have been a
festival season. No exception can be made to this, unless in regard to
1 Cor. 16:2. The reason why the Apostle in this place specifies the
first, rather than any other day of the week, does not so clearly
appear from the context; but the peculiar phraseology employed, "let
each one of you lay by him," [himself,] is against the idea of any
public meeting; and if no public meeting, of course no festival
season. As every allusion to the first day of the week is sufficiently
explained by other circumstances noticed in the context, the
_inferential_ proof of its festival character is thereby destroyed. As
for _clear_, _positive_ proof of it, such as express precept or
command, no person of modesty pretends it. Still less is there any
proof of its _Sabbatic_ character.

3. Another point wherein we are necessarily at issue with great
numbers of Christians, is whether the _institution_ of the Sabbath is
separable from the particular _day_ to be observed. They affirm; we
deny. We maintain that God's blessing and sanctifying a particular day
is the very thing in which the institution consists. To render this
plain matter yet more plain, we invite close attention to the wording
of the fourth commandment; premising, however, that the word Sabbath
is not _translated_ from a Hebrew word, but is the Hebrew word itself
anglicized, just as baptism is an anglicized Greek word. The proper
translation of the word is _Rest_. Now let the word Rest be
substituted for Sabbath, and how clear it becomes--

"_Remember the Rest day to keep it holy._" [Surely some particular day
is denoted; for it is THE Rest day, not A Rest day.] _Six days shalt
thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Rest of
the Lord thy God._ [Is it any where historically recorded as a fact
that God rested on THE seventh day? It is Gen. 2:2. 'On the seventh
day God rested from, all his work which he had made.' Who does not see
that that day on which God rested, was the _last_ of the seven which
constituted the first week of time?] _In it_--[in WHAT? why, in the
seventh day, the last day of the week; for the pronoun _it_ can have
no other antecedent]--_thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son,
nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy
cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates._ [WHY must no work
be done on that particular day, the seventh or last day of the week?
The reason follows.] _For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
the sea and all that in them is, and_ RESTED _on the seventh day_, [as
the record in Gen. 2:2 proves. See also Heb. 4:4.] _Wherefore the Lord
blessed the Rest day and sanctified it._

The conclusion is irresistible, that the Rest day spoken of is the
particular day on which God rested from his work, which, as before
shown, was the last day of the week. That very day, and no other, God
blessed and sanctified. The only reason assigned _why_ he sanctified
it, is "because that in it he had rested from all his work which God
created and made." Gen. 2:3. The Rest day, then, which we are required
to observe, is "the Rest of the Lord thy God:" which does not mean the
rest which the Lord thy God has appointed, though it is true that he
has appointed it; nor does it mean a rest which becomes the Lord's by
reason of our appropriating it to him; but "the rest of the Lord thy
God" means THE REST WHICH THE LORD THY GOD OBSERVED.

Now from all this we think it must be evident, that whoever observes
any other Rest day than the seventh day of the week, does not observe
the Rest--Sabbath--"of the Lord thy God." He may, it is true,
appropriate it to the Lord his God, and in that sense call it the
Lord's; he may ignorantly suppose that Christ in the Gospel has
appointed it, and in that sense also call it the Lord's; but it can by
no means be called "the Rest of the Lord thy God" in the sense of that
expression in the fourth commandment. Hence, irresistible is our
conviction, that he does not obey the commandment. O brother
Christian, why will you persist in maintaining that your Sunday
keeping is an act of obedience to the law of the Sabbath?

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce-street, New-York.




No. 9

THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.

FALSE EXPOSITION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.


The Fourth Commandment has been variously expounded by its professed
friends. Among these expositions, none has been more injurious than
that which represents it as requiring the observance, not of _the_
Sabbath, and _the_ seventh day, but of _a_ Sabbath, and _a_ seventh
day--not of a certain and well-known time, but of an uncertain and
varying time. Yet this is the exposition of it which is given both by
commentators and writers on the subject of the Sabbath. It will be
found, however, that this view is generally presented in order to
prepare the way to introduce the first day of the week, under the
specious name of Lord's Day, into the place of the Sabbath. Thus some
are made to think, that the name Sabbath may as well be applied to the
first day of the week as to the seventh. But to such an exposition
there are several serious objections:--

1. It is a perversion of the original text itself. In every place
where the weekly Sabbath and the seventh day are spoken of, the Hebrew
article is uniformly used. This article is often used like our
demonstrative _this_--but more commonly like our definite article
_the_--never as our indefinite article _a_ or _an_; and _Gesenius_, in
answer to the question whether it may be used _indefinitely_, says,
"The definite article cannot be rightly said to stand indefinitely."
To this opinion agree all our translators, both ancient and modern,
who have rendered the terms, both in the fourth commandment and all
other places of the Scripture, by _the_ Sabbath and _the_ seventh day.

2. It makes the Fourth Commandment to be indefinite and absurd. If
that commandment only requires the observance of _a_ Sabbath or
_rest_, and that on _a_ seventh day, then one man might keep the
seventh day, another the third day, and another the fifth day, yet all
obey the commandment. What confusion would thus result from carrying
out this exposition to its legitimate results! But God's commandment
is not yea and nay after this manner. It says, "_the_ seventh day is
_the_ Sabbath of the Lord thy God." That man will not be held
guiltless who misinterprets and misrepresents it, for however pious a
purpose he may do so.

3. It is contrary to the teachings of the very men who give this
exposition; for they affirm, that the fourth commandment required the
keeping of _the_ seventh day until Christ came. Now, if the Jews
before Christ, were bound to keep a certain and definite day, and that
_the_ seventh day, then the commandment required a certain and
definite day, and that _the_ seventh day.

From these considerations it is evident, that those who represent the
fourth commandment as requiring the observance of only _a_ Sabbath,
and that upon _some one_ day of the seven indefinitely, are guilty of
a false exposition of the commandment, and of handling the word of God
deceitfully. They make a plain passage of Scripture to signify one
thing for some thousands of years, and then ever afterwards to signify
another thing. Thus do they make void the commandment of God, that
they may keep their own traditions.

Now let us turn to a consideration of some of the _consequences_ of
this kind of exposition. Among these we will mention only three.

1. It overturns all certainty in explaining the Scriptures. If a man,
in translating from a Latin or Greek author, should pervert his
author's meaning in this manner, by using words in a different sense
from that in which they were intended, he would be cast out and
despised. But yet when a preacher represents the term _the Sabbath_ as
meaning simply _a rest_, that so he may call the first day of the week
_a rest_, and therefore _the Sabbath_, he deals worse with the
Scriptures than the translator just mentioned does with his profane
author. Instead, however, of being cast out and despised, his
speculations are allowed to go for truth. Thus unbelievers are
encouraged in their infidelity; and occasion is given for them to say,
that the Bible is interpreted by its friends to mean just what they
please to have it. It is dangerous for men to use their wits thus to
blind the eyes of their fellows.

2. It abolishes the Lord's Sabbath, and makes the Fourth Commandment
to be a mere cipher. First, it abolishes the Lord's Sabbath, because
it teaches that the observance of the seventh day, on which God rested
and which he introduced into the commandment as one with the Sabbath,
is not at all binding, but the day may be spent in any kind of labor.
Is not this to abolish _the Lord's_ Sabbath? Second, it makes the
fourth commandment a cipher, because it takes away the _time_, which
is the seventh day, and the _event commemorated_, which is God's
resting from his creative work. Now read the commandment, as these
expounders would have it, bereft of the _time_ and the _event
commemorated_. It then commands only _a rest_, without any precept or
example as to its length or frequency. One person, therefore, may rest
one hour in each day; another one day in a month; and a third one
month in a year; and each may call this keeping the Sabbath. Does not
this make the fourth commandment a mere cipher?

3. It abuses God's Word, and misleads his people. It abuses his word
by representing that the Word teaches what it does not teach, and that
it fails to teach what it attempts to teach. It misleads his people,
on one side, by pressing the fourth commandment to sustain the first
day of the week, which it says nothing about, thus laying a yoke upon
the people, requiring them to observe a day, in regard to which they
will finally be asked, Who hath required this at your hands? On the
other side, it misleads the people, by encouraging them to neglect a
day which God hath sanctified; and commanded them to keep holy.

Such are some of the consequences of this false exposition of the
fourth commandment. They affect both the sabbatic institution itself,
and those whose duty it is to remember it. It is true that the persons
who countenance such expositions are called very zealous and godly
men; but this, instead of bettering the case, makes it worse. If they
were enemies to the commandment, such things might be expected, and
would be comparatively unimportant; but that the wound should be
inflicted by its friends, aggravates the evil. There is occasion to
tremble for some religious teachers, who profess great interest in the
Sabbath, but who yet refuse to hear the truth in regard to it. Some
such there are, who, if the truth be presented to them, instead of
inquiring if these things are so, imitate the Jews of old who, when
they were cut to the heart, gnashed on their reprover with their
teeth; and when they could endure it no longer, "stoppped their ears,
and ran upon him with one accord." Such would do well to inquire if
they are not in this thing teaching error for truth, and their own
traditions for the commandments of God.

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce-street, New-York.




[No. 10.]

THE TRUE SABBATH

EMBRACED AND OBSERVED.

BY ELD. SAMUEL DAVISON,

Many years a regular Baptist Minister; now Pastor of the Seventh day
Baptist Church in Shiloh, New Jersey.

 NEW-YORK:
 PUBLISHED BY THE AMER. SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY


INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.

Having often been solicited to give an account of my conversion from
the observance of what is commonly called the Lord's Day, or Sunday,
to the observance of the ancient Sabbath of Jehovah, the seventh day
of the week, I submit this brief narrative to public notice, not so
much for the justification of my present practice, as in the hope that
it may be the means of leading many other Christian people candidly to
examine this subject, which, as it appears to me, is very essential to
the restoration of primitive Christianity. The narrative derives its
importance, not from the person of the narrator, but from the
practical exhibition which it furnishes of the working of divine truth
upon the mind.


EARLY PREPOSSESSIONS.

My parents, and nearly all of my family connections, being members of
Baptist churches, or attached to that denomination--and I having been
a member of the same for above twenty-five years, and more than half
that time an accredited minister among them--all my preferences and
prepossessions were with their peculiarities as churches of the Lord
Jesus Christ. If there was one characteristic doctrine of the Baptists
which I esteemed above another, it was this: "We believe that the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by the inspiration
of God, and are a perfect rule of faith and practice." I could say
with the Psalmist, "My heart standeth in awe of thy word; for thou
hast magnified thy word above all thy name."


MATURED ATTACHMENTS.

I believed firmly, that if there was a Christian people upon the earth
who had kept the primitive faith from the days of the apostles, and
had never symbolized with the errors of the church of Rome in her
idolatrous and adulterous course, that people was the Baptist
denomination. If there was any thing in my religious privileges in
which I gloried, it was in thinking that I had never been deceived by
the working of that mystery of iniquity. I was sensible that the
Baptists had errors among them; but I regarded them as the errors of
fallible human nature, and not as departures from the constitutional
doctrine and law of the Holy Scriptures--some of them superinduced by
an unwatchful and familiar intercourse with our more erroneous
Pedobaptist brethren, and hence mediately, though not directly, the
effect of that great apostacy which was predicted as to come and
deceive all nations. Holding these sentiments, I was ardently and
conscientiously attached to that denomination, as the most scriptural
people on earth. I did not doubt but that I should remain united with
them in time, in death, and in eternal life.


REGARD FOR SCRIPTURAL CHRISTIANITY.

Notwithstanding my prepossessions and attachments, it has been my
prevailing desire, from the time of my conversion, to be a Scriptural
Christian; and since I became a teacher of others, I have felt a
growing sense of obligation to know and teach the whole counsel of God
aright. The words of the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples, saying,
"Call no man master," "Call no man father," have for years been so
deeply impressed upon my heart, that I have scrupulously refused to
call myself a Fullerite, a Calvinist, an Armenian, or after any human
name. Although I have my preferences in reading and approving the
sentiments of great and good men, the Bible alone is my creed book.


FORMER SABBATH SENTIMENTS.

My former Sabbath sentiments were formed according to the Puritan
model. While a child, I learned Sutcliff's and Watts' Catechisms, in
both of which it is taught, that the ten commandments are a rule of
life to good men; and traditionally I was taught, that the Sabbath was
changed from the seventh to the first day of the week in honor of the
resurrection of Christ; and I fully believed this was confirmed by the
various references to the first day contained in the New Testament.


DISTURBED ABOUT THE SABBATH.

I was first disturbed about the Sabbath seven years ago, when a
brother sent me a tract upon the subject, called the _Investigator_. I
read it with considerable interest, and was much perplexed in
attempting to satisfy myself with my own views, as I went along in the
perusal of it. I wished then, that there had been something more
explicit upon the subject of the change of the day than what I could
find in the New Testament. Not questioning, however, but that it was
divinely changed, I quieted, rather than satisfied, my mind with what
I supposed to be abundant apostolic example; and I remarked, that if
our Pedobaptist brethren could produce from the Scriptures as clear
examples of infant baptism, as we could of keeping the first day of
the week for a Sabbath, I would admit its validity. Although I would
not dare to say so now, then it sufficed to quiet my mind.

I had no farther solicitude upon the subject, until about midsummer of
1843. At that time, as several professors of religion of my
acquaintance did not regard the day as I thought the Lord's Day ought
to be regarded, I concluded to preach a sermon upon the subject, and
commenced preparing one. I had then recently purchased Neander's
History of the Christian Religion and Church during the First Three
Centuries. I read this book with much satisfaction, as the work of an
able and candid historian, who takes a philosophical view of the
events and circumstances of society which operated to give character
to those early ages of church history. In the section on Christian
Worship and Festivals, I was surprised to find the following
statement, viz: "OPPOSITION TO JUDAISM _introduced the particular
festival of Sunday_ very early indeed into the place of the
Sabbath.... The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was
always only a human ordinance; and it was far from the intentions of
the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect--far from
them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the
Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false
application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by
that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin." I was the
more surprised at this statement, as I found Neander was not a
Sabbath-keeper. He takes the high-church ground, acknowledging the
right of the so-called apostolic or catholic church to alter or ordain
the rites of Christian worship; which is indeed, the foundation
principle of all Papal, Puseyite, and Pedobaptist observances. I saw
clearly enough, that if Neander was right, I had no better foundation
for Sunday-keeping than hierarchists have for their Easter, Ascension,
and Christmas Festivals, which I had always repudiated; or than
Pedobaptists have for sprinkling infants. I therefore determined to
give the subject


A THOROUGH EXAMINATION.

I commenced with human authors, and read Fuller, Buck, Doddridge,
Paley, Wilson, Humphrey, Nevins, Kingsbury, Phelps, Whateley, and
others; and I was astonished to find every one of them admitting, that
there is no express command, precept, or passage of Scripture, to
authorize the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day
of the week. They all attempt to support the practice by inferences
and analogical reasonings from particular events. Not having
veneration large enough to bow to their great names and acute
reasonings, I was landed upon a lonely shore, without pilot or
compass, with no guide but the truthful chart of Revelation. As I had
often vowed in my heart to the Lord, that I would be a Bible Christian
so far as I could discover the meaning of the divine Word, or know the
revealed will of God; and had more than once told my Pedobaptist
friends, when accused of sectarianism, that I would leave all for the
truth's sake, if I could discover that I was wrong; I was greatly
perplexed, for _I found a great fact_--The Sabbath was changed. The
greater part of the world, the most estimable of Christians, do keep
their weekly Sabbath on the first day! Can they all be wrong? I
conversed with some, and found them more inconsistent in their reasons
than the authors I read. For a time, to sanction the change of the
Sabbath, I took what may properly be called prelatical ground. It may
be stated as follows, viz: "The thing exists; and in the New Testament
we find some things which appear to us so like it, that, we conclude
this and they are identical; though we cannot find the particulars of
the change. And besides, we find some occurrences mentioned in the New
Testament which seemingly happened in accordance with it and which
afford reasons for it, and so we think, they should be considered
satisfactory evidences of the change existing at the time." But my
confidence in this fact was overturned by discovering _another great
fact_, viz: That the first day was not honored as a Sabbath during the
first two centuries of the Christian era; and that when it did come to
be so observed, it was not on the considerations that are now
alledged, but on what appeared to me a wicked reason--mere spite to
the Jews. I therefore commenced anew,


A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

But the more attentively I read it, with this object in view, viz. to
find out the mind of Christ upon the subject of the Sabbath, the more
plainly I saw that it was against me. I found that Christ and his
apostles enjoined the observance of the law of the ten commandments as
holy, just, and good--that law which says, "Remember the Sabbath day
to keep it holy, ... the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy
God." I found, also, that Christ had said, (Mark 2:27, 28,) "The
Sabbath was made for man; therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the
Sabbath day"--plainly incorporating it into the laws of his kingdom.
Luke also says, many years after the resurrection, writing the account
in his Gospel of that event, "The women rested the Sabbath day
according to the commandment"--thus recognizing it, as it appeared to
me, to be a commandment still in force.


THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.

The Resurrection of Christ being regarded as the great event which
required the change in question, I carefully considered that matter.
But I no where found it spoken of by the New Testament writers, as it
is by divines of modern times. The only instance I could find of its
celebration by the apostles, was in the ordinance of baptism, in these
words, "If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." (Rom. 6:5.) And
again, "What shall they do which are baptized for the [resurrection of
the] dead, if the dead rise not at all?" (1 Cor. 15:29.) I concluded
that there could not be two apostolic ways of celebrating it; and
hence that I must look for some other reason to justify the change in
question.


THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.

I had always supposed that our Saviour rose on the morning of the
first day of the week, and had no doubt about finding it plainly
recorded that he did. But when I searched for it in the evangelists, I
found the accounts very different from what I had supposed. Matthew
28:1, reads, "In the end of the Sabbath." Mark 16:1--"When the Sabbath
was passed." Matthew--"As it began to dawn towards the first day of
the week." Mark--"Very early in the morning, the first day of the
week." Luke 24:1--"Very early in the morning." John 20:1--"Early, when
it was yet dark, ... they came to the sepulchre, and found not the
body of the Lord Jesus." As this did not tell the exact time of his
resurrection, I set myself to see if I could find it by any other
passages. On examination, it appeared plain to me, that as he was
buried at sun-down, according to that law in Deut. 21:23, to fulfill
his own prediction, "So shall the Son of man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth," his resurrection must have taken
place at the same hour of the day, or rather evening--which would
destroy its identity with the first day as now reckoned, and carry
back his crucifixion to the fourth day of the week.

All we know of the time of the crucifixion, I found to be, that it was
on the fourteenth day of the first month, the preparation day of the
Passover The fifteenth day was the Passover Sabbath, a high day with
the Jews. (See John 19:14, 31.)

If Jesus was thus crucified on the fourth day of the week, I found
that it made a striking correspondence between the event and the
prediction in Daniel 9:7.

The reason why the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of PENTECOST,
I found to be, because it was the first annual national assembly after
the crucifixion--the Saviour being put to death at the Passover, and
Pentecost being fifty days after. This event, therefore, had nothing
to do with the Sabbath.


CHRIST'S APPEARANCES.

The appearances of Christ to his disciples on the first day of the
week, are considered as good reasons for sanctifying that day. It is
supposed that he so designed them. But these did not appear to me as I
expected, when I came to examine them carefully, I knew them as
related by the evangelists, but I had them traditionally arranged and
associated to suit the arguments for keeping the first day; and when I
came to read them with an honest inquiry after the truth, they
appeared very different from what I had supposed. I found that there
were five appearances of Christ to his disciples on the first day
following his resurrection; and neither of them occurred when the
disciples were assembled for worship; neither were they accompanied by
any such direction.

His first appearance was to the four women, as they returned from the
sepulchre, where they had been with spices to embalm the body of
Jesus. They were directed by an angel, and by Jesus himself, to go and
tell his disciples that Christ was risen, and would meet them on a
mountain in Galilee as he had promised them before his crucifixion.
There was nothing in this like Sabbath-keeping!

The women having gone into the city, informed Peter and John, who went
immediately to the sepulchre; and having looked in and satisfied
themselves that the report of the women was true, Peter and John
returned to the city. But Mary tarried still at the sepulchre,
weeping, when Jesus appeared to her alone. (John 20:16.)

Next he appeared to Peter. (Luke 24:34, 1 Cor. 15:5.)

Afterward he appeared to Cleopas and another disciple as they journied
to Emmaus. (Luke 24:13-35.)

At night, when they had retired for their evening repast, Jesus
appeared in the midst of them, and partook with them of a piece of
broiled fish and an honey comb. (Luke 24:42.)

These were all on the first day of the week, and they appeared to me
conclusive evidence, that the disciples had not yet received any
intimations of a change of Sabbath time, there being no evidence of it
in their conduct or discourse.

Eight days after this, Jesus appeared again to his disciples, Thomas
being with them. (John 20:26.) After these things, he shewed himself
again to seven of his disciples as they were fishing at the sea of
Tiberius. (John 21:1-14.)

At another time, probably on the mountain in Galilee, he was seen of
five hundred brethren at once. (1 Cor. 15:6.)

After this, he was seen of James. (1 Cor. 15:7.)

Then of the disciples when he was taken up into heaven. (Luke 24:50,
51.)

Last of all, he was seen by Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus.
(1 Cor. 15:8.)

There are eleven instances mentioned of his meeting his disciples, and
not one of them contains a single reference to the Sabbath in any way
whatever, which fully convinced me that the pretence of the Sabbath
being changed at the resurrection of Christ was wholly groundless. How
any one, without very strong prepossessions and blindness, could think
these things make a Sabbath, I could not see. Only five of these
instances are said to be on the first day, and these were all private
interviews! Saul of Tarsus might as well conclude that he ought to
build a meeting-house where Jesus met him, as for the disciples to
make a Sabbath of the first day because Jesus appeared to them on that
day. After examining these things, it looked to me as though the
<DW7>s were quite as justifiable for changing the second commandment
to make an image of Christ and his cross, as Protestants are for
altering the fourth commandment to honor the resurrection. The <DW7>s
honor the crucifixion, and the Protestants the resurrection.


APOSTOLIC EXAMPLES.

I looked for apostolic examples. But alas, they all failed me. They
did not afford me the evidences I had supposed they would. I found but
one account of a Christian assembly on the first day of the week,
which was at Troas; and that was an evening meeting, and a parting
meeting which Paul held with his friends; and while he was holding
that meeting, seven of his companions in travel went and removed the
ship in which they were to sail from Troas to Assos, whither he
followed them on foot to go aboard. I thought, Could they be keeping
Sabbath in so doing? (See Acts 20:1-14.)

"_The Lord's Day_," I found mentioned but once in the New Testament,
(Rev. 1:10,) and there it does not tell what day of the week it was
on, so that I judged it certainly must favor that day for which there
is both Bible command and example, rather than that day for which
there is nothing but custom and tradition. Thus it appeared to me,
that all apostolic example was not only against the observance of the
first day, but clearly in favor of the seventh; for I found that at
Antioch in Pisidia, the Apostle observed the Sabbath with both Jews
and Gentiles. (Acts 13:14, 42, 44.) The same at Philippi. (Acts
16:13.) And at Thessalonica. (Acts 17:2, 3.) Also at Corinth, where
the Apostle continued a year and six months, he observed EVERY Sabbath
day. (Acts 18:4, 11.)

_The law of God_, with all its awful sanctions, flaming from Mount
Sinai, appeared to me to threaten my destruction if I dared to reject
any part of its holy claims, for when I read what Jesus said, (Luke
16:17,) "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle
of the law to fail," I could not entertain a doubt but that it was
obligatory upon his disciples.


THE DECISION.

These things greatly distressed me, and in the end separated me from
Sunday-keeping forever. At this time I was not acquainted with a
single seventh-day Christian. But a bookseller sent me some copies of
the "Address of the Seventh-day Baptists to the Baptists of the United
States," which was peculiarly opportune to my state of mind. It showed
me the inconsistency of Sunday-keeping with all the foundation
principles of the faith I had received, and the order I had observed;
and served to bring me to a decision. Yet I did not dare to submit my
mind at once to the force of truth, until I had repeatedly
investigated every Scripture passage and event on which I had formerly
relied for a justification of my faith. I endeavored to do this as
independently of extrinsic considerations as I could; and each time
brought me to the same conclusion. I could find no Scripture authority
for a first-day Sabbath. Yet the conflict was not over. I suffered for
some time that deep mental anguish which attends a conscientious mind,
where enlightened judgment conflicts with all the inclinations,
expectations, and kindliest associations of life. If ever an anxious
mariner sailed tremblingly between Sylla and Charybdis, surely his
condition was like mine at this time. To advocate the Sunday
observance without Bible authority, I could not for conscience's sake.
To embrace the no-Sabbath doctrine, I dared not; this was too dark and
downward a leap from the highway of holiness for me to hazard; and the
former was too disloyal and dishonest a course for me to pursue in the
name of the King of saints. For a time I indulged a forlorn hope, that
I might find some way of reconciling the matter so as to appear
consistent without leaving the denomination. But accustomed to speak
the honest sentiments of my heart, I found the subject naturally
influencing my prayers and my preaching, and in other ways
embarrassing me, so that it became a burden I knew not how to bear. I
commenced keeping the Sabbath alone in my study. It seemed now as if
God had shut me up to my own vows; _I was compelled to renounce all_
for his truth, or prove apostate to the principles of godliness! Dark
indeed appeared my prospects. I had a wife and eight children to
support, and no human resource to look to but my salary. I felt, too,
for the reputation, sentiments, and prepossessions of my wife and
children, some of whom had already made a profession of religion, and
for many other young converts recently gathered into the church of
which I was pastor. But just at that time, I was called to baptize a
young woman who had to leave father and mother, and brothers and
sisters, and all she had on earth, for her faith in Christ. This
greatly assisted me to determine to do so too.

The decision gave great relief to my mind. I could now with more
confidence appeal to our Father in heaven for support and direction. I
could with great comfort appropriate many precious promises of God's
Word to my own case, and find them a precious cordial to my soul.
Never have I found more enjoyment in divine things than since I thus
renounced all for Christ. I found as the Psalmist expresses it, that
"great peace have they that love thy law, and nothing shall offend
them." "O taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man that
trusteth in him."


CONCLUSION.

The result has been happy in my own family. All in my house who have
come to years of discretion have since united in walking according to
the commandments. Although it was not easy at first to throw off early
prepossessions, we have found no embarrassments from them since the
decision was made. Many things which we feared have proved imaginary,
and all necessary good has been added unto us; and the truth of God
has more abounded toward us. Thus will it be with all them that obey
God. "All his commandments are sure." "No good thing will he withhold
from him that walketh uprightly." Its influence upon my religious
feelings, and views of divine truth in general, has been to clear up
some things that were previously obscure, and give a beautiful harmony
to the requirements of the law and the doctrines of the Gospel. My
hope is, when Babylon shall fall, to be found among them who keep the
commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (Rev. 14:12.)


TAKING UP THE CROSS.

BY JOSEPH STENNETT.

  Jesus, I my cross have taken,
    All to leave and follow thee;
  Naked, poor, despised, forsaken,
    Thou from hence my all shalt be.

  Let the world neglect and leave me;
    They have left my Saviour too;
  Human hopes have oft deceived me;
    Thou art faithful, thou art true.

  Perish, earthly fame and treasure;
    Come disaster, scorn, and pain;
  In thy service, pain is pleasure;
    With thy favor, death is gain.

  Oh! 'tis not in grief to harm me,
    While thy bleeding love I see;
  Oh! 'tis not in joy to charm me,
    When that love is hid from me.

 Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society,
 No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.




No. 11.

Religious Liberty Endangered by Legislative Enactments.

AN APPEAL TO THE

FRIENDS OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,

IN THE UNITED STATES,

FROM THE SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST GENERAL CONFERENCE.

MDCCCXLVI.

 NEW-YORK:
 PUBLISHED BY THE AMER. SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY.
 No. 9 Spruce-Street
 E. G. CHAMPLIN, STEREOTYPER AND PRINTER.

 The Seventh-day Baptist General Conference held its Forty-second
 Anniversary at Shiloh, N. J., on the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 13th days
 of September, 1846. During the session a resolution was passed
 expressing the settled conviction of the Conference, "that all
 legislation designed to enforce the religious observance of any day
 for a Sabbath, thereby determining by civil law that such day shall
 not be used for labor or judicial purposes, is unconstitutional, and
 hostile to religious freedom." A Committee was appointed to prepare
 an Address to the people of the United States in accordance with the
 opinion thus expressed. The following is the Address reported by the
 Committee, approved by the Conference, and referred to the American
 Sabbath Tract Society for publication.


FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

We fully agree with you in the popular sentiment of our nation, that
liberty is sweet--to men of noble minds, much more precious than
estates, or treasures of silver and gold--dearer than our reputation
and honor among the despots of the world. Was it not this sentiment,
firmly-rooted in the minds of the Fathers of our National
Independence, which led them to stake their "lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor," rather than be the serfs of a British King
and his aristocratic Lords? Applauding their spirit, we know that you
will agree with us in the sentiment, that the preservation of that
liberty which they achieved and perpetuated in our ever-glorious
Constitution, is the highest civil duty which we owe to ourselves, to
our posterity, and to our nation. All but coercionists will agree with
us, that the preservation of our religious liberty is a sacred duty,
which we owe alike to the cause of truth and our political happiness.

Give us your candid attention, then, while we present a brief
statement of the wrongs we are suffering in these United States,
despite the principles of the National Declaration of Independence,
and the guarantees of our National Constitution.

Believing in the integrity of the provisional Government which made
the Declaration of Independence, our fathers and predecessors in
faith, fought side by side with yours for the liberty which that
instrument declares to be the inalienable right of all men. They were
equally zealous parties to the adoption of the Constitution of the
United States--that Constitution which says there shall be "no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof;" "and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding." Although our brethren at Ephrata, in
Pennsylvania, regarded warfare and the shedding of blood as
inconsistent with the Christian profession, yet they were no less
ardent admirers of those national instruments by which American
liberties were asserted and established. Of this they gave ample
proof, in the unwavering support which they ever voluntarily rendered
to the National Government and its troops, by all the peaceable means
at their command. History records an act of patriotism and piety,
which reflects everlasting honor on their names. They voluntarily and
compassionately received, at their establishment, between four and
five hundred wounded Americans who had fallen in the battle of
Brandywine, fed them from their own stores, and nursed them with their
own hands, for which they never received nor asked a recompense of the
American Government or people. It was enough for them, that they were
their fellow men. But it stirred their hearts the deeper, that they
knew they were bleeding in the cause of sacred liberty.

We are the descendants and successors in faith of these parties. We
hold the same sentiments, and cherish the same principles, which they
did at that time. Is it not surprising, then, that within seventy
years after the signing of that Declaration, and in little more than
half a century after the adoption of the Constitution, the lineal
descendants of these parties, and their successors in faith and
principles, should have their liberties so abridged by state
authorities, as to give occasion for an appeal to the citizens of the
whole nation, from whom the sovereign power emanates, for a redress of
their wrongs? But so it is. Religious zealots, in our State
Legislatures and on the Judicial Bench, have violated the Constitution
of the nation, established an article of their religious creed, and
made it penal for others of different sentiments to follow out their
own honest convictions of duty to God. The consequence is, that eight
of our brethren are at this moment under judicial sentence for their
religious sentiments, and condemned to pay four dollars each, with
costs of prosecution, or suffer imprisonment in the common jail. It is
not pretended that they have injured the persons, or wronged the
estates or interests of any of their fellow-citizens. Neither is it
pretended that they are lewd or intemperate persons, or profaners of
churches. The only pretence is, that they have injured the religious
feelings of some others by peaceably working upon their own farms on
the first day of the week, in obedience to the dictates of their own
consciences and the law of God. And this is the second time, within
the space of one year, that the persecution of these otherwise
unoffending men, has been approved by the courts of Pennsylvania. In
four other States of the Union, in defiance of the National
Constitution, our fellow-citizens have suffered prosecutions, fines,
and imprisonment, within the past year, upon similar charges. Beside
this, in the States where toleration is provided for labor on our own
farms and in our own work shops on the first day of the week, all
contracts, legal and commercial transactions, if done even among
ourselves, are declared null and void by the State Statutes. So that,
even in these States, we are deprived of our constitutional and
inalienable right to use one-sixth part of our time for commercial,
legal, and judicial transactions; and then are tied up to our own
premises, as though we were as dangerous to the religious interests of
our fellow-citizens, as rabid animals are to their persons.

Applications were made to three State Legislatures during the winter
of 1845-6, for relief from these odious statutes. But those
applications were all repulsed with supercilious denials. Forbearance
is no longer a virtue. A succession of abuses and usurpations of our
rights, has compelled us to take measures to resist, with all the
legal means in our power, and with all that we can honorably acquire,
whatever laws abridge the rights or coerce the consciences of
ourselves or our fellow-citizens on religious or sectarian
considerations. Appealing to Jehovah and his holy law for the
rectitude of our principles and the righteousness of our cause, we
have implored, and shall continue to implore, the interposition of his
Providence to succeed our efforts.

Without wishing to disturb the peace of society, or wantonly to
overturn the existing order of things, but actuated solely by a sense
of duty to maintain the integrity of God's law, and preserve unimpaired
our religious privileges, we appeal to you, fellow-citizens, in
defence of the justice of our demands, by a fair representation of our
Constitutional Rights.

The sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, section
2d, says, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof, ... shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding."

Section 3d says, "The members of the several State Legislatures, and
all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of
the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support
this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to office or public trust under the United States."

In the amendments to the Constitution, article 1st, it is written,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In view of these sections of the fundamental law of the nation, what
can be more palpably unconstitutional than those State statutes which
are so framed as to declare and establish the first day of the week as
"the Christian Sabbath," or holy day. The State statutes which subject
any citizen to fine or imprisonment for labor, or any legal
transaction, on the first day of the week, as far as their influence
extends, make void God's everlasting law, and subject the
conscientious servant thereof to punishment for a strict conformity to
it. The State statutes violate the Constitution of the United States
in two respects. 1st. They violate that part of the Constitution which
forbids the enactment of any "law respecting an establishment of
religion;" because by them the religious observance of the first day
is made a State establishment of religion as really and arbitrarily as
the law of Constantine made it a part of the religion of the Roman
Empire. 2d. They violate that part of the Constitution which forbids
the making of any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion;
because, by forbidding labor on the first day of the week, they
prohibit a strict conformity to the law of God which says, "Six days
shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God." With this view of the subject, we submit
it to the common-sense of candid men to say, if every judicial officer
who convicts or passes sentence upon his fellow-citizens for
disobeying these arbitrary statutes on a charge of Sabbath-breaking,
is not a perjured man. He swears or affirms to "support the
Constitution of the United States, any thing in the Constitution or
laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;" yet he administers
a law which establishes a sectarian article of religion, and punishes
conscientious men for a free exercise of their own religious opinions,
and for doing what they esteem to be their duty to God.

Heretofore we have asked only for exemptions from these odious
statutes for all such as observe the seventh day of the week as the
Sabbath, and we have generally been permitted to pass peaceably along.
But of late our growing numbers, and our increasing influence in the
nation, together with the use of the public press in defence of our
sentiments, have seemingly made us too odious in the eyes of some of
our fellow-citizens to be suffered peaceably to enjoy our lights.
Powerful efforts are being made to inflame the public mind against us,
to influence the magistracy to enforce the Sunday laws now existing,
and if possible to procure the enactment of others more stringent and
restrictive. These things have thrown us unavoidably upon our
constitutional rights. Experience teaches us that our peace and
liberty are continually jepordized by the existence of statutes which
can be so construed as to coerce us, contrary to our consciences, to
do reverence to the first day of the week as a holy day. We therefore
demand the entire repeal of all laws for coercing the observance of
the first day, as being contrary to the spirit and the letter of the
Constitution of the United States.

The view which we take of this subject is not from a partial
construction of the Constitution. That instrument has been so
construed by impartial and competent authority. The following extract
from a letter written by GEORGE WASHINGTON, while President of the
United States, and who was President of the Convention for framing the
Constitution, to a committee of a Baptist Society in Virginia, in
answer to an application to him for his views of the meaning and
efficiency of that instrument to protect the rights of conscience,
decides the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and
consequently the intent of the Constitution itself. The letter is
dated August 4, 1789, and reads as follows:--

 "If I had the least idea of any difficulty resulting from the
 Constitution adopted by the Convention of which I had the honor to be
 President when it was formed, so as to endanger the rights of any
 religious denomination, then I never should have attached my name to
 that instrument. If I had any idea that the General Government was so
 administered that liberty of conscience was endangered, I pray you be
 assured that no man would be more willing than myself to revise and
 alter that part of it, so as to avoid all religious persecution. You
 can, without doubt, remember that I have often expressed my opinion,
 that every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable
 alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in
 worshiping God according to the dictates of his conscience.

 [Signed,]                                    GEORGE WASHINGTON."[10]

The Congressional Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom
were referred certain memorials for prohibiting the transportation of
mails and the opening of post offices on Sunday, in the 43d session of
Congress, A. D. 1830, reported unfavorably to the prayer of the
memorialists. Their report was adopted and printed by order of the
Senate of the United States, and the Committee was discharged from the
farther consideration of the subject. That Committee take the same
view of the intent of the Constitution as did General Washington. They
say:--

 "We look in vain to that instrument for authority to say whether
 first day, or seventh day, or whether any day, has been made holy by
 the Almighty." ... "The Constitution regards the conscience of the
 Jew as sacred as that of the Christian; and gives no more authority
 to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual,
 than that of a whole community. That representative who would violate
 this principle, would lose his delegated character, and forfeit the
 confidence of his constituents. If Congress should declare the first
 day of the week holy, it would not convince the Jew nor the
 Sabbatarian. It would dissatisfy both, and consequently convert
 neither." ... "If a solemn act of legislation shall in one point
 define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious
 duty, it may with equal propriety define every part of revelation,
 and enforce every religious obligation, even to the forms and
 ceremonies of worship, the endowments of the church, and the support
 of the clergy." ... "The framers of the Constitution recognized the
 eternal principle, that man's relation to his God is above human
 legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was
 not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our
 own bosoms. It is this consciousness which, in defiance of human
 laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and flames. They felt
 that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man
 could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn
 principle, which nothing can eradicate." ... "It is also a fact, that
 counter memorials, equally respectable, oppose the interference of
 Congress, on the ground that it would be legislating upon a religious
 subject, and therefore unconstitutional."

Impartial Judiciaries have taken the same view of these provisions of
the Constitution, and have declared the laws enforcing the observance
of the first day of the week unconstitutional, as may be seen in Judge
Herttell's book, "The Rights of the People Reclaimed;" also in "An
Essay on Constitutional Reform, by Hiram P. Hastings, Counselor at
Law."

On the 2d of October, 1799, at New Mills, Burlington County, New
Jersey, a Seventh-day Baptist being indicted before a Justice of the
Peace for working on Sunday, and fined, he appealed. At the trial in
Court, the foregoing letter from General Washington was produced by
the Judge, and read in his charge to the Jury. The result was
acquittal by the Jury.

In the year 1845, the Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, made a similar
decision in a like case, and on similar considerations.

A Committee of the Common Hall of the City of Richmond, Virginia, to
whom was referred the case of certain persecuted Jews, have made a
like decision on the municipal laws of that City, which have been
construed to enforce keeping the first day.

_The Post Office Laws_ are framed in accordance with these provisions
of the Constitution. The Act of March 3d, 1825, section 1st,
authorizes the Postmaster to "provide for the carriage of the mail on
all post roads that are or may be established by law, and as often as
he, having regard to the productiveness thereof, and other
circumstances, shall think proper." Section 17th provides, "that every
Postmaster shall keep an office, in which one or more persons shall
attend on every day on which a mail shall arrive by land or water, as
well as on other days, at such hours as the Postmaster General shall
direct, for the purpose of performing the duties thereof; and it shall
be the duty of the Postmaster, at all reasonable hours, on every day
of the week, to deliver on demand any letter, paper, or packet, to the
person entitled to, or authorized to receive the same." The laws
against labor on the first day, in each State where they exist, are
obliged to except the mail-carriers and the postmasters. But we ask
our fellow-citizens to consider by what show of justice, any local
tribunal can punish a private citizen for doing that on his own
account, which the servants and officers of the United States are
doing at the same time, for the use of the people, and by a law of the
same Government? Suppose a carriage conveying the United States Mail,
should enter the City of Philadelphia on Sunday; and another carriage,
containing goods or wares for the next day's market, should enter at
the same time and by the same route; with what show of justice shall
the driver of the market carriage be put under arrest and fined, and
the driver of the mail carriage go free? Or suppose there should be a
postmaster assorting his letters on the first day, and a
fellow-citizen selling pens, ink, paper, and wafers, to write the same
letters, in another part of the same building; with what show of
justice shall the tradesman be fined and the postmaster go free? The
officers of the United States Government have no national rights above
the humblest citizen. The transgression of law by them is as really a
crime as in the case of any other citizen. Our Government knows
nothing of those kingly rights which set emperors, monarchs, and their
servants, above law. If, therefore, there is no transgression of
constitutional law in carrying the United States Mail on the first
day, then there is none in a private citizen following his otherwise
lawful and peaceable occupation on the same day.

In some quarters, during the last year, our motives and designs were
grossly misrepresented by prejudiced persons, in our legislatures and
elsewhere. We were represented as "wishing the legislature to change
the Sabbath from the first to the seventh day of the week;" and were
accused of "covertly wishing to compel our fellow-citizens to keep our
Sabbath day." No insinuation could be more grossly deceptive--no
accusation more flagitiously unjust to us as a people. We declare
unequivocally, that we do not desire any such thing. We believe that
keeping the Sabbath day is purely a religious duty. All we ask is,
that our State Legislatures leave the matter where the Constitution of
the United States and the laws of the General Government have placed
it. They have no more right to determine this religious duty, than
they have to determine the rites of Christian worship. We believe our
fellow-citizens ought to be protected in the peaceable observation of
their day of religious rest, as in the observance of every other
religious institution, except where such observance is made a
sanctuary for crime. We ask the same protection for ourselves on the
seventh day of the week, and nothing more.

If the Constitution may be infringed upon to put down the observers of
the seventh day, no one can say how long it will be before other minor
denominations may be put down too. Already attempts are making to
exact a confession of faith, unknown to the Constitution, as a
qualification for a legal oath. If the religious sanctification of the
first day of the week may be enforced by statutory requirements, so
may the forms and hours of worship. He who says, that there is no
danger of the latter being enforced, while statutory regulations
violate two of the most sacred provisions of the National
Constitution, knows but little of the history of mankind, or pays but
little attention to the tendencies of human nature. A single standing
violation of the Constitution is an example and an authority for
others to follow. One religious observance established by law, is the
admission of the main principle of national hierarchy, and will come
in time to be referred to as authority for similar infractions of the
Constitution. The laws for the observance of the first day are in fact
a union of Church and State. It is not pretended that they are
designed to subserve directly a political or civil object. It is
altogether a religious object which they subserve. It becomes every
friend of equal rights, as he loves the Constitution of his country,
to oppose these infractions of its just principles, until equal
liberty is secured to all citizens by statutory provisions, as by the
fundamental laws of the nation.

Our opponents often remind us of their pretence, that we are under no
more restrictions than other citizens; we may do as we please about
keeping the seventh day. To this we reply, that the tyrants of the
Roman people deprived the Republic of its liberties by professing
themselves the guardians of their INTERESTS. "By declaring themselves
the protectors of the people, Marius and Caesar had subverted the
Constitution of their country." Augustus established a despotism by
artfully affecting to be governed himself by the same laws which he
procured to be enacted to take away the rights of the people. These
are the same principles upon which religious coercionists conjure us
to be quiet under the loss of our constitutional rights. The progress
of these things towards despotism is as dangerous in the American
Republic as in that of Rome, and may be as rapid. Their success would
be as deadly to human happiness, and all the best interests of
mankind, in the nineteenth century, as they were in the decline and
fall of the Roman Empire. Human nature now affords no better guaranty
for the safety of _our_ national rights, than it did to the Romans at
the summit of their greatness. Liberty can be preserved only at the
expense of perpetual vigilance, and by the popular support of
individual rights. If ever the doctrine which has been urged before
one of our legislative bodies, "The greatest good of the greatest
number," should become a popular political axiom, to justify the
course of the many in taking away the rights of the few, the halls of
legislation will become scaffolds for the execution of liberty, and
that odious principle will be the shroud in which it will be buried.
Despots may establish a round of religious observances, and exact an
unwilling and insincere conformity to their arbitrary prescriptions;
but they can never convince the understanding nor win the heart of one
who knows the voice of truth. They can only make him a slave, while
the effects of their arbitrary prescriptions on the popular mind will
be to wither up all interest in the religious tendencies of an
observance sustained only by the enactments of heartless politicians.
All that makes religion vital and effective for its own holy objects,
expires when the sword is drawn to enforce it. Liberty, humanity,
religion, and our National Constitution, then, require that the laws
enforcing the observance of the first day of the week should be
repealed.

As American Citizens, as independent Freemen, and as responsible
Stewards of the glorious heritage bequeathed to us by the Fathers of
the Revolution, we shall, with the aid of the Majesty of Heaven,
maintain unimpaired the high privileges secured to us by the Charter
of our Liberties. We ask for no exclusive immunities. We disclaim all
right of human government to exercise over, or fetter in the least,
the religious rights of any being. Might is not right, neither does
the accident of being a _majority_ give any, claim to trample on the
rights of the minority. It is a usurpation of authority to oppress the
minority, or set at naught their indefeasible rights. In civil affairs
we respect the authorities that be, but in religious service, resent
being forced to keep the commandments of men. We recognize the laws of
the land in all secular matters, and the laws of God, and of God
alone, in religious faith and practice. These are the inalienable
rights of all the members of a Republic. These are rights reserved by
the people to themselves, in the formation of our Government, which no
power can legitimately wrest from us, and with the help of God none
shall.

[10] This letter was translated into the German at Ephrata, Penn., and
the present copy of the letter is probably a re-translation of it into
English from the German.




No. 12.

MISUSE OF THE TERM "SABBATH"


It is quite common, in these days, to hear the term _Sabbath_ used to
designate the first day of the week or Sunday. But such a use of the
term is not only unscriptural, but calculated to mislead the people.
Throughout the Bible, there is but one sacred day of weekly occurrence
called the Sabbath, and that is the seventh or last day of the week.
When, therefore, men talk about a _Christian_ Sabbath, and a _Jewish_
Sabbath--a _first-day_ Sabbath, and a _seventh-day_ Sabbath--that so
they may slily fix the term Sabbath upon the first day, and then
persuade people that all those texts of Scripture which speak of the
Sabbath day are meant of the first day, they pursue a course which is
unauthorized, and deserve to be sharply rebuked. There are
circumstances, however, which many persons seem to regard as
justifying the common practice of calling the first day by the name
_Sabbath_. Let us examine some of them.

1. It is said that the term _Sabbath_ signifies _rest_; therefore the
first day, being commonly observed as a day of rest, may properly be
called the Sabbath. In reply to this, it may be said, that when, by
custom and common consent, any term is used to express a particular
place or thing, it then becomes a proper name for that thing, and
signifies only that thing to which it is applied. For instance, a
_tabernacle_ means a place of worship. Yet, in New York, where this
name is used to express a particular and well-known place of worship,
it would be absurd and false to say you were at the _Tabernacle_, and
mean the Church of the Messiah. So with the term Sabbath; although the
word strictly means _rest_, yet after the Scriptures throughout the
Old and New Testaments have used this term to express a particular
rest, which occurred on the seventh day, it would be foolish and
deceptive to speak of the Sabbath and mean the first day of the week.
It may be farther said, that if this argument be good for calling the
first day the Sabbath, and if the fact of its being a _rest_-day makes
it the Sabbath, then may the Mohammedans properly call the _sixth_ day
the Sabbath, and the fact that they rest upon that day makes it the
Sabbath. Yes, and those Mexican Indians, whom Cortes found keeping the
_fourth_ day, may properly call that day the Sabbath, and directly it
is made such. Even those people in Guinea, whom Purchase describes as
having a _rest_-day, but which, says he, "they observe not upon our
Sunday, nor upon the Jews' Sabbath day, but hold it upon Tuesday, the
_second_ working day of the week," may properly call that day the
Sabbath, and straightway it becomes such. Are the observers of the
first day ready to rest upon such ground for calling that day the
Sabbath, or to continue to call it Sabbath when there is no better
ground? We hope not. And we feel bound, as those who respect the
Bible, and dare not charge the Author of that Book with folly in
calling the seventh day only the Sabbath, to protest against such
abuse of the language of Scripture.

2. The second reason frequently urged, is, that the first day _comes
in the room_ of the seventh day, and may therefore properly be called
the Sabbath. Aside from the fact that the Scriptures say _not a word_
about a substitution of the one day for the other, it may be said in
reply, that if the argument be good, then the Lord's Supper may be
called the _Passover_, and King Solomon may be called King _David_.

3. A third reason alledged for calling the first day the Sabbath, is,
because it has long been the practice of Christians to call it so. In
answering this assertion, it may be worth while to inquire what has
been the practice of Christians in this matter. Few will deny, that
wherever, in the New Testament, the word Sabbath refers to a weekly
religious day, it is the seventh day. When the _first_ day of the week
is spoken of, it is under its appropriate title. For nearly the whole
of the first century, then, we have the testimony of Scripture that
the name _Sabbath_ belonged exclusively to the seventh day. During the
succeeding four hundred years, there were large numbers, both in the
Eastern church, about Constantinople, and in the Western church, about
Rome, who kept the Sabbath. And when ecclesiastical councils, in the
fourth and fifth centuries, began to enact laws against them, they
condemned Sabbath-keeping altogether. From this it is apparent, that
the idea of calling the first day the Sabbath had not then entered
their minds. What day was meant when the term Sabbath was used for
five hundred years later still, the learned Dr. Peter Heylyn has told
us in the following words:--"Wherever, for a thousand years and
upwards, we meet with _Sabbatum_, in any writer, of what name soever,
it must be understood of no day but _Saturday_." Indeed, if we search
all the books which have been written on this and kindred subjects up
to the time of the Reformation, we shall not find that the first day
was to any considerable extent regarded as the Sabbath or called by
that name. Dr. Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, in a late work
on the subject of the Sabbath, says, "in fact, the notion against
which I am contending, [viz. that the fourth commandment binds
Christians to hallow the first day of the week, and that it may
properly be called the Sabbath,] seems, as far as I can recollect, to
have originated with the Puritans, not much more than 200 years ago,
and to have been for a considerable time confined to them, though it
was subsequently adopted by some members of our church."

So far is it from being true, then, that the first day has been
universally called the Sabbath among Christians, that even now, by the
best authorities upon such subjects, it is not called Sabbath at all.
The Records of England up to the present time invariably call the
_seventh_ day the Sabbath. In the Journals of the House of Lords,
whatever is entered as having been done on the seventh day, or
Saturday, is under the date, _Die Sabbati_, upon the Sabbath day. The
same is true of the House of Commons. The Rules and Records of the
King's Bench, and the Latin Records in the Court of Exchequer and in
Chancery, do likewise call the seventh day the Sabbath. These things
may be known by any who will take the trouble to examine; and they
show how groundless and erroneous is the supposition to which we are
replying. Indeed, in many languages the seventh day is called by a
name which indicates its sabbatic character. In Low Dutch it is called
_rust-dagh_, the day of rest. In English, French, Italian, Spanish,
Portuguese, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, it has its right name, _the
Sabbath_, the day of rest.

Now let us look at some of the _consequences_ of calling the first day
by the name of the Sabbath. It has given occasion for <DW7>s to
charge Protestants with neglecting the Scriptures to follow their
traditions. The <DW7>s claim, that the change of the Sabbath is the
work of their own church, and that the Scriptures nowhere warrant the
keeping of the first day, much less the calling it by the name of the
Sabbath. Who will deny this latter position? Again, it has led some
earnest and pious men to charge the teachers of religion with
"befooling and misleading the people." Proof of this may be found to
any extent in books writted on the subject in the seventeenth century.
The charge is there distinctly and frequently made, of designedly
using deceptive arguments.

We will not undertake to say, that those who are accustomed to speak
in a manner so likely to deceive, design to do that. But we will say,
that such would be the natural effect of their language. It would
leave upon the minds of many an impression, that they were not only
bound to pay peculiar respect to the first day of the week, but that
the fourth commandment required of them such respect. For a religious
teacher knowingly to make this impression, is to be guilty of directly
fostering error. Nay, more; if he should call the first day the
Sabbath, and refer to the fourth commandment as inculcating the duty
of observing that day; or should, without direct reference to that
law, express himself in such a way as to leave his hearers to suppose
that it required the observance of the first day, he would be wanting
in faithfulness to the truth, and exposed to the denunciation of those
who add to or take from it.

No doubt many will think, that at a time when the prevailing tendency
is to disregard all sacred seasons, it were better not to say these
things, but to leave men under an impression that the law of God
requires the observance of the first day of the week, and sanctions
calling that day the Sabbath. But this prevailing disregard of the day
of rest, is an important reason for urging an examination of the
foundation upon which the Sabbath rests. Common prudence, to say
nothing of Christian sincerity, would require us, in such
circumstances, to place the duty upon its true ground. If it will not
stand there, it will stand nowhere. It is a dangerous experiment to
encourage or connive at misconceptions in a point like this. And even
if we felt assured that it would be right, we are fully convinced that
it would be inexpedient. It is exceedingly dangerous to acknowledge an
unsound principle, although it may promise to conduct us to desirable
results, or, at the worst, to produce no bad effects. It ought to be
remembered, that it was in apparently trivial and harmless points,
that those false principles were allowed, which have infused their
poison into the Romish and other apostate churches--a poison which,
commencing with the extremities, has worked its way rapidly towards
the vitals, and diffused its effects through the whole system. It is
not, then, a matter of small moment. The most important and disastrous
consequences may result from baptizing a day of human invention with a
name which the Scriptures apply exclusively to one appointed of God.




[No. 13.]

THE BIBLE SABBATH.

BY WILLIAM M. FAHNESTOCK, M. D.

"WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN."

 NEW-YORK:
 PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,
 No. 9 Spruce-Street.


Most professors of religion, who found their faith on the Word of God,
attach much importance to a weekly day of sacred rest, however much
they may differ in regard to the day to be sanctified as the Sabbath,
or the manner in which its sacred hours are to be improved. It is not
the design of the writer of this small tract, to enter upon the
discussion of the multifarious points of disputation, which have been
raised by most writers, in treating this question, but simply to
exhibit the scriptural account of the day to be honored unto the Lord,
with some cursory remarks on the prominent topics of the controversy,
which can be, and which ought to be, determined by direct reference
"_to the law and the testimony_." Without, therefore, any pretensions
to an extended confutation of men's hypotheses and men's subterfuges
on this subject, he desires merely to present a concise epitome of
_what saith the Scriptures_ in reference to the day which legitimately
challenges our profound veneration and implicit obedience; and will
restrict his comments; on the bearings of the sacred text, to as few
words as is practicable in a matter of such grave importance; that, in
embracing and defending so sacred an institution, and in responding to
the scriptural interrogation, "_Who hath required this at your hand?_"
the reader may, confidently and without fear of contradiction, answer,
"_The Lord thy God--the Almighty Jehovah!_" and lay his finger on the
clear, unequivocal, ungarbled, "_Thus saith the Lord_," for his
practice.

The _Scriptures_ tell us, that God "rested on the _seventh day_ from
all his work which he had made; and God blessed the _seventh day_ and
_sanctified_ it." Gen. 2:2, 3. This is the first notice of the Sabbath
in the Bible; and it is the first religious institution established by
the Almighty for the benefit of all after generations. The rest of the
testimonies of the Lord to the sacredness of his holy day, are like
unto it, wherever they occur in the _Inspired Volume_.

During the sojourn of the children of Israel in the wilderness, the
Lord, to supply their necessities, sent manna daily, save on the
_seventh day_; thus recognizing strictly his holy Sabbath, by
affording them a _double portion_ on the _sixth_ day, and requiring
them to secure it at that time for the _seventh day_.

 "And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath
 given you to eat. This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded.
 Gather of it every man according to his eating; an omer for every man
 according to the number of your persons, take ye every man for them
 which are in your tents. And the children of Israel did so, and
 gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete it with an
 omer, he that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had
 gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his
 eating. And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning.
 Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto Moses, but some of them left
 it until the morning, and it bred worms and stank; and Moses was
 wroth with them. And they gathered it every morning, every man
 according to his eating; when the sun waxed hot it melted. And it
 came to pass, that on the _sixth day_, they gathered _twice_ as much
 bread, _two_ omers for _one_ man; and all the rulers of the
 congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that
 which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath
 unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that
 ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be
 kept until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as
 Moses bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.
 And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is the Sabbath unto the
 Lord; _to-day_ ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall
 gather it; but on the _seventh day_, which is the Sabbath, in it
 there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some
 people on the _seventh day_ for to gather, and they found none. And
 the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments
 and my laws? See, for the Lord hath given you the _Sabbath_,
 therefore he giveth you on the _sixth_ day the bread of _two days_;
 abide ye every man in his place on the _seventh day_." Exod. 16:15-30.

This was _before_ the giving of the law, and is irrefragible evidence
of respect unto the Sabbath _before the law was promulgated_.

When the Decalogue, written on stone by the finger of God, was
committed to the Israelites, the obligation to honor the Sabbath--the
_seventh day_--was emphatically _renewed_, and most explicitly defined
and enjoined.

 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shall thou labor
 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." Exod. 20:8-11.

The same is reiterated by the same writer in another place.

 "Six days shall work be done; but the _seventh day_ is the Sabbath of
 rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein; it is the
 _Sabbath of the Lord_ in all your dwellings." Lev. 23:3.

The reader will observe, that this commandment does not ordain a _new_
and _peculiar_ institution, but _reminds_ the Israelites of one which
had been established long prior to their existence as a nation, to be
had in remembrance and to be rigidly observed. "Remember the Sabbath
day to keep it holy." The reader will also observe, that it does not
simply appoint _a_ Sabbath, or a seventh part of time to be
consecrated as holy time, but that the precise time, the particular
day, is specifically certified by Jehovah himself--that it is _the
day_, and not the _institution_, which the Lord blessed and hallowed;
that it was not the _sabbatic law_, but the _day of rest_, which was
enjoined. The law was predicated on the _sanctified day_, not the day
accommodated to the institution; and that there might be no mistake on
the subject, the law defines the day _as it found it_, and assigns
clearly and most unequivocally the reason for its observance. It aims
simply at hallowing the _day_, the precise, particular day; which is
still more emphatically expressed in the original, =Yom HaShabat=,
"the _day_ of _the rest_," because _in it_, the day, God rested from
all his work, and subsequently enjoined like rest, on the same day,
and for the same purpose, upon all his people. This Bible truth ought
to be sufficient to overset all the sophistry of equivocators, in
their attempts to blind the inquirer, by astutely insinuating the
idea, that the _sabbatic law_ only demands the consecration of _a
seventh portion of time_, which position, they, in turn, as stoutly
repudiate, when any one sees proper to choose any other seventh part
of time than the day which they propound for them. To proceed;
Nehemiah says:--

 "In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the
 Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves and lading asses; as also wine,
 grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into
 Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; and I testified against them on the day
 wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein,
 which brought fish and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath
 unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with
 the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that
 ye do and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did
 not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? Yet ye
 bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. And it came to
 pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the
 Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that
 they should not be opened till after the Sabbath; and some of my
 servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought
 in on the Sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kinds of
 ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against
 them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay
 hands on you. From this time forth came they no more on the Sabbath.
 And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and
 that they should come and keep the gates to sanctify the Sabbath
 day." Neh. 13:15-22.

To turn to the New Testament, our blessed Redeemer proclaimed himself
Lord of the Sabbath, (Mark 2:28,) thereby incorporating it in the new
dispensation. He also declared most distinctly, that he did not come
to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; that not one jot or tittle
should pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt. 5:17, 18. Luke
also affirms, in reference to the course of the disciples after the
crucifixion, that they "rested the Sabbath day _according to the
commandment_." Luke 23:56. This was _after_ Christ had declared that
all his work was _finished_--the new covenant perfected, and he had
been nailed to the tree. This doubtless refers to the commandment to
observe the _seventh day_. No one disputes it, as no command was given
to observe any other day. And from the Acts of the Apostles, we find
that they made _it_ the day of their special ministrations of the
Word, as their Lord and Master had done before them.

 "But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia
 and went into the synagogue on the _Sabbath day_, and sat down. And
 after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the
 synagogue sent unto them saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any
 word of exhortation for the people, say on. Then Paul stood up, and
 beckoning with his hand, said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God,
 give audience." Acts 13:14, 15. "And when the Jews were gone out of
 the synagogue, the _Gentiles_ besought that these words might be
 preached to them the next _Sabbath_. * * * And the next _Sabbath day_
 came almost the whole city to hear the word of God." Id. verses 42,
 44. Paul "reasoned in the synagogue _every_ Sabbath, and persuaded
 the Jews and the Greeks." Id. 18:4, 5.

All the _promises_, and all the _penalties_ connected with the
observance or the desecration of the Sabbath, refer to the _seventh
day Sabbath_, and to no other _in future_.

 "Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth
 hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth
 his hand from doing any evil." Isa. 56:2.

 "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure
 on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord,
 honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding
 thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then thou shall
 delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the
 high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob
 thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Id. 58:13, 14.

 "Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on
 the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither
 carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither
 do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your
 fathers. * * * And it shall come to pass, if ye diligently hearken
 unto me, saith the Lord, to bring in no burden through the gates of
 the city on the Sabbath day, but hallow the Sabbath day to do no work
 therein, then shall there enter into the gates of the city, kings and
 princes, sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on
 horses, they and their princes, the men of Judah and the inhabitants
 of Jerusalem; and this shall remain forever. * * * But if ye will not
 hearken unto me, to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden,
 even entering at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then I
 will kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the
 palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." Jer. 17:21, 22,
 24, 25, 27.

No where in the Inspired Word have we any other weekly Sabbath
appointed. No where has that Sabbath ever been _abrogated_ or
_superseded_. No where in the Scriptures is any other day called the
Sabbath-day. No where is any other day _required_ to be observed _as
the Sabbath_. If, then, HE, the Almighty, gave the _seventh day_, and
sanctified and hallowed it _as his Sabbath_, and has not abrogated
it--has not absolved us from its duties, nor delegated authority to
others to do so--it remains in as full force as when first instituted
by Jehovah himself, and will stand in the Judgment against all the
crafty inventions and futile subterfuges of perverse, rebellious man.

The foregoing summary is a plain, unvarnished, unmutilated _scriptural
account_ of God's rest-day, which HE enjoined on all mankind, for all
ages, for all nations, tongues, and kindred. Some persons, nay, the
great mass of the Christian world, have been taught, that the Sabbath
alluded to is a "_Jewish Sabbath_," and "_has been done away_;" in
proof of which position, they adduce the passages in Paul's Epistle to
the Colossians--"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."[11] Col. 2:16, 17. "Who blotted out the hand-writing of
ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it
out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Col. 2:14. This, I must
remark, proves _too much_; for if it has abrogated the seventh-day
Sabbath, it has blotted out the sabbatic law also; unless it be shown,
that _it_ is reserved, or that another has been re-enacted, clearly
and expressly ordained. If so, let its advocates point to a single
requirement, an unequivocal injunction, to observe any other day as
the Sabbath, and it will terminate all controversy on the subject. The
"hand-writing of ordinances," which was "nailed to the cross," was
merely "the ceremonial law," the onerous burdens of the Levitical
ritual, not the "moral law of commandments"--the Decalogue! If the
opposite view be correct, then the Sabbath, or any "rest-day," is
"against us," contrary to our nature and wants, and is not for our
good, and ought to be annulled and obliterated forever. Then, also, we
are driven to the doctrine of the "Friends," that all days are alike
holy under the gospel dispensation. The advocates for the first day of
the week can not consistently escape this dilemma. They must accept
the Sabbath hallowed by the Lord, or hallow all days alike.

Much as man has attempted to obscure and pervert this holy
institution, the Word of Truth is clear, express and emphatic, in
regard to the perpetuity of the particular day to be hallowed, as well
as it is explicit in the precise time to be sanctified. The Scriptures
no where speak of a "_Jewish Sabbath_" or a "_Christian Sabbath_." The
Sabbath of the Bible is but one, and has but one name--"_the Sabbath
of the Lord thy God_;" which the Scriptures declare is the _seventh
day_, instituted more than two thousand years before there was a Jew
in the world, and, consequently, could not have been a "Jewish
Sabbath." The Sabbath, Christ, who is "Lord of the Sabbath," asserts,
"was made for man"--the whole race of man--not for a particular nation
or people, but for _mankind at large_.

It is proper here to remark, that this sneering at the "_Jewish
Sabbath_," which in times past was, and still is, by weak minds,
constantly resorted to, in the absence of legitimate argument, to
prejudice the populace against giving this subject a fair and
impartial examination, and thereby to lead them to prejudge the case,
has, within a few years past, been abandoned by all sensible and
consistent advocates for the _sabbatic institution_. They find that it
stultifies their own pretensions, and has done much damage to
themselves in sustaining the claims of sacredness for any other day;
for, while they maintain that the ancient Sabbath was a Jewish
institution, they unwittingly prove that there is no longer any
Sabbath to be observed, since they fail to show that another has been
ordained or established for the Christian Church. If a "Jewish
Sabbath," it was done away with by the Jewish dispensation; and if no
other Sabbath has been expressly appointed by Divine authority, the
Christian Church is certainly left without the Sabbath, or any
substitute possessing any of its sacredness--a sacredness which can
only be derived from an _express_ and _explicit_ mandate from the Lord
of the Sabbath. That puerile quibble, the _nick-name_ "Jewish
Sabbath," has, therefore, been abandoned by the most prominent writers
of the present day; who generally fall back and found the
_institution_ (the origin and grounds for its perpetuity) long
anterior to the "Jewish," the Mosaic dispensation--even back to the
Sabbath of Paradise. Thus Dr. Barnes, of Philadelphia, in a series of
sermons on this subject, delivered and published in the fall of 1845,
advocates this position, and contends strenuously for the _ante-Mosaic
Sabbath_. The same view was inculcated by the "National Lord's Day
Convention," held at Baltimore, November, 1844; and it has been
reiterated more distinctly and emphatically by "The Rhode Island
Sabbath Union," in an address to the people of that State, in 1846, to
which, among others, we find attached the name of Dr. Wayland, the
honored President of Brown University. The Committee of the Rhode
Island "_Sabbath_ Union," in calling attention to the _claims of the
Sabbath_, remark:

 "The Lord of the Sabbath has here said, '_The Sabbath was made for
 man_.' Man is here used, most certainly, as a _generic_ term, and,
 therefore, presents a universal proposition. The Sabbath was not made
 for _man_, for man as a genus, as a race, unless it was made for
 every individual of the race; for the first, and for the last man;
 for the first generation, and for every other. The Sabbath, then,
 must have existed from the beginning, and is as old as the human
 race. Our Lord says, moreover, '_The_ Sabbath was made for man.' He
 says not, the Jewish Sabbath, or the Christian Sabbath, but _the_
 Sabbath, the common, the universal one, which belongs to mankind. Is
 this not the very language to denote a universal and perpetual
 institution?

 "Let us look at the connection of the Sabbath with the work of
 creation. 'God blessed the _seventh_ day and sanctified it.' If the
 Creator had merely _rested_ on the seventh day, it would have been an
 impressive consecration. But when he proceeds to bless and sanctify
 it, there is authority, a positive Sabbath, forming a part of the
 primeval arrangement, when God fixed the order in which the world
 should go--six days labor and one day rest, over and over forever.
 The first week of the world, then, was not completed till there had
 been a Sabbath, as well as a first day or a sixth. Is not this
 indicative of the universality and perpetuity of the institution?"

Here we might rest the question, with perfect safety, if the mass of
mankind would be content with the plain teachings of the Bible; but,
having "itching ears," they, unfortunately, are too apt to leave "the
law and the testimony," and cleave to "the commandments of men;" which
teach them, that "_Christ_ OR _his Apostles_" have transferred the
sacredness of the seventh day to the first day of the week. The
writer, therefore, feels constrained to bring before his readers the
passages on which that notion is predicated, to exhibit the weakness
of their untenable position, and thereby establish the Sabbath of the
Bible.

What saith the Scriptures to support the claims of the first day of
the week to be _holy time_? The first notice we have of the disciples
being together on "the first day of the week," on which the assumed
"change" is predicated, is found in the Gospel by John:--

 "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when
 the doors were shut _for fear of the Jews_ (mark that!) came Jesus
 and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And
 when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then
 were the disciples _glad_ when they saw the Lord." John 20:19, 20.

This passage contains no command, no intimation whatever, to sanctify
that day. It does not even claim that they were there for any sacred
purpose, much less to celebrate the Sabbath, or institute a new day of
worship, but simply for common protection, "for fear of the Jews;" and
a design to comfort them in their trepidation is all the legitimate
inference we can draw from the circumstance of Christ's appearing unto
them. All the Apostles were not together; _Thomas was absent_! If they
had met together to _sabbatize_, he, certainly, would have been with
them. Not having been present, and not having seen the risen Saviour,
while doubting and disputing on the subject of his resurrection,
"_eight days afterward_," Christ appeared again, to confound the
incredulity of Thomas, and for no other ostensible purpose.

 "Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when
 Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen
 the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the
 print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not
 believe. And after _eight_ days the disciples _were within_,[12] and
 Thomas with them: then came Jesus, _the door being shut_, and stood
 in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then said he to Thomas,
 Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy
 hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but
 believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my
 God." John 20:24-28.

So much, _and that is all_, is the authority adduced by the advocates
for the sacredness of the first day for Christ having changed the day
of rest, the Sabbath, or having given his sanction to the change.
Ought such a vague _inference_ overturn the fiat of the
Almighty--change times and laws ordained by Jehovah to endure forever?
Is the "being together," save one, of the twelve, "for fear of the
Jews," and "being within eight days afterward," any evidence of their
being there to celebrate the "Sabbath" or Lord's day? Is there, in
these transactions, any re-enactment of the sabbatic law, which some
persons maintain was abrogated by the "blotting out of the
hand-writing of ordinances?" Is there any injunction issued by
them--the apostles--requiring the disciples to honor, hallow, and
sanctify the first day of the week, in any of the above proceedings?

The next Scripture assumed for the substitution of the first day of
the week in the place of the Sabbath of the Lord, is found in the Acts
of the Apostles:--

 "And upon the first _day_ of the week, when the disciples came
 together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on
 the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight. And there were
 many lights in the upper chamber where they were assembled together.
 And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, being
 fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk
 down with sleep, and fell from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him, said, Trouble
 not yourselves, for his life is in him. When he, therefore, was come
 up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while,
 even till break of day, he departed." Acts 20:7-11.

It is necessary to a proper understanding here, to bear in mind--1st.
That it was the custom of the disciples, in the days of the apostles,
to meet together, and break bread, _every_ day. "They continued
steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers." "And they, continuing _daily_ with one accord
in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their
meat with gladness and singleness of heart." 2d. That in those times a
day was counted "the evening and the morning were the first day."
"From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths." Lev. 23:32.
Thus it appears, by this passage, that they had simply met, as was
their uniform, daily custom, to celebrate the breaking of bread on the
evening (the commencement of the day), it being the last evening Paul
was to be with them; and in all probability the circumstance would not
have been noticed so particularly, but to introduce the case of
Eutychus, in confirmation of Paul's miraculous powers. The passage
does not prove any thing for the sacredness of the first day of the
week, but proves much against it; for, if the first day of the week is
holy time, Paul, in preaching till midnight, and departing on the
morrow, would be a Sabbath-breaker for traveling on that day. He would
have kept the evening only. "From _even_ unto _even_ shall ye
celebrate your Sabbaths." The same disregard for the sacredness of the
first day of the week was manifested by the Redeemer himself, in
traveling on the "resurrection day" to Emmaus, a distance of seven and
a half miles, while a "Sabbath-day's journey" was restricted to _one
mile_: slender evidence, indeed, of the Saviour's having transferred
the holiness of the _Sabbath_ to "the first day of the week," or
having "sanctioned" it, as is often claimed by its advocates.

The next passage adduced is found in Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians--"Upon the first _day_ of the week, let every one of you
lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no
gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. 16:2. First _day_? Day is not in the
original, but is supplied, and is so designated by being italicized.
So the true reading is, "In the first of the week." However, if it
mean the first day, Sunday, it makes it a commercial day, a day of
business, a day of reckoning, not of _rest_, as it requires a man to
cast up his accounts, to find what amount he can "lay by."

The last text, and the one most relied upon, is from John's
Revelation--"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. 1:10. There
is nothing in this passage, or in the context, to indicate that it was
the first day of the week. It is a mere _assumption_, without any
Scripture to fortify the position. The best biblical critics admit
that there is no scriptural evidence to identify the expression with
the first day of the week. If we follow the Protestant rule, to prove
Scripture by Scripture, and not evade the plain teachings of the
Bible, it will be an easy matter to see a much more apt application of
the expression. Many of the best commentators suppose that it alludes
to the Gospel-day. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see _my day_; he
saw it, and was glad." John 8:56. Was not this a day which
approximates (if it will not be admitted to be identical) not only in
_idea_, but in a _kin-name_--the _day of Christ_--the Gospel-day? Paul
speaks of it as something yet to come. "That ye may approve things
that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense, till
the _day of Christ_." "Holding forth the word of life, that I may
rejoice in the _day of Christ_, that I have not run in vain, neither
labored in vain." "Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye
may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Now, we
beseech you, brethren, by the _coming_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in
mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as
from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." "That the spirit may
be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Phil. 1:10; 2:16; 1 Cor. 1:8;
2 Thess. 2:1, 2, 3; 1 Cor. 5:5. Again, it is maintained by some
expounders, that allusion is had to the Judgment Day. "The day of the
Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent
heat; the earth also, and all the works therein, shall be burned up."
2 Peter 3:10. Therefore John, in saying, "I was in the spirit on the
Lord's day," simply asserts, that in prophetic vision his spirit
reached forward to the great day for which all other days were made,
and beheld the momentous transactions of that awful crisis, which he
was directed to reveal to the churches on earth.

From this brief examination, it appears, that the term "Lord's day,"
as here used, does not refer to any particular day of the week. But if
it refer to any special day of the week, as some suppose, it must
refer to the seventh; for that is the sanctified, hallowed _rest-day_
of the Bible, and is the only day which the Lord calls his holy day
(Is. 58:13), and therefore must be the Lord's day. If, however, the
term "Lord's day," used by John, does not refer to the gospel day, or
the day of judgment, nor to the Lord's "holy day," the seventh-day
Sabbath, but alludes to a festival day to commemorate the
resurrection, as is assumed, where is the command requiring it to be
kept holy? And where is the evidence in the Scriptures, that it was
kept _as the Sabbath_, or in _place of the Sabbath_?

Even were there any intimations given by the prophets or the apostles,
(which we deny,) that the resurrection day should be regarded as the
"ceremony-worship-day" under the gospel dispensation, where is the
evidence in the Scriptures that the first day of the week is or was
the resurrection day? It is assumed, not proved. The Bible and human
theories are at conflict on this subject. It is generally assumed,
that the Redeemer was crucified on Friday, and rose early on Sunday
morning. This makes Christ a liar; for he said, "As Jonas was _three
days_ and _three nights_ in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man
be _three days_ and _three nights_ in the heart of the earth." Matth.
12:40. Crucified on Friday, and rising on Sunday morning, would make
but part of three days, and only two nights. Christ said three days
_and_ three nights, and he certainly must be right. Therefore,
crucified on Friday, he could not have risen on Sunday. The New
Testament does not assert that he rose on the first day of the week;
it only says, that he was _seen_ on the first of the week, not first
_day_. In all the places in which allusion is had to this matter,
(Matth. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19), the original
says, in the first of the week--_day_ is not once named, but is
supplied in our version, as is indicated by being italicised. But even
if the term first of the week implies first day, the Scriptures no
where assert that he _rose_ on that day. Being _seen_, and _rising_,
are two entirely different matters. So is a _part_ of three days and
two nights different from three days and three nights. If Jesus had
said, "_three days and nights_," it might not involve the present
difficulty; but no one questions that Jonas was three whole days and
three whole nights in the whale's belly. Then, as the Redeemer makes
that the simile of his own confinement in the heart of the earth, the
antitype, to be verified and accredited, must be like unto the type.
He must have been there the _three days_ and the _three nights_,
according to his word. It is vain presumption, arrant blasphemy, to
make it any less to gratify a human theory. Let God be true, though it
make all men liars.

In the absence of all direct _scriptural evidence_ to sustain the
assumption, that the first day of the week is the "_resurrection
day_;" and in the absence of all such evidence, that the Lord designed
to elevate the first day of the week to the special regard of the
Christian Church, and confer upon it the sacredness of the ancient
Sabbath; would we not, at least, have some intimation of it in the
writings of the prophets, in which all the important circumstances of
the Redeemer's life and mission are foreshadowed? Where, reader, will
you find any thing in them that predicts any _change_ of the _holy
Sabbath_ to the _resurrection day_? If found, let it be adduced. The
Sabbath is a standing monument against _Atheism_, for all ages,
declaring the workmanship of God; yet some _assume_, that as
_redemption_ is a greater work, and a more important work, than the
_creation_ of the universe and the living _souls_ which inhabit all
the spheres, therefore the _resurrection day_ ought to be honored as
the _rest-day_. Has not the _Lord_ the right to determine this matter?
If HE deemed it important that the _resurrection day_ be thus
distinguished, would HE not have _declared it_, expressly, unto us?
Would HE have left us to _infer_ it? Can we, will we, be justified in
casting aside the _explicit_ command of the Most High, in this matter,
to substitute our _fancied_ day of greater _importance_ than the one
the _Almighty_ has _ordained_? "Wherefore kick ye at _my_ sacrifice
and at _mine_ offering, which I have commanded?" 1 Sam. 2:29. "It is
hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 9:5.

If, then, there is no evidence in the Scriptures, that the _first day
of the week_ is the "_resurrection day_," (which, even if
satisfactorily established, would not invalidate our position, nor
entitle it to supersede the holy Sabbath); and, more particularly, if
there is no evidence in the Inspired Volume, that the term "Lord's
day" is intended to designate the _first day of the week_; we are
reduced, by every principle of reasoning, to regard the _seventh
day_--the Heaven-heralded Sabbath--as the only "Lord's day," the only
"rest-day," sanctified and hallowed by the Almighty as holy time.

All days, in one sense, are Lord's days; but there has never been but
one _Heaven-appointed_ weekly _Sabbath_, and that, most unequivocally,
is the _seventh day_. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"--"the
_seventh day_ is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:8. If that
sacred injunction has been abrogated, we should expect--(for it would
be unreasonable to recognize its repeal or transfer, without as
explicit and as authoritative a mandate from the Court of Heaven)--at
least a _re-enactment_ somewhat thus: "_From the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus, ye shall no longer_ SABBATIZE, _but shall give heed to the
assembling of yourselves_ ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK; _in it ye
shall do no work; and, to avoid the appearance of symbolizing with my
ancient people, the Jews_, call it no longer the _Sabbath_, but
designate it by the term _Lord's day_!" Is there any intimation of
such an _abrogation_, or such a _transfer_ of the _sacredness of the
Sabbath_ to _Sunday_, in the _inspired volume_? Not the semblance of
it. Even if the early disciples, without any intimation from the _Lord
of the Sabbath_, but _of their own accord_, chose to set apart a
special day as a _festival day_, as they were wont to do for _martyrs_
and _saints_, it can not, certainly, _supersede_ the _institution of
Jehovah_; neither can they confer upon it the sacredness belonging, by
the _decree of the Most High_, to _his rest-day_. Indeed, this is so
evident, that the erudite and frank NEANDER expressly says,
"_Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday_,
very early, indeed, into the place of the _Sabbath_ ... Sunday was
distinguished as a _day of joy_, by the circumstance that men did not
fast upon it, and that they prayed standing up, and not kneeling, as
Christ had raised up fallen man to heaven again through his
resurrection. The _festival of Sunday_, like all other festivals, _was
always only a_ HUMAN ORDINANCE; and it was far from the intention of
the apostles to establish a _divine_ command in this respect--far from
them, and from the early apostolic church, to _transfer the laws of
the Sabbath to Sunday_. Perhaps at the end of the second century, _a
false application of this kind_ had _begun_ to take place; for men
appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a
sin."[13]

Such, then, is the scriptural account of the Sabbath, and such the
frank admission of one of the most distinguished ecclesiastical
historians, who could have no motive in perverting or misrepresenting
the facts in the case, but who has always shown himself above all mean
subterfuges for any purpose whatever. His testimony might be fortified
by many names of high authority among writers of eminence, who do not
contend for sabbatizing on the seventh day, yet whose candor and
honesty constrain them to make the like admission.

Thus it will be seen, that the observers of the seventh-day Sabbath
can look up with full confidence of having a "thus saith the Lord" for
their practice; while the observers of the first day of the week must
confess, with confusion of face, that they are but following "the
commandments of men," and can only plead "the nakedness of the
Fathers," as Whitby terms their inconsistencies. Will the Lord admit
such a "vain oblation?" Will he suffer such a perversion of his holy
institution to go unreproved? Where, reader, can you find in the Bible
any authority for appropriating the title of the holy rest-day, the
Sabbath, to the first day of the week? If you can not, is it not
"robbing God" thus to falsify his Word? Is it not base felony every
time any worm of the dust thus perversely uses the term which HE, the
Sovereign of the Universe, has attached to his holy day--thereby
wantonly "changing times and laws"--overturning the decrees of the
Lord God? Is it not wresting the Word to your own destruction? If the
Lord charge man with robbery in withholding perishable tithes and
offerings, and curse him for that delinquency, how much greater, think
ye, must be the condemnation of those who set at naught his
prerogative to institute and ordain the service of the sanctuary? He
alone has the right to impose religious ordinances; and it is but the
reasonable service of his creatures to obey, implicitly, his righteous
mandates--the sacred injunction, to hallow and sanctify his holy
Sabbath. "Will a man rob God?" asks the Almighty, through his prophet;
"yet ye have robbed me, saith the Holy One. Ye are cursed with a
curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." Mal. 2:8, 9.
Where, then, will you find your excuse for this perversion of the Word
of God, when that Word shall come to judge you? for it is the Word,
the written Word, (given to be a lamp unto your feet and a light to
your path,) which shall judge you at the last day. Of old it was said,
"From the days of your fathers ye are gone astray from mine
ordinances, and have not kept them." Mal. 3:7. The apostle of the
Gentiles speaks of those in his day who corrupted the Word. 2 Cor.
2:17. In another place it is asked, When wilt thou cease to pervert
the right ways of the Lord? Acts 13:10. To which interrogation all are
obnoxious who seek out inventions of their own, or follow "the
commandments of men," which subvert the testimony of the Lord.

Canst thou, reader, contend with the Almighty? It is a fearful thing
to fall into the hands of the living God, when he shall lay judgment
to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, and shall _sweep away
the refuge of lies_. Isaiah 28:17. The _true principle_, reader, and
the only _safe principle_, is, to "_let God be true_, though it _make
every man a liar_." Rom. 3:4. "Ye are my friends," says Christ, "if ye
do whatsover I command you." John 14:15. "He that saith, I know him,
and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in
him." 1 John 2:4. "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine
the commandments of men." Matt. 15:9. "What thing soever I command
you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from
it." Deut. 13:32. "Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left."
Josh. 1:7. "Add not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be
found a liar." Prov. 30:6. "If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and
if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall
take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,
and from the things that are written in this book." Rev. 22:18, 19.
Ponder well this subject, reader, and render unto God the things that
are God's, that it may be well with thee, and thou be admitted into
the rest reserved for those who "delayed not to keep the
commandments"--for those who keep his covenant and walk in the way of
the Lord.

[11] The Sabbath was no type of Christ--a _shadow_, of which Christ
was to be the _body_. It was instituted before the _transgression_;
consequently, the term _Sabbath-days_, here, has no relevancy if
applied to the _weekly_ Sabbath; but it evidently alludes to the
_festival days_ among the Jews, usually called _Sabbaths_, as all the
Israelites had at those periods to _refrain from labor_--"such as the
festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles, &c.,
&c., which are alluded to in Leviticus, 19:3-30. _Keep my
Sabbaths._"--CALMET.

[12] _Within_ does not imply that they were assembled at any public
place _for worship_, or to celebrate a _holy day_. _Within_ may simply
mean, that they were together in the place of their common
lodgment--where they abode together.

[13] The History of the Christian Religion and Church during the First
Three Centuries. By Dr. Augustus Neander. Translated by Henry John
Rose, B. D. New York, 1848, p. 186.




No. 14.

DELAYING OBEDIENCE.


To have the understanding enlightened in regard to duty, and the
conscience so thoroughly awake as to make one feel uneasy in the
neglect of it, and yet to be surrounded with advisers, wearing the
name and title of Christians, who are continually urging farther
delay, is about as uncomfortable a position as a person of fervent
piety needs to be placed in. To rebuke such advisers in the
faithfulness of the gospel, and yet, at the same time, to behave
towards them with becoming meekness, is not the easiest thing in the
world. Nevertheless, the idea that we may postpone our obedience to
God for a little season, notwithstanding our convictions, is not to be
tolerated.

Suppose, for example, that a person becomes convinced, that it is his
duty to observe the Sabbath of the Bible--the seventh day of the week.
Forthwith he is assailed by his associates with the suggestion, that
he ought not to be in a hurry--that he ought to take plenty of time
for consideration, at least a year. Plausible as such advice is, we
offset it with a simple passage of Scripture. "I thought on my ways,
and turned my feet unto thy testimonies; I made haste, and delayed not
to keep thy commandments." Ps. 119:59, 60. Here the Psalmist
testifies, that he turned his feet to obedience, so soon as, by
thinking on his ways, he found that he was walking astray. He made no
delay about it; he did not go about to consult the wise men of the
nation; he did not examine the writings of the rabbis and doctors, to
see if there was not some way of getting round the duty, he _made
haste_ to render obedience. But, now-a-days, as soon as a person's
conscience begins to lash him for neglected duty, he is advised to be
very careful about running too hastily. Well, we would not wish one to
be _too_ hasty; but, on the other hand, it may be well to consider
whether there is not such a thing as being _too tardy_. Conviction of
duty is not to be trifled with. When any one does violence to his
conviction, he feels that he disobeys God; and such disobedience is
sure to be followed by disastrous results. The voice of conscience
grows more feeble, and (if the disobedience be persisted in) becomes,
at length, hushed in silence. It may continue to reprove with regard
to other duties, but with regard to that particular one which has been
made the object of willful neglect, it reproves no more. As a
necessary consequence, the soul suffers the loss of all those
blessings which obedience in that one thing would bring.

Nor is this all. Conscience, having yielded to corruption in one
instance, becomes ready to yield in another. Its sternness has been
overcome, and it no longer guards the soul with that security which it
had been wont to do. It is to the soul what the sense of modesty is to
the female; and, as the female cannot allow her sense of delicacy to
be trifled with without incurring the risk of a total loss of virtue,
so the conscience cannot, in a single instance, be abused, without
incurring the danger of becoming "seared with a hot iron." We will not
undertake to say, that this is, in every case, the result; but we _do_
say, that there is great danger of it. We insist, therefore, that when
one understands what is duty, he ought to lose no time in putting it
in practice. Let him remember, too, that the wrath of God is revealed
against those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Rom. 1:18.

But the possibility that one may be mistaken as to his duty, is often
urged as a reason for delay. There may be something in this; at least,
it seems plausible. Generally, however, this objection is more
specious than solid. At all events, it is so with regard to those
things which are the subject of direct and unequivocal command. With
regard to the Sabbath, we have no hesitation in saying, that it savors
of "the wisdom that is earthly." The object of those who urge it is to
induce a deference to the views of those who have acquired great skill
in explaining away the divine law. But we hold, that however doubtful
may be the teachings of Scripture with regard to such questions as are
purely doctrinal, or however obscure the language in which its
prophecies foretell coming events, with regard to the common,
practical duties of life, the Word of God is so plain that there is no
need for a child to be mistaken. Were it otherwise, it would be
unsuited to the wants of mankind. For, inasmuch as every one must give
account for himself, and not another for him, it is necessary that
each one should be able to decide his duty for himself. People of
small intellectual capacity must be able to make this decision, as
well as those of more expanded powers; and children, as well as those
of mature age. Hence duty must be revealed in very simple language.
And how simple the language in which our duty to keep holy the Sabbath
day is revealed! "_Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy--the
seventh day is the Sabbath._" Who can fail to understand it? What
untutored peasant cannot comprehend it? What child does not perceive
its meaning? The command to refrain from the adoration of images is
not more plain. Yet, when a person of ordinary mental powers is
convinced by it, and begins to think about rendering obedience,
straightway he is admonished that he does not understand it, and that
he would do well to consult some learned men, some spiritual rabbis or
doctors of divinity, before taking any decided steps!

And what do the learned doctors say, upon being consulted? Why, that
it is the duty of men keep holy the first day of the week. But how do
they make it appear? Do they produce any precept from the Scripture,
plain and unequivocal, like the fourth commandment? Not by any means.
They can present nothing which is level to the comprehension of a
child. Whatever they say on the subject, is entirely above the
understanding of children, and entirely above the understanding of
ignorant people. They talk about the magnitude of redemption, as
compared with the work of creation; they have something to say about
redemption being finished on the first day of the week, by the
resurrection of Christ from the dead; they lay a few such theological
propositions together, and finally draw out the inference, that the
first day of the week is a holy day. But the plain, ordinary mind,
does not understand this. The child fails to comprehend it. It is
true, he hardly dares to indulge the thought that learned men may be
mistaken; nevertheless, he is puzzled, extremely puzzled, to
understand it. Is not this conclusive proof, that no such duty is
enjoined in the Book of God?

We cannot, therefore, subscribe to the idea, that a person must, in
reference to the Sabbath, or in reference to any other plain command
of Heaven, wait to consult friends, and learned teachers, and the
writings of fallible men, before rendering obedience. If God has
spoken, "see that ye refuse not him that speaketh." We do not believe
that any one can begin to obey God too soon.

 Published by the AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,
 No. 9 Spruce-street N. Y.




[No. 15.]

AN APPEAL FOR THE

RESTORATION OF THE BIBLE SABBATH:

IN AN ADDRESS TO THE BAPTISTS,

FROM THE SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST GENERAL CONFERENCE.

 NEW YORK:
 PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY,
 No. 9 Spruce-Street.
 1852.


THE ADDRESS.

 The Seventh-day Baptist General Conference, to the Members of the
 Baptist Denomination throughout the United States, holding to the
 Observance of the First Day of the Week as a Divine Institution:

BELOVED BRETHREN:--

When our Divine Redeemer dwelt on earth, he prayed that all his
disciples might be "made perfect in one." As this prayer was in
harmony with the sure word of prophecy, which instructs us to look for
a time when "the watchmen shall see eye to eye, and sing with united
voice," we are sure that it will ultimately be answered. We see
nothing, however, to warrant us in looking for such a happy
consummation, while we contemplate the multiplied divisions of the
Christian world, perpetuated as they are by the selfishness of human
nature. Here the prospect is dark indeed. But we have an unshaken
confidence in the power of God to bring about his own purposes,
notwithstanding all the devices of men. "The hearts of all are in his
hands, and he turneth them whithersoever he will." He that made "the
multitude of one heart and of one soul," in the first age of the
church, can again concentrate his scattered bands, break down every
wall of separation, and enlighten every mind by the effusion of his
Spirit. Then shall Zion move forth, "clear as the sun, and terrible as
an army with banners."

We rejoice, brethren, that you, as well as ourselves, are looking for
this day of glory. Moreover, we have knowledge of your firm
persuasion, that this glorious union of the now scattered forces of
Israel, can be effected only upon the basis of divine truth. With a
single glance you see the fallacy of that reasoning, which calls upon
you, for the sake of union, to sacrifice the least particle of God's
Word. Taught by the Spirit of God, you have learned that the smallest
atom of truth is more precious than fine gold. That meager piety which
finds "non-essentials" in the appointments of Jehovah, you cannot
abide. Your language is, "We esteem ALL thy precepts concerning ALL
things to be right, and we hate EVERY false way."

We know, moreover, that it is the desire of your hearts, that all
dissensions between Christians should be for ever ended. For this
object you are laboring and praying; and while you are doing so, you
have the enlightened conviction, that your labors and prayers will be
successful, in proportion to the amount of truth with which your own
minds are imbued, and which you can bring to bear upon the minds of
others. Laboring as you do to expound to others the way of the Lord
more perfectly, we cannot suppose that you are yourselves unwilling to
learn. We therefore approach you with confidence, affectionately and
earnestly requesting you to take into consideration the subject which
is the only ground of difference between you and us. In our
estimation, it is a subject of great importance; and though some of
you have made it a matter of thought, we are persuaded that the great
body of your denomination have dismissed it without any particular
investigation. Indeed, we speak not unadvisedly when we say, that on
this question the whole church of God have been hushed to sleep. In
urging it upon your attention, we think you will not charge us with
wishing to raise disturbance in Zion. We indulge the hope that you
will impute to us the same disinterestedness of motive by which you
yourselves are actuated when you boldly proclaim your denominational
sentiments upon every high place, and scatter your publications in
every direction. Your course springs not from any wish to foment
disturbance, but from the pain which your hearts feel to see the
institutions of Christ made void by the traditions of men. Our action
in this matter springs from the same principle. We feel in regard to
the Sabbath just as you do in regard to baptism. We declare before God
and the Lord Jesus Christ, that we are moved by a desire for your good
and God's glory.

When we look over your large and influential denomination, we find
that, in reference to the subject upon which we now address you, you
are divided into about three classes. I. Those who, acknowledging the
perpetuity of the Sabbath law, enforce the observance of the Sabbath
by the fourth commandment, but change the day of its celebration from
the seventh to the first day of the week. II. Those who see the
impossibility of proving a change of the day, and therefore regard the
commandment as abolished by the death of Christ. But, at the same
time, they consider the first day of the week as an institution
entirely new, to be regulated as to its observance wholly by the New
Testament. III. Those who consider neither the Old nor the New
Testament to impose any obligation upon them to observe a day of rest,
and advocate one merely on the ground of expediency.

       *       *       *       *       *

I. To those of you who acknowledge the obligation of a Sabbath, but
change the day of its celebration from the _seventh_ to the _first_
day of the week, we would say, that while from the Law only you infer
any obligation to sabbatize at all, yet make the particular time of
sabbatizing to stand upon New Testament authority, we do not see how
you can relieve yourselves from the charge of departing from the great
principle contended for by Baptists, viz. That whatever is commanded
by an institution, is to be learned from the law of the institution,
and not from other sources. On this principle, you reject the logic of
Pedobaptists, who, while they find the ordinance of _baptism_ in the
New Testament, go back to the law of _circumcision_ to determine the
subjects. You tell them, and very justly too, that the _law_ of the
institution is the _only rule_ of obedience. But do you not fall into
the same error when the argument has respect to the Sabbath? We can
see no more fitness in applying the law of the Sabbath to the first
day of the week, than in applying the law of circumcision to the
subjects of baptism. For the law of circumcision was not more
expressly confined to the fleshly seed of Abraham, than was the law of
the Sabbath to the seventh day of the week. The true principle is,
that every institution is to be explained and regulated by its own
law. Therefore, if the first day of the week is an institution binding
upon us, the law to regulate its observance should be looked for where
we find the institution. Be pleased, brethren, to review this
argument, and see if you are not treading on Pedobaptist ground.

In justification of this change of the day, we often hear you plead
the example of Christ and his apostles. But where do we find any thing
to this effect in their example? Did the apostles _sabbatize_ on the
first day of the week? Did the churches which were organized by them
do so? Observe, the question between you and us is NOT, Did they _meet
together_ and _hold worship_ on that day? BUT, Did they _sabbatize_?
that is, Did they REST FROM THEIR LABOR on the first day of the week?
Did they observe it AS a Sabbath? This is the true issue. We have
often asked this question, but the only answer that we have received
has been, _that they assembled for worship_. But this is not a candid
way of meeting the point. It is in reality an answer to a very
different question from the one we ask. Brethren, act out your own
principles. Come up fairly to the question. When you ask a
Pedobaptist, Did Christ baptize or authorize the baptism of little
children? you expect him to make some other reply than, "_He put his
hands on them, and prayed_." When you ask, Did the apostles baptize
unconscious babes? you are not well pleased with the reply, _They
baptized households_. Your question was with regard to _infants_--the
_baptism_ of them. If, therefore, when we ask you, Did the apostles
and primitive Christians _sabbatize_ on the first day of the week? you
merely reply as above, we do not see but you are guilty of the very
same sophistry you are so ready to charge upon your Pedobaptist
brethren. Your adroit evasion of the real question seems to place you
much in the same predicament as were the Pharisees, when Christ asked
them whence was the baptism of John. It appears as if you reasoned
with yourselves, and said, "If we shall say they _did_ sabbatize on
the first day of the week, the evidence will be called for, and we
cannot find it; but if we shall say they did _not_, we fear the day
will lose its sacredness in the eyes of the people." We do not by any
means wish to charge you with a Pharisaic lack of principle, but we
put it to your sober judgment, whether your position is not an awkward
one. Brethren, reconsider this point, and see if you are not on
Pedobaptist ground.

If the apostles did not sabbatize on the first day of the week, then
it follows, as a matter of course, that, whatever notoriety or dignity
belonged to that day, they did not regard it as a substitute for the
Sabbath. Consequently, unless the Sabbath law was entirely abrogated
by the death of Christ, the old Sabbath, as instituted in Paradise,
and rehearsed from Sinai, continues yet binding, as "the Sabbath of
the Lord thy God."

But more than this. Even if it could be proved, that the apostles and
primitive Christians _did_ actually regard the first day of the week
_as a Sabbath_, it would not follow that the old Sabbath is no longer
in force, unless it could be proved that they considered the new as a
SUBSTITUTE for the old; or, that so far as the particular day was
concerned, it was of a CEREMONIAL character. But where do we find
proof for either of these points? In the whole record of the
transactions and teachings of the apostles, where do we find this idea
of _substitution_? No where. Where do we find evidence that, so far as
the _particular day_ was concerned, it was _ceremonial_, and therefore
to cease at the death of Christ? No where. The argument that proves
the _Sabbath law_ not to be ceremonial, proves the same of the _day_.
Did the _Sabbath law_ originate in Paradise, when man was innocent,
and had no need of a Redeemer? So did the _day_. It was then
sanctified and blessed. Does the _Sabbath law_ take cognizance of the
relation on which all the precepts of the moral law are founded, viz.
the relation we sustain to God as _creatures_ to _Creator_? So does
the _day_. It is a memorial of this relation, and of the rest entered
into by God after he, by his work, had established the relation. It
appears, then, that neither the _Sabbath law_, nor the _day_ it
enjoins, was of a ceremonial character. True, it is not _moral_, in
the strictest sense, but rather _positive_. Nevertheless, by divine
appointment it is in the same category with the moral law, and must be
considered a part of it. If this reasoning is correct--and if it is
not, we hope you will point it out--it would not follow that the old
Sabbath is done away, because Christ and his apostles sabbatized on
the first day of the week; but only that there are _two_ Sabbaths
instead of _one_.

But could Christ or his apostles consistently alter the law of the
Sabbath? In all his ministry, Christ acted under the _appointment_ of
the Father, and according to such _restrictions_ as were contained in
the law and the prophets. By those restrictions, no laws were to be
set aside at his coming, except such as were peculiar to the Jewish
economy; such as "meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal
ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation." Heb. 9:10. To set
aside these, the law gave the Messiah an express grant. Heb. 10:9. But
the very moment he should attempt to go beyond the limits of that
grant, he would destroy all evidence of his being the Messiah promised
and appointed. For it was by his exact conformity to the law, that his
claims were established. Hence, early in his ministry, he declared
that he "came not to _destroy_ the law or the prophets." Matt. 5:17.
Most cheerfully do we recognize him as God over all, and blessed
forever; yet we are well satisfied that, even in virtue of his
divinity, he could not consistently set aside any laws except those
which were "a shadow of things to come." Otherwise we should have God
_denying_ himself--God _contradicting_ himself! The New Testament
records not a single instance of his claiming a right to do so. When
he avowed himself Lord of the Sabbath, he only claimed to determine
what was the proper method of keeping it--what were breaches of it,
and what were not. The Sabbath was made _for_ man, and consequently it
was his prerogative to decide what acts and duties answered to the
nature and design of the institution. _Therefore_, the Son of Man is
Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:28.

In regard to the obligation resulting from apostolic example, it
appears to us that you have fallen into some errors. We are not
convinced that the example of the apostles can be justly pleaded for
any thing else than the order and arrangement of the _church_. However
proper it may be to imitate them in other respects--in the duties of
the moral law, for instance--yet, if it were not known to be proper,
independent of their example, we cannot suppose their example would
make it so. We must first ascertain, by some settled and infallible
rule, whether their practice is worthy of imitation. In regard to the
ordering of _church affairs_, there can be no doubt, for they were
sent upon this very errand, with the promise of the Holy Spirit to
qualify them for the work. But the Sabbath is not a _church
ordinance_. It is not an institution for the church _as such_, but for
_all mankind_. All reasoning with reference to it, from apostolic
example, must therefore be very inconclusive. Even if we should admit
that the _church_ is bound by such example to regard the first day of
the week, yet this is the utmost extent to which our admissions can
go. We cannot see how the institution becomes binding upon the world
at large. Consequently, we are compelled to maintain, that an
institution which was originally given for all mankind, remains
unaltered. We are willing that the example and practice of the
apostles should regulate the _church_ as to its ordinances and
government, and herein we claim to follow them as strictly as you do;
but when they are pleaded for any thing more, we want first to know
whether they conform to the express law of God. Otherwise we must
consider them as no more binding than an apostle's quarrel with
Barnabas. Acts 15:39.

If this argument is well founded, we are led to a very satisfactory
disposal of a question often proposed, viz., Why do we never read in
the New Testament of Christian assemblies being convened _as such_ on
the Sabbath? For if the Sabbath be not a _church ordinance_, but an
institution for mankind at large, it can be of no importance for us to
know what Christian assemblies _as such_ did with regard to it. All
that is of real importance for us to know, is the precise bearing of
the institution upon man _as_ man--upon man _as_ a rational and
accountable creature. On this point the information is clear and
decisive.

The controversy between us and you appears to be brought down to a
very narrow compass. _Did the Apostles and primitive Christians
sabbatize on the first day of the week?_ And, _Is it the duty of all
men to imitate their example, or only the_ CHURCH? If, upon a solemn
and prayerful consideration of this subject, you are persuaded that
there is no proof that the early Christians regarded the first day as
a Sabbath, (substituted in place of the seventh,) and will honestly
avow your conviction, we have no fear that the controversy will be
prolonged. For, should you still be of opinion that some sort of
notoriety was attached to the day, and that Christians met for
worship, we shall not be very solicitous to dispute the point. The
apostolic rule, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,"
will then govern us. See Rom. 14:5, 6. Our concern is not that you
keep the first day of the week, but that you keep it _in place of the
Sabbath_, thus making void the commandment of God. If once you
discover, that Sunday is not the Sabbath by divine appointment, and
therefore cannot be enforced upon the conscience, we are persuaded
that your deep sense of the necessity of such an institution, will
soon bring you to the observance of the one originally appointed.

       *       *       *       *       *

II. But we proceed to address those of you who regard the sabbatic law
as having been nailed to the cross, and consider the first day of the
week as an institution entirely new, regulated as to its observance
wholly by the New Testament.

You, whom we now address, are exempt from some of the inconsistencies
which we have exposed; but your theory labors under very serious
difficulties, and is to be regarded, on the whole, as more obnoxious
to the interests of religion, than the one we have been considering.

According to your position, the New Testament recognizes no Sabbath at
all. Do not start at this charge. That it is repugnant to your
feelings, we allow. You have never thought of any thing else than
_entire abstinence from labor_ on the first day of the week. It is
your day of _rest_, as well as _worship_. But on what ground do you
make it a day of rest? What _example_ have you for doing so? What
_law_ of the New Testament requires you to lay aside all your secular
business? As sin is the transgression of the law, and where no law is
there is no transgression--1 John 3:4, Rom. 4:15--how do you make it
appear to be sin to work on the day in question? It is by the
commandment that sin becomes exceeding sinful. Rom. 7:13. By what
commandment do you make it appear sinful to work on Sunday? These are
questions of the highest importance.

Now suppose one of your brethren attends public worship on the first
day of the week, and--to make his conformity to what is supposed to be
apostolic example as perfect as possible--participates in the breaking
of bread. He then goes home, and labors diligently till the day is
closed. By what law will you convince him of sin? Not the law of the
Sabbath as contained in the Decalogue, for that, you hold to be
abolished. Not any law of the New Testament which says, "Keep the
first day of the week holy; in it thou shalt not do any work," for
there is no such law. Not the law of apostolic example, for there is
no proof that the apostles ever gave such example. The very utmost
that you can with any show of reason pretend of their example is, that
they met together for worship and breaking of bread. To this example
your brother has conformed to the very letter--who can say he has not
in spirit also? What now will you do with him? "The Bible, and the
Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." The Bible, therefore, is
the Rule by which he is to be tried. Convict him of sin by this Rule,
if you can.

But the case becomes still more difficult, when you come to apply it
to those who are without the pale of the church. We have already
seen, that apostolic example concerns merely the ordering and
arrangement of the _church_. Attempt now to convince the unbeliever of
sin in working on the first day of the week. In order to do this,
charge apostolic example upon him. What is his reply? "I know not,"
says he, "that I am bound to imitate them in this matter. How does it
appear that I am? I will admit, for argument's sake, that they
celebrated the resurrection on Sunday by religious worship; but they
also broke bread and partook of it by way of celebrating his death. If
their example binds me in one particular, why not in the other? Prove
to me," says he, "that any but the church assembled on the first day
for worship, and I will do so too. But in the absence of all such
proof, I must conclude that their example has nothing to do with me;
unless, indeed, you can make it appear, that their example and
practice were in conformity to some law, which commanded them as
rational creatures, independent of their relation to Christ and his
church. When you can produce that law, then I shall feel bound to obey
it, and imitate the apostles in their obedience to it; but not till
then." Such is the reasoning by which an unbeliever may set aside all
your attempts to charge sin upon him. Where, brethren, is your law
which, like a barbed arrow, pierces the very soul, and fastens guilt
upon the conscience? Where is that law which speaks out its thunders,
saying, "Thus saith the Almighty God, the Lord, the Maker of heaven
and earth, It is the Sabbath day; in it thou shalt not do any work?"
To throw aside the law, which cuts and flames every way, reaching soul
and spirit, joints and marrow, in order to deal with the ungodly by
mere apostolic example, is like muffling the sword, lest it should
give a deadly wound. Apostolic example is indeed powerful with those
whose hearts have been made tender by the Spirit of God, but with
others powerless.

We are persuaded, brethren, that your conscientious scruples about
laboring on the first day of the week, never resulted from the mere
contemplation of apostolic example. Such example, it is true, is all
the law you acknowledge; but this is the theory you have adopted since
you came to maturity, and began to think for yourselves. Your scruples
have an earlier and different origin. They commenced with your
childhood, when you were taught to consider the day as holy time. It
was then carefully instilled into your mind, that God had, by express
law, forbidden you to desecrate the day, and that you would incur his
displeasure in case you should do so. The idea was then imbibed, that
if you did not keep the day, you would violate the fourth commandment.
This idea has grown with your growth, and strengthened with your
strength. It has obtained such commanding influence over your
feelings, that you cannot comfortably forbear keeping a day of rest,
though your theory does not require it. Even to this day a strong
impression rests upon your minds, that the fourth commandment contains
much of moral excellence--too much to be thrown altogether away,
notwithstanding your system of theology teaches its abrogation. Such
is the true secret of your tenderness of conscience. Apostolic example
has in reality nothing to do with it. Following the secret monitions
of conscience, your prosperity is promoted in spite of your
theological system. But sound reason discovers, that your experience
and your theory are in opposition to each other. Some of the more
thinking ones among you are aware of this, and are continually aiming
at such a modification of their theory, that their experience will
harmonize with it. But be assured, that there will be an everlasting
conflict, till you are brought to acknowledge fully and heartily the
claims of the sabbatic law.

We are aware of that system of theology which regards the New
Testament as furnishing the only code of laws by which men are bound
since the death of Christ. We have looked at this doctrine with
attention; and so far as the order, government, and ordinances of the
_church_ are concerned, we admit its truth. As the laws and ordinances
of the _Jewish_ church were determined by the _Old_ Testament, so the
laws and ordinances of the _Christian_ church are determined solely by
the _New_ Testament. Therefore, we should say at once, the argument is
yours, if the Sabbath were a church ordinance. In such case, however,
none but the church has a Sabbath. But the question is not concerning
church ordinances. In these we follow the New Testament as closely as
yourselves. The question is concerning an institution which has
respect to mankind at large--to man _as_ man; for the Saviour teaches
us that the Sabbath was made _for_ man. Now, it will be a very hard
matter to prove, that when men as rational creatures are concerned,
the only code of laws by which they are bound is the New Testament.
Let us put the matter to the test. How will you prove that it is
unlawful for a man to marry his sister, his daughter, or any other of
near kin? The New Testament utters not a word on the subject. It is
not enough to say, It is implied in the law which forbids adultery;
for it must first be proved to be a species of adultery to do so. Nor
will it do to say, The common sense of mankind is a sufficient law on
the subject; for the moment we suppose that its unlawfulness is to be
determined in this way, we abandon the argument that the New Testament
is the only code of laws, and resort to the common sense of mankind as
furnishing a part of the code. But if the common sense of mankind
shall furnish a part of the code by which we are bound, who shall
undertake to say how large a part? Besides, on this principle, the
book of divine revelation is not complete and perfect. It is a lamp to
our feet only in part, and the common sense of mankind makes out the
deficiency! You are, therefore, driven to take your stand again upon
the New Testament. Finding you there again, we repeat the question,
_How do you prove by your code that a man may not marry his sister?_
It is impossible. You must, of necessity, look to that division of the
Scriptures usually called the Old Testament; for the New says not one
word about it.

Let us turn now to the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus, and we
shall find a collection of laws exactly to the point. "None of you
shall approach to any that is near of kin to him," &c. v. 6. The
degrees of kindred are then expressly marked. Will it be objected,
that these laws were given particularly to the Jews, and to no other
people? We admit they were given to the Jews, as indeed was the whole
system of revelation in that age; but we cannot admit that they
concerned no other class of people. For it is expressly shown in that
chapter, that the matters of which they took cognizance, were regarded
as abominations in the Gentiles. Because of such things, the fierce
wrath of Jehovah came down upon the Canaanites, and they were cast out
from the land as loathsomeness. v. 24, 30. If these things were viewed
as abominable in the Canaanites, they surely were not _ceremonial_
pollutions. They were not mere _Jewish_ laws. The fallacy of the
doctrine is therefore sufficiently exposed.

We think you have fallen into error concerning the nature and design
of that division of the Scriptures commonly called the New Testament.
We regard it not as the _Law Book_ of mankind, in the strict and
proper sense; but rather as a _Treatise on Justification_, or an
_Expose of the Way of Salvation_, in which are contained such
references to the law, and such quotations from it, as are necessary
to the complete elucidation of the subject. The preparation of this
treatise was of necessity delayed until the great Sacrifice for sin
had been offered, and our High Priest had entered into the holy place.
For, as the sacrifice and intercession of our High Priest constitute
the sole foundation of our justification, so "the way into the holiest
of all was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet
standing." Heb. 9:8. So much of the plan of salvation was illustrated
to the people, as could be by means of the ritual service; and that,
together with the prophecies, laid a foundation for them to _believe_
that, _in some way or other_, they would be just before God. So that
by _faith_ the patriarchs were justified. Heb. 11. They knew it was to
be _somehow_ through the work of Him who was typified and promised as
the great Redeemer. But they could not understand the plan until the
Redeemer came and died for them.

_Because_ this expose of the way of salvation could not be made until
after the death of the High Priest, _therefore_ it was not proper to
organize gospel churches. The only church that was suitable for that
age was found in the Jewish nation, and from its very nature was unfit
for the world at large. It was, therefore, confined to that people.
Moreover, because it was not proper to organize gospel churches until
the way of salvation was fully laid open, it was also not proper to
lay down the laws and ordinances of the church until that time. This
accounts for the laws of the church being found only in the New
Testament.

Now, if the New Testament is to be regarded as an exhibition of the
way of salvation, with such references to the Old as are necessary for
the elucidation of the subject, rather than as the Law Book for
mankind at large, the idea that the Sabbath ought not to be looked for
in the Old Testament falls to the ground. Nevertheless, to some minds
it appears strange, that while the New Testament writers mention all
the other duties of the Decalogue, this of Sabbath keeping is
apparently omitted. In speaking of the sins of which Christians were
guilty before their conversion, not one word is said about Sabbath
breaking, though upon other sins they dwell with emphasis. But this
admits of a very easy solution. Those writers addressed two classes of
converts--those from among the Jews, and those from among the
Gentiles. As to the former, they were already rigid to an extreme in
keeping the Sabbath. All that was necessary to do in their case, was
to vindicate the institution from Pharisaic austerities, and determine
what was lawful to be done, and what was not lawful. This was done by
Christ. But as for the Gentile converts, to charge them with having
been guilty of the sin of Sabbath breaking in their state of
heathenism, would have been manifest impropriety. For the Sabbath
being for the most part a _positive_ rather than a _moral_ precept, it
could not be known without a revelation. But as the Gentiles had no
revelation, this is a good reason why the apostle dwelt not upon this
sin to charge it upon them, but only upon those which were more
obviously breaches of the Moral Law. Thus it appears, there was no
necessity for any more particular mention of the Sabbath to be made in
the New Testament than what is made.

But it is not our object in this Address to cover the whole field of
argument. We design simply, by presenting some of the strong points,
and exposing your inconsistencies, to stir up your attention to the
subject. We are sure that the great majority of you have never given
it a thorough investigation. For a complete discussion of the whole
ground, we refer you to our publications. Will you read them? Will you
anxiously inquire, What is truth? Will you pray over the matter,
saying, "Lord, what wilt thou have us to do?" Or, will you sleep over
it, as if it were of no great practical importance?

       *       *       *       *       *

III. But we must address that class of Baptists who consider neither
the Old nor the New Testament to impose any obligation to observe a
day of rest, and advocate one merely on the ground of expediency. In
some sections of our country, Baptists would consider it almost a
slander upon their denomination to intimate that there were persons
among them of such anti-sabbath principles. But any one who is
conversant with the order at large, knows very well that it is true.
There are those who boldly avow such doctrine, and many others who do
not deny that it is their real sentiment, though they are not forward
to proclaim it upon the house-tops. Whether this class embraces a very
large proportion of the denomination, it is not necessary to inquire.
It is our impression, that the proportion is sufficiently large to
justify an effort for their conversion to right views of Divine Truth.

If there is no day of rest enjoined by divine authority, and the
observance of one rests wholly upon expediency, we see no reason,
except that the voice of the multitude is against it, why you cannot
as well observe the _seventh_ as the _first_ day of the week. There
would be no sacrifice of conscience in so doing, while it would be a
tribute of respect to those who feel that the keeping of the seventh
day is an indispensable part of duty. But it is not on this principle,
particularly, that we desire you to change your ground. Feeling that
it is not _our party_ that must be honored, but rather _divine truth_,
and our party only _for the sake of_ the truth, we would much rather
correct your doctrinal views.

Of course, you do not deny that a day of rest was once enjoined upon
God's chosen people. It is only under the gospel that you suppose all
distinction of days to be annihilated. If, then, it is _expedient_
that a day of rest should be observed, it follows irresistibly, that
the annihilation of all distinction in days, by the gospel, was very
INEXPEDIENT! And thus, whatever blessings the gospel dispensation
brings to the human race, a strict following out of its principles
would be INEXPEDIENT! And, farther, that the _law_, which enjoined a
day of rest, had more of an eye to expediency than the _gospel_ has!
Consequently, that the gospel, though declared to be _faultless_, and
capable of _perfecting_ those who believe, must nevertheless, FOR
EXPEDIENCY'S SAKE, borrow a little help from the abrogated rites of
the law! In other words, God, in setting aside a day of rest,
committed an oversight, and left his work for man to mend! Brethren, we
see not how it is possible for you to escape such monstrous conclusions.
They are the legitimate result of your principles--principles which
you must have adopted without considering where they would land you.
For we are not disposed to believe you so completely destitute of
piety, as willingly to abide by the result of them. We entreat you to
reconsider them, and adopt such as are more in accordance with the
spirit of our holy religion.

When you advocate the observance of a day of rest on the ground of
_expediency_, we are persuaded that you do so in view of the bearing
you perceive it to have upon the well being of mankind. But still the
question will arise, Has the gospel less regard to the well being of
mankind than the law had? Look at the humanity of the sabbatic
institution. How necessary that both man and beast should rest one day
in seven. How evident that they cannot endure uninterrupted toil. How
perfectly well established, that, if doomed to constant labor, they
sink under the premature exhaustion of their powers. So well is this
established, that we cannot put such a low estimate upon your judgment
as to suppose it necessary to enter upon any proof of it. But the
question returns, Does the gospel breathe less humanity than the law?
Or, consider the bearing of the institution upon the interests of
religion. It affords opportunity for men to be instructed in the great
things which pertain to their salvation; and if there were no Sabbath
to call them away from their labors, it would be impossible to bring
religious instruction into contact with their minds. Does the gospel
afford less advantage in this respect than the law did? Did the law
provide a season for instructing the people in religion as it _then_
stood? and does the gospel provide no season for instructing them in
religion as it _now_ stands? Must they be instructed in _types_, but
not in the _substance_?--in _prophecy_, but not in the _fulfillment_
of prophecy? No one will be responsible for the affirmative of these
questions.

If the New Dispensation actually has abrogated the Sabbath, we do not
believe that it is _expedient_ to observe it. We cannot believe,
however, that an institution so important to the civilization,
refinement, and religious prosperity of mankind, has been abrogated.
We refer you to our publications, and to the publications of those who
have, in common with us, defended the perpetuity of the sabbatic law;
and we entreat you to reconsider your ground. The doctrine of
expediency! What a fruitful source of corruption has it been to the
church of God! There is not an anti-christian, popish abomination, but
what pleads something of this kind. Do, dear brethren, let it be
expunged from your creed.

       *       *       *       *       *

BRETHREN OF THE BAPTIST DENOMINATION: You are a great and growing
people. Your influence is felt throughout the length and breadth of
our land. We rejoice in your prosperity. "May the Lord make you to
increase and abound in love one towards another, and toward all men."
In your prosperity we behold, in a measure, our own. Your baptism is
our baptism. Your church government is our government. Your doctrinal
principles are ours; and there is nothing which constitutes any real
ground of separation, except the great and important subject we now
urge upon your attention.

The popularity you have gained as a denomination, however, is not
owing to your Sabbath principles. It is founded entirely on your views
concerning the initiating ordinance of the gospel. These views are
characterized by that perfect simplicity which marks every divine
institution. Hence you have won the affections of the common people,
while, if you had attempted to operate on them by a more complicated
theory, failure would have been the result.

This induces us to urge upon your notice the _exceeding simplicity_ of
the Sabbatarian argument, compared with all those theories which stand
in opposition to it. It is adapted to persons of weak capacities, of
whom there are thousands in the kingdom of Christ. Any illiterate
person can open the Bible, and point to chapter and verse, saying,
"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." This is plain;
he can understand it. But tell him that redemption was a much greater
work than creation; that redemption was finished by the resurrection
of Christ; that an event so important ought to be commemorated; and
that, in order to do this, the day of the Sabbath was changed from the
seventh to the first day of the week; for all which there is not a
single "thus saith the Lord;" nothing but the uncertain deductions of
human reason. Can he understand it? No. It requires an elevation of
intellect which God has not given him. The inferences and deductions
are beyond his capacities. How then is he to render an _intelligent_
obedience? If he conform his practice to the theory thus set before
him, it will not be because he understands it, but because he is
willing to trust the guidance of his mind to those who, he thinks,
know more than he does himself. This, therefore, is strong internal
evidence that the keeping of the first day is not of God. For God's
Book is adapted not only to those of elevated intellect, but to the
ignorant and rude. Every thing concerning our practice is plain even
to wayfaring men. Were it otherwise, we should conclude that the Bible
is not an inspired production. If it did not come down to the
capacities of all, we should infer that it was not made by Him who
made all minds. Indeed, it would not, in such case, be a _revelation_
to all, but only to the more talented. But it is a revelation to
_all_; and he that obeys God, must do it for himself; he that repents
and believes, must do so for himself; and at the great day, every one
of us shall give account for himself unto God. It is of the highest
importance, therefore, that every one know _for himself_ the
foundation of his faith and practice.

In thus urging the simplicity of the argument for the Sabbath, we are
but doing what you do in regard to Baptism. Compare the cases. A man
of considerable intellect can reason from the Abrahamic covenant, lay
propositions together, and draw inferences and deductions, until,
finally, he makes it pretty clear to his own mind, that the children
of the flesh, these are the children of God; Paul to the contrary
notwithstanding. But how is it with some good old Baptist sister, who
can hardly join two ideas together, and draw a logical inference from
them? Why, she cannot tell about this reasoning from the Abrahamic
covenant. It is something she does not understand. But she can open
her Bible, and point to chapter and verse for believer's baptism. She
puts her finger upon something that is just adapted to her capacities.
As she has a soul to save, an obedience to render, and an account to
give, all for herself, her practice is accordingly. Brethren, think
this matter over, and see whether your reasoning on the Sabbath is not
very much akin to that of those who reason from the Abrahamic covenant
to Baptism. Think seriously, whether it does not render _intelligent_
obedience impossible to vast numbers of Christians. Think whether a
course of reasoning which darkens a very simple subject, is not more
specious than solid.

Again, your children are to be early instructed in this matter, How do
you succeed in making them understand it? Is your little child capable
of comprehending all this argument, which you found upon the finishing
of redemption by the resurrection of Christ? Can you point him to any
plain passage, where Christ authorizes a change of the Sabbath? How do
you feel when the little creature says, in the simplicity of his
heart, "Father, mother, does not the fourth commandment require the
observance of the seventh day of the week? But do we not keep the
first day? I should think this is not keeping the commandment." One
would think you would be forcibly reminded of that scripture, "Out of
the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength." Ps.
8:2.

The extensive operations in which you are engaged for the conversion
of the world, render it in the highest degree important that you
should not err on a question like this. If you are right, you ought to
be very certain of it. Among the heathen, you are extending the
observance of Sunday as a sacred day. If you are thus sowing the seeds
of error instead of truth, the evils who can calculate? Hence you
cannot too early begin to review your ground. Consider the
difficulties your missionaries already have to encounter, because of
unscriptural sentiments propagated among the heathen by those who
nevertheless loved their souls. The poor, perishing idolaters are
witnesses of the clashing of doctrine between Jesus Christ's men, and
they ask, "_Why is this? You have come to give us a gospel which
professes to make its followers 'perfect in one,' and yet you
yourselves are divided._" You cannot in conscience abandon your
principles, however, nor dare you, in your translations, give to a
sentence or a particle one single turn, which will not fully express
the mind of the Holy Spirit. Dare you, then, without feeling the most
entire certainty, teach them that God says, "Remember the first day of
the week to keep it holy?" The responsibility of the missionary, in
this respect, is not less than where his translation is concerned.
Does he feel the same awful sense of responsibility?

From the heathen turn to the contemplation of the Jewish nation. The
time cannot be far distant, when those who, "as touching the election,
are beloved for the fathers' sakes," shall be called to behold the
glory of God, in the face of Him they have so long rejected. But in
order to this, a voice from the divine word cries, "Cast ye up, cast
ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of
my people." Have Christians seriously considered what this
stumbling-block is? For our own part, we are persuaded that nothing
can be more justly called by this name, than the general abandonment,
on the part of Christians, of the Sabbath of the Lord. The Jews,
taking it for granted, without examination, that this abandonment is
really taught by the Christian religion, suppose that its author
cannot be the true Messiah. They have seen, through every period of
their nation's history, that God has put signal honor upon this
institution. They have seen its sacredness elevated high above that of
the ceremonial institutions. They have heard their prophets dwell upon
the profanation of it as the crying sin of the land, on account of
which the sore judgments of Heaven came down upon it. It is true, some
teach that the whole Mosaic system was clothed with as much sacredness
as the Sabbath; and that it was not for the sin of Sabbath breaking,
any more than for a disregard of the ritual service in general, that
they suffered the wrath of Jehovah. But such persons must have paid
only a superficial attention to the subject. The attentive reader
cannot fail to be struck with the fact, that while in the prophets the
Sabbath is exalted as of vast importance to the nation, and all its
prosperity, and the favor of God, seemingly, suspended on the proper
keeping of it, ceremonial usages are comparatively depreciated.

Since the Sabbath holds such a sacredness throughout the ancient
oracles of God--since the Israelites have taken their lessons of
obedience to it under "the rod of his wrath"--since no grant was given
to the Messiah to set it aside, nor the least intimation ever made to
the Jews that it would be set aside--can we wonder that they think
that teacher to be an impostor who should break this commandment, and
teach men so?

But there is a crisis approaching--the day is near, and it hasteth
greatly--when it will be indispensable that all those who truly love
the Lord Jesus Christ, have their "loins girt about with truth."
Popery is preparing for another desperate struggle. The great
principle of the Reformation, that "the Scriptures are the only rule
of faith," is to be discussed anew. In the Church of England, this
discussion has already commenced. Rome has opened her sluices, and
anti-christian corruption again threatens to flood the church of God.
As the water naturally seeks such channels as may be already prepared,
so will it be with this doctrine. What branch of Zion will be next
troubled? Probably that which makes the next widest departure from the
great Protestant principle. Then that which is next in order; and so
on. For it can not reasonably be expected to stop, until it reach that
order of people which is governed by the Bible alone. Upon all others
the desolation must be more or less extensive. For those who
acknowledge the principle of departing from the Bible in ever so small
a degree, may be expected to exemplify it to an indefinite extent,
when the circumstances of the times are so modified as to give
occasion for it. As for yourselves, you do not avow the _principle_ of
departing from the Scriptures, but profess to hold it in abhorrence.
The language of your _creeds_ is explicit on this point; and we know
of no denomination so forward to plead a strict conformity to this
principle as yourselves. Yet it is impossible for you to pretend, with
any show of modesty, that the Scriptures expressly enjoin the keeping
of Sunday as a Sabbath to the Lord. You cannot say, from Scripture
authority, that the apostles observed it as such. Nevertheless, your
creed declares that it ought to be so observed; and your practice
accords with your creed. Wherefore, it is as evident as mathematical
demonstration, that you do depart from the great Protestant principle.
Consequently, if our views be correct in regard to the crisis which is
at hand, the time cannot be far distant, when your own denomination
will in some modified form be affected with the deprecated evil, and
you will be compelled to abandon every principle and practice which
can give it the smallest advantage.

Do you think, brethren, that in your present position you are prepared
for the great struggle? When the Puseyite, replying to those who
contend for the Protestant maxim, refers to the observance of Sunday,
and says, "Here we are absolutely compelled to resort to the aid of
ancient usage, as recorded, not by the inspired, but by the uninspired
writers," are you ready for the issue? Can you confute what he says?
When another one says, "The _seventh_ day is the Sabbath of the Lord
thy God; we celebrate the _first_. Was this done by divine command?
No. I do not recollect that the Saviour, or the apostles, say we shall
rest on the first day of the week instead of the seventh;" and then
concludes, "The same reasons which urge you to dissent from the
observance of the three grand festivals of the Church of England,
ought to operate with you respecting the Sabbath;"--are you prepared
to join issue with him? Can you justify yourselves on your own
principles? If you can, we will confess our short-sightedness. But
indeed we fear, we tremble, in view of the crisis which is
approaching, when we look at the traditional usages prevailing among
Christians, and consider with what a tenacious grasp they are held. O
Lord God Almighty! thou who hast sworn that 'thy kindness shall not
depart from thy church, nor the covenant of thy peace be removed,' let
not thy truth fall in the contest.

We mean not to goad your feelings, by charging upon you any of the
abominations of Popery. We are sure you would not cherish one of them,
if you were conscious of it. But we take it for granted, that those
who are forward to take the mote out of their brother's eye, are
willing to have the beam taken out of their own. You have charged
pedobaptist denominations, over and over, with upholding popery's
chief pillar. You have told them, that their zeal against the man of
sin would avail them but little, until they first rid themselves of
his traditions. You have talked feelingly of the sin of encumbering
the ordinances of God with human inventions. You have read the church
of Christ many a good lesson on the importance of holding the truth in
its purity. In all this you have, doubtless, been sincere. We have no
fault to find with you; for you have only followed the Bible
direction, "Cry aloud, spare not, show my people their transgression."
In conformity with this direction, we would endeavor to act our part
as faithful reprovers. Yet our desire is, to do it with meekness,
considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted. It may be--we know
not--that some of the abominations of the man of sin are cleaving to
us. If so, "let the righteous smite us, it shall be a kindness; let
them reprove us, it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break
our head."

Turn, brethren, to the seventh chapter of the prophecy of Daniel, and
twenty-fifth verse. You there find one spoken of who "shall speak
great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of
the Most High, _and think to change_ TIMES _and_ LAWS." You have had
no difficulty in finding in this prophecy a reference to the law of
baptism, as one of the _laws_ which this great power has changed; but
you have not shown satisfactorily what are the _times_. You have
usually referred them to the numerous festivals and holy-days, which
have been multiplied by the church of Rome. But these were _times_
ESTABLISHED; not _times_ CHANGED. Will you please to expound this
passage a little more clearly? Will you tell us whether, under the
gospel, there is any sacred time except the Sabbath? We will not be
unreasonably confident, but we are much mistaken, if you can give any
clear and satisfactory construction to this prophecy, without finding
that something of Rome still cleaves to you.

Suffer us here to declare our conviction, that you could take no more
effectual step toward converting the Christian world to right views
about baptism, than to embrace the Sabbath of the Bible. In your
discussions with Pedobaptists, you are constantly referred to the
change of the Sabbath, as proof that some things may be binding which
the Scriptures do not expressly enjoin. You have never met this
argument fairly and fully. To be sure, you always make an attempt to
meet it. But how do you do it? By proving that Christ expressly
enjoined his followers to _sabbatize_ on the first day of the week? By
showing from express Scripture testimony, that the apostles _did
actually rest from their labors_ on that day? No. Neither of these
things have you ever shown; nor can you show them. The whole head and
front of your proof--if proof it may be called--amount only to this;
that the apostles and primitive Christians _met together for worship_
on that day. It is true, by such a course you have generally talked
your opponents into silence, because by exposing fully the defect of
your reply, it would only render their own transgression the more
glaring. But while you _silenced_ them, you did not _convince_ them.
While they saw that for one of _your own_ customs you could not plead
a "thus saith the Lord," they felt comparatively easy under all your
rebukes, and naturally enough thought it not _very_ important, that
_they_ should have a "thus saith the Lord" for the sprinkling of babes.

But a most important consideration, in view of this subject, is the
influence of your large and powerful denomination upon an unconverted
world. Whatever your theory about the perpetuity of the sabbatic
law--whatever your doubts and scruples about the use of the term
_Sabbath_ under the gospel--you cannot rid yourselves of a deep sense
of the importance of a day of rest to the world at large. Hence the
resolutions of your churches and conventional bodies, with regard to
the profanation of what you call the Lord's day. Hence your plain,
out-spoken censures of running cars, stages, steamboats, and other
public conveyances, on this day. Hence your griefs and lamentations
over those who make it a day of recreation or mirth. Hence your
readiness to cooperate with those bodies which are organized to
suppress, if possible, the violation of what is called the Sabbath. We
admire the _principle_ which governs you in all this; but we lament
that it is not regulated by a better understanding of the subject. If
you would promote right principles, you must be careful that your
proofs, and examples for illustration, are pertinent and free from all
uncertainty. We are fully persuaded, that your _Recommendations_ and
_Pledges_, your _Resolutions_ and _Associational Acts_, will always
meet with defeat, until you can fortify them by a law of God, so
clearly expressed, that it will urge and goad the violator's
conscience wherever he may go. The consciences of guilty men cannot be
reached by the method you are pursuing. You behold them desecrating
the Sunday, and, in order to make them lay it to heart as a sin, you
bring down upon them--what? Apostolic example? New Testament
intimations, and far-fetched inferences? No. None of these do you
think of employing. But the _Law_, the all-searching, sin-rebuking
_Law_ of God, is the only means you think of in such a case. Nothing
else suits your purpose, be your _theory_ what it may. But hear their
reply. "Is the law of the commandment upon us TO-DAY? That it was
YESTERDAY, we allow; for it says, '_the seventh day_.' That the law of
the commandment lies against us _every_ day, you will not pretend; but
only _one_ day in seven. If that one day was _yesterday_, you are
yourselves as guilty as we; and we, therefore, feel comparatively
comfortable. To be sure, some sense of the necessity of keeping the
Sabbath holy, does at times rest upon our minds; and our consciences,
for the moment, reproach us; but when we see you, and all the
Christian world, living in the neglect of it, we feel quite easy
again, and think our sin to be but a light one." Such may not be their
precise language, but it is the exact expression of their hearts'
feelings. Thus even the Law fails in your hands, because you attempt
to make it speak _what it will not speak_.

If you ask _us_, "Do _you_ meet with success in attempting to reach
the consciences of guilty, unbelieving men?" we reply, that we have no
difficulty, except so far as you, and the whole body of observers of
the first day, stand in the way. We bring them to admit, openly and
honestly, the claims of God's law, and a sense of guilt momentarily
rests upon them. But immediately they turn to contemplate _your_
practice, and their hearts become hardened. We do, therefore,
affectionately, but earnestly, invite you to consider, how tremendous
is your influence toward perpetuating Sabbath profanation in the land.
Your numbers, your learning, your talents, your wealth, your general
respectability, all combine to operate with overwhelming effect in
this matter.

Our observations, if correct, go to show what a source of danger the
Sunday heresy is to the Moral Law. The Sabbath is a most important
precept of this law; "the golden _clasp_," as an old writer quaintly
observes, "which joins the two tables together; the _sinew_ in the
body of laws, which were written with God's own finger; the
intermediate precept, which participates of the sanctity of both
tables, and the due observance of which is the fulfilling of the whole
law." This important precept is either set aside entirely, or its edge
and keenness so muffled by a transfer to another day, that the united
efforts of the church can do little or nothing toward impressing it on
the conscience. Here, then, is a relaxation of the standard of
morality; and while the standard is relaxed with regard to this one
precept, in vain do we look for the Law, as a whole, to appear
glorious in the eyes of men.

This remark will be strengthened, if we consider to what
inconsistencies the advocates of Sunday are driven. Some, in their
zeal to defend it, even go so far as to deny the Moral Law to be a
rule of conduct to Christians. Others, though they admit the Law to be
a rule of conduct, cannot relieve themselves of at least _seeming_ to
undervalue it. When the Sabbath discussion is out of sight, they speak
out clearly, and without equivocation, giving the fullest proof that
they regard the Law as the unchangeable standard of obedience. But at
other times they reason from the New Dispensation in a manner so vague
and indefinite, that one is puzzled to tell whether they regard the
Gospel as enforcing strict obedience to the Law or not. Now he that is
established in the clear truth, is hampered with no such difficulties.
There is, with him, not only the naked and abstract admission, that
the Moral Law is unchangeably binding, but there appears such a
beautiful and perfect conformity between this admission and the
principles he inculcates, that the most common minds are struck with
it, and every doubt is scattered.

While you are fettered by such difficulties, is there no danger that
the Law will lose its sacredness in the eyes of the people? Surely
there is. There is danger, also, that your system of theology will be
corrupted in other particulars. Error goes not alone. Could an opinion
exist in the mind, circumscribed and isolated, without affecting any
of our other principles, it would be comparatively harmless. But it is
not more a truth, that a man who utters one falsehood is obliged to
tell twenty more to hide it, than that he who supports one error is
obliged to forge numberless others to give consistency to his creed.
It is also a truth, which reflection and daily observation will
confirm, that nearly if not quite all the heresies which ever infested
the church of God, are traceable to some loose notions concerning the
Moral Law. Nothing, therefore, can be more necessary, than that our
creed give the greatest possible prominence to the Law as a standard
of holiness; and that our customs be in perfect conformity with our
creed.

Brethren, can we hope that the subject on which we have addressed you
will receive your prayerful attention? Almost your entire denomination
has slumbered over it; but may we not hope, that you will now awake?
May we not hope, that it will be discussed in your private circles,
and in your public assemblies; in your Bible classes, and in your
Sunday schools; that it will be studied by your ministers, and by the
people in general; and that every one will, in the deep desire of his
soul, pray, "Lord, open thou mine eyes, that I may discern wondrous
things out of thy Law."

But if, on the other hand, we see a disposition to pass it by with
cold neglect--an unwillingness to look the question in the face--an
attempt, on the part of your teachers and leaders, to hush it up as a
matter of no importance--a studied effort to lead the people away from
it, when they are disposed to examine--or teaching them that it is the
spirit, rather than the letter of the law that God requires--we shall
be constrained to apply the language of Him who spake as never man
spake--"EVERY ONE THAT DOETH EVIL HATETH THE LIGHT, NEITHER COMETH TO
THE LIGHT, LEST HIS DEEDS SHOULD BE REPROVED." John 3:20.




THE ROYAL LAW CONTENDED FOR:

OR,

Some brief Grounds serving to prove that the Ten Commandments are yet
in full force, and shall so remain till Heaven and Earth pass away:

ALSO,

The Seventh Day Sabbath, proved from the beginning, from the Law, from
the Prophets, from Christ, and his Apostles, to be a duty yet
incumbent upon Saints and Sinners.

BY A LOVER OF PEACE WITH TRUTH, EDWARD STENNET.

 They that forsake the Law praise the wicked, but such as keep the Law
 contend with them. Prov. 28:4.

 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God and keep his
 commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc. 12:13.

 The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore
 the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27, 28.

 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy
 commandments. Ps. 119:6.

 London, Printed in the Year 1658.
 NEW-YORK: REPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY.


PREFACE BY THE TRACT SOCIETY.

The friends of the Sabbath will doubtless receive this little volume
as a valuable relic of the past--as a word from one of the tried and
faithful friends of the truth, one who not only loved the day of God's
weekly rest, but greatly delighted in the promise of a future and
glorious sabbatism with the people of God. Edward Stennet, the author,
was the first of the series of Sabbatarian ministers of that name, who
for four generations continued to be among the foremost of the
Dissenters in England, and whose praise is still in all the churches.
He was an able and devoted minister, but dissenting from the
Established Church, he was deprived of the means of support; and, his
family being large, he applied himself to the study of medicine, by
the practice of which he was enabled to give his sons a liberal
education. He suffered much of the persecution which the Dissenters
were exposed to at that time, and more especially for his faithful
adherence to the cause of the Sabbath. For this truth, he experienced
tribulation, not only from those in power, by whom he was a long time
kept in prison, but also much distress from unfriendly dissenting
brethren, who strove to destroy his influence, and ruin his cause. He
wrote several treatises upon the subject of the Sabbath besides this,
but they are very rare, and perhaps cannot all be found in a perfect
state of preservation. It would be well, no doubt, to revive all of
them, and, if practicable, republish them in the same form as this,
that they might be bound together, and placed, as they deserve to be,
in every Sabbath-keeper's library. They all breathe the genuine spirit
of Christianity, and in their day were greatly conducive to the
prosperity of the Sabbath-keeping churches.

NEW-YORK, July, 1848


THE ROYAL LAW CONTENDED FOR

SOME BRIEF GROUNDS, SERVING TO PROVE THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE YET
IN FULL FORCE, AND SHALL SO REMAIN TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY.

1. The matter of the ten commandments was written in the heart of Adam
before his fall, as doth appear in Gen. 1:27, _God created man in his
own image, in the image of God created he him_; also in Eccl. 7:29,
_God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions_.
And the Apostle plainly asserts, that the gentiles, which had not the
law, (in the letter of it,) did by nature the things contained in the
law, which showeth the work of the law written in their hearts. Rom.
2:14, 15. Now if the gentiles had the word of the law written in their
hearts in their sinful state, doubtless they had it in more perfection
in their state of innocence, as considered in Adam; for the letter of
the law was added because of transgression. Gal. 2:19. Now if there
was transgression before the letter of the law was added, that implies
that there was a law before then; in that the letter of the law is
said to be added, it implies that the matter of it was in being
before, but much worn by sin; and that is one reason why the Lord was
pleased to add the letter.

Let it be considered, how it can stand with Scripture or right reason,
that Jesus Christ should abrogate this law. Did Christ blot out this
law from the hearts of all men by his death? Then all men have not the
law of nature to guide them; for we cannot be so gross as to imagine
that the law is put into their hearts upon a new account, for that
were to bring all men under the new covenant.

2. God spake all these commandments unto the people, and they heard
his voice, (Deut. 5:22-24,) with great majesty and glory, and he added
no more; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and delivered
them unto Moses--all of which holds forth their perpetuity; they are
spoken by God, they are written by him in tables of stone; so was
never any ceremony. Job desired that his words might be graven with a
pen of iron and lead in a rock of stone forever. Job 19:24.

3. Afterward the first tables were broken, which I suppose did signify
the Israelites' breaking of the first covenant; for Moses broke them
on account of their having made a golden calf, and so had broken the
covenant. Whereupon Moses was then commanded to hew two tables like
the first, and God wrote the same words again upon them, (Deut.
10:1-4,) and they only of all the laws were put into the ark, and when
the ark is set in its proper place between the cherubim there is
nothing in it but the two tables. 1 Kings 8:9. Now the ark was a type
of Christ, and the putting of the law into it did signify the putting
of it into the heart of Christ, (Psalm 40:6-8, _Thy law is in my
heart_,) and from thence they are transcribed into the hearts of the
seed of Christ. See Jer. 31:33, where God promises to put his law in
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Now what law is this
that must be put into the heart, when the law of sacrifice is
abolished? Compare Heb. 10:6-9, with the fore-mentioned Psalm. That
this is the law that is here spoken of is manifest if we consider how
proper and suitable it is for the heart of a believer. Paul calls it
the law of his mind in Rom. 7:23, and in verse 22 he professeth he
delights in the law of God after the inward man; and God saith he will
put the law in his heart and write it there; both which phrases hold
it forth to be the same law that was written by God and put into the
ark. Man's heart is the tables, and God himself is the writer; the
matter written is the law. Hear what Wisdom saith to this: _My son,
keep my words, and lay up my commandments within thee; keep my
commandments and live, and my law as the apple of thine eye; bind them
upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thy heart_. Prov.
7:1-3. Now what laws are these but the table laws? And Wisdom's son is
to have them written upon the fleshy tables of his heart.

4. When God promiseth to exalt his first-born higher than the kings of
the earth, and that his covenant should stand fast with him, and that
his seed should endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven,
(Psalms 89:28, 29,) yet he saith, _If his children forsake my law, and
walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my
commandments; then will I visit their transgression with a rod, and
their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I
not utterly take away, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail._ Verses
30-32. Mark it, this covenant was with Christ, (though with David in
the type,) in behalf of all the seed; and the chastisements must be
the portion of the seed if they break the law of God, though his
covenant stand fast. Now as this covenant reaches all the seed, so
doth the law and the punishments for the breach of it; and if so, then
what law is it that reaches all the seed, if not the law of the ten
commandments, with those laws which are comprehended in them.

5. These commandments are eminently distinguished and marked out from
all the ceremonial laws, both to show their eminency and perpetuity:
they are said to be the work of God, in Exod. 32:16; and the Psalmist
saith, _The works of his hands are verity and judgment_. And these
works are called, _all his commandments_, in Psalm 111:7, and they are
ten. Deut. 4:13. And therefore I conceive Wisdom's son is to bind them
upon his fingers, to show the number of them, there being for each
finger one, and that both hands might be active in them. And Zacharias
and Elisabeth were said to walk in all the commandments and ordinances
of the Lord. Luke 1:6. They are distinguished from the ceremonial
ordinances, and called all the commandments, to set forth their
number, as before said, and their eminencey; and therefore they are so
frequently called in the Scripture, _the commandments of God_,
distinct from the other laws, which were shadowy in the time of the
law of shadows, (as these places of Scripture, besides many others, do
show, viz., Deut. 5:31, 6:11, 7:11, 8:11, 11:1, 30:16, 1 Kings 2:3,
8:58, 2 Chron. 19:10, Neh. 1:7, and 10:29, &c.,) and distinct from the
testimony of Jesus in clear gospel times. In Rev. 12:17, note that the
dragon's war is with the remnant of the woman's seed which kept the
commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus. And again, here are
they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Rev.
14:12. And when the man would know what he should do to be saved,
Christ told him that he knew the commandments. A cloud of witnesses
would come in, if need were, for the confirmation of them. But farther
observe what the Scripture saith to their duration. The Psalmist
saith, _All his commandments are sure, they stand fast for ever and
ever, and are done in truth and uprightness_. Psalm 111:7, 8. Note it;
all his commandments, which are the works of his hands, as aforesaid,
stand fast for ever and ever; that is, not only in the time of the
ministration of the letter, which was in a sense for ever, but for
ever and ever, that is, under both ministrations, that of the letter
and that of the spirit, in Old Testament times and in the New. Search
and see if you can find any word that doth speak of any thing that is
said to abide or stand fast for ever and ever, which comes short of
the time aforesaid. And when God hides his face from the house of
Jacob, then is the time that the testimony is bound up and the law is
sealed among the disciples, (Isa. 8:16, 17,) clearly relating to the
time that the Jews rejected the gospel, and the disciples are
commanded to make use of the law as well as the testimony to try the
doctrines of others by. Isa. 8:20. All which shows the perpetuity of
this law of God, which will farther appear if we consider Deut. 7:9.
Our Lord saith in Matt. 5:17, 18, _Think not that I am come to destroy
the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill_. But
the question will be, what law this is? To me it appears to be the law
of the ten commandments; for these reasons:

1st. Because this comes in as the motive to provoke his disciples to
let their light shine in the world, that men might see their good
works and glorify their Father which is in heaven. Matt 5:16.
Therefore it must be such a law as the doing of it holds forth good
works to public view.

2d. It is such a law as Christ professes he came not to destroy; but
the ceremonial law he destroyed in this very sense, so that none are
to be in the practice of it; he blotted out the hand-writing of
ordinances that was against us, and contrary to us, and took it out of
the way, nailing it to his cross.

3d. Destroying of the law is here put in direct opposition to
fulfilling of it; to destroy is to take out of the way or to blot out
as before; but to fulfill the law is to do that which is contained in
the law; therefore saith Christ to John, when he went to be baptized,
_It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness_, (that is, to perform
it.) Matt. 3:15. And the Apostle saith, that love is the fulfilling of
the law. What law? Why this, _Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou
shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, &c. Love worketh no ill to his
neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law._ Rom. 13:8-10.
So that, to fulfill the law of the ten commandments, is not to blot
them out or make them void; that were to destroy them, which Christ
came not to do, but, on the contrary, to do the things contained in
them, which he did exactly in his life, and so was offered up a Lamb
without spot.

4th. This is such a law as must stand in force, every jot and tittle
of it, till heaven and earth pass away. Matt. 5:19. But heaven and
earth are not yet passed away; therefore this law stands firm. But
because it is said in the text, Till all be fulfilled, hence some
affirm that all was fulfilled at the death of Christ, and this
fulfilling of it holds forth the abrogating of it. But did heaven and
earth pass away then? or did Christ, by his taking upon him all that
guilt which was due to us, and by his perfect fulfilling of it in his
walk, take us from our obedience? God forbid. Because Christ fulfilled
the righteousness of the law, must we not fulfill it? The Apostle
saith that for this end Christ died. _For what the law could not do,
in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh; that
the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
after the flesh but after the spirit._ Rom. 8:3, 4. But what is the
fulfilling of the righteousness of the law, but to do the righteous
things contained in the law? And in this sense every true believer
doth fulfill the law, though his completeness be in Christ; for love
is the fulfilling of the law, (Rom. 13:10,) so that the commanding
power of the law is such a just measure, that every one that loves
acts his part towards the fulfilling of it.

5th. It farther appears to be the ten commandments, by the use Christ
makes of what he had before asserted: _Whosoever therefore shall break
one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven_. Matt. 5:19. That is, forasmuch
as that law must stand till heaven and earth pass away, and I came not
to destroy it, therefore beware of breaking it, for whosoever you are
that break any part of it, and shall teach men so, you shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven; _but whosoever shall do and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven_. To
prevent farther mistake, he repeateth the law in many particulars, and
gives the sense, showing how far their righteousness should exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and pharisees. By all of which it plainly
appears, that this law, which Christ came not to destroy, is the law
of the ten commandments, or the laws that were comprehended in them.

6. The Apostle confirmeth and establisheth this law after the death of
Christ, as plainly appears in the third chapter of Romans, the drift
of which is to set Jews and Gentiles in a like condition by
nature--all breakers of the law of God, and so become guilty before
him, (verse 19,) and that therefore no flesh could be justified by the
deeds of the law, the law being for another purpose--to convince of
sin, (verse 20,) or to bring sin to their knowledge. He proves that
Jews and Gentiles, circumcised and uncircumcised, are justified by and
through faith, and not by the law of works. Verses 27-30. But lest the
Gentiles should think, because they could not be justified by the
works of the law, that therefore they might look upon the law as a
thing done away or made void, he puts this question to the
uncircumcised Gentiles, _Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid; yea, we establish the law._ He settles this question,
whether the law be in force to believing Gentiles or no, with a God
forbid; which shows the greatness of his zeal against such a
persuasion, it being the same answer which he gives to another gross
question, whether we should continue in sin that grace might abound;
and, as if that were not enough, he adds to it, Yea, we establish the
law.

7. This same Apostle doth prove that the law was in force at the time
of his conversion. He saith he had not known sin but by the law; he
had not known lust except the law had said, _Thou shalt not covet_.
Rom. 7:7. He was alive without the law once, but when the commandment
came, sin revived, and he died, (verse 9,) that is, not without the
letter of it, for that he had, and did in a great measure conform to,
but without powerful convictions for sin by the law; and in this sense
then the commandment came, sin revived, and he died that before was
alive in his own apprehension. _For without the law sin was dead_,
(verse 8,) and by the law is the knowledge of sin; and sin, taking
occasion by the commandment, deceived him, and slew him. _Wherefore
the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just and good_, (verses
11, 12;) not that the holy and just law was made death unto him--God
forbid--but sin, that it might appear sin, by this good law wrought
death in him, that by the commandment sin might appear exceeding
sinful. Verse 13. And if so, then this law did not die with the body
of Christ; though we are dead to the law by the body of Christ, that
we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the
letter, and that we should be married to another, even him who is
raised from the dead; we being dead to that spirit of bondage in which
we were held, that we set our obedience to the law no longer in the
room of Christ as our head and husband; Christ by his blood having
purchased us from that power that the law had over us by reason of
sin. So that our service is not to satisfy the law, as a woman serves
to please her husband that she is bound to; but we are not dead to
serving in newness of spirit in obedience to Christ as our husband.
Rom. 7:4-6. In this sense the Apostle delights in the law of God after
the inward man, (verse 22,) though the other law in his members stood
in great opposition to it. Verse 23. Mind this chapter well, and it
will appear so plain that he that runs may read, that the Apostle
intends no such thing as to take us from our obedience to the law, nor
yet the abrogating of the law, but the contrary.

8. The same Apostle urges the law, in the very letter of it, to the
Ephesians. He saith, in chapter 6:1-3, _Children, obey your parents,
for this is right; honor thy father and thy mother, which is the first
commandment with promise._ He proves his exhortation to be right from
the commandment, and he takes notice of the order of the commandments;
it is the first commandment of that second table, and it hath a
promise annexed to it. He speaks in the present tense; he does not say
it _was_ the first commandment, but it _is_ the first with a promise,
_that thy days may be long on the earth_. He urges the promise to them
for their encouragement; and to prevent mistakes, he shows the extent
of it, that it was not only to the Jews, that they should live long in
the land of Canaan, but to the Gentiles also; therefore the
interpretation says, _that thy days may be long on the earth_.

9. James gives a full confirmation to what I am treating of. He
convinces them of sin by this law, in having the faith of Jesus Christ
with respect of persons, as appears by chapter 2:10, 11, _For
whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is
guilty of all._ He shows what law he means, and how it is that he who
offends in one point is guilty of all; because, _He that saith, Do not
commit adultery, saith also, Do not kill; now if thou commit no
adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the
law._ And John saith, _Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the law,
for sin is the transgression of the law,_ (1 John 3:3, 4;) and in the
next verse he explains what law he means, and saith, it was such
transgression that Christ was manifested to take away. Now if this law
of God was done away by the death of Christ, sin could not be a
transgression of it so long after; neither could any be convinced of
sin by it, because it was not. But the Apostle saith, _Whosoever
commiteth sin transgresseth the law;_ which shows it was in force
then, and not only so, but that likewise it should so remain.

10. Let it be considered whether this opinion that the law is done
away doth not clash with redemption itself. The Apostle states that
all men were under the law, and by breaking of it they came under the
curse. Gal. 3:10. And Christ was made under the curse, to redeem his
people from under the curse of the law, that the blessing of Abraham
might come upon the Gentiles through faith. Verses 13, 14. Now if we
were not under the commanding power, we could not be under the curse,
(for that follows disobedience,) and if so, then Christ was not made a
curse for us; neither can the blessing of Abraham come upon the
Gentiles upon that account, if the Jews only were under the law, and
under the curse of it. Christ's dying to redeem them from the curse,
could not bring the blessing of Abraham upon the Gentiles. And again,
the Apostle saith, _that Christ was made under the law, to redeem them
that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons_.
Gal. 4:4, 5. Now if we were not under the law, we could not be
redeemed by Christ's being under the law, nor receive the adoption of
sons thereby; but it is manifest that every one is under the
commanding power of the law, and by nature under the curse; and Christ
hath only redeemed his people from the curse, but they are not
redeemed from their obedience to the law of God. I find no Scripture
that saith so; but the contrary.

11. God complaineth of the blindness of his servants, and of the
deafness of his messengers that he sent, (Isa. 42:19, 20,) and their
blindness and deafness appears in this, that they did not hear nor
understand God's design in the gift of his Son, that it was not to
destroy the law or to slight it, but to magnify it and make it
honorable. Verse 2. Previously it was in tables of stone, but now in
the fleshy tables of the heart; service was then done from a spirit of
bondage, but now from a spirit of adoption. And in this sense I
conceive the law to be magnified and made honorable, and upon this
account God is well pleased for his righteousness' sake, that is, I
conceive, for his Son's sake.

12. This opinion, that the whole law is abolished, doth pull up true
magistracy by the roots, the office of rulers being for the punishment
of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. But if the
statutes and judgments be not in force, there is no corporeal
punishment to be inflicted upon any, though thieves, murderers, or the
like; and so there is no room for the magisterial power at all, but
men are left in this respect as the beasts of the field, to shift one
among another as well as they can. But the Apostle saith, _The law is
made for the lawless and disobedient, for ungodly and for sinners, for
unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for man-slayers_, &c. 1 Tim. 1:9, 10. Now that this is the law of
penalties, is manifest, in that it is said it was not made for a
righteous man; but the ten commandments were for the righteous, for
the Psalmist saith, _Make me to go in the path of thy commandments,
for therein do I delight. O how love I thy law! It is my meditation
all the day._ Psalm 119:35, 97.

And how shall we have governors as at the first, and counsellors as at
the beginning, (Isa. 1:26,) if they have no law to govern by? If any
say we shall have laws from Christ, and shall not need those laws that
were for the commonwealth of Israel, I answer, I know no word of God
that doth give us ground to hope for any other laws of Scripture then
what we have. And suppose that God should revive his work and bring
his enemies under, and put opportunity into the hands of men fearing
God and hating covetousness to rule the nation, and to make laws
according to Scripture, what could they do if the Scripture were not
their statute-book, if they should turn law-makers? Would not that be
their sin, there being no warrant in the Scripture for it? And would
it not bring all into confusion again, and make another Babel? For the
great question which is to be resolved in the latter days, will be,
Who is our statute-maker?--which the saints put out of question in
Isa. 33:22, _The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Statute-maker, the
Lord is our King, he will save us,_ (and not king Omri with his
statutes.) Mich. 6:16. And when the saints come to own this truth in
good earnest, their opponents' tacklings will be loosed; they shall
neither strengthen their masts, nor spread their sails. And Malachi
tells us what laws our King hath made, which the saints are to own
when the day of the Lord shall burn as an oven all the proud, and the
Sun of Righteousness arise upon all that fear him; when they shall
tread down the wicked with so much ease that they shall be as ashes
under the soles of their feet, so that it shall be counted the Lord's
doings. And in the day that the Lord shall do this, _Remember ye the
law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all
Israel, with the statutes and judgments._ Mal. 4:3, 4.

       *       *       *       *       *

I shall now endeavor to answer some objections which are usually
brought against this truth, though several of them are partly answered
in the grounds before mentioned. I shall therefore say the less, and
begin to speak something to that Scripture in 2 Corinthians, third
chapter, on which the objectors chiefly build their persuasion; and
indeed at the first glance thereon, without comparing it with other
Scriptures, it hath more color for such a purpose than all the
Scriptures that ever I heard brought; from which Scripture this is
objected, that the ten commandments were the ministration of death and
the letter, and are done away.

_Answer._ That they were the ministration of death and of the letter
is granted, for the Scripture saith so; but the Scripture doth not say
that they are done away, as will appear, if we consider the drift of
the Apostle. He endeavoreth to show the difference between the
ministration of the spirit and of the letter, the one being a bare
reading of the law, from which no life was communicated to those that
heard it. The Apostle calls it the ministration of condemnation, that
is, it lays open sin, and the curse for sin, but it is the gospel
ministration which holds forth justification and strength against sin;
not that the ten commandments in themselves were death to any--God
forbid! as the Apostle saith in Rom. 7:13; but sin, when it is
finished, bringeth forth death; and the commandments preach death to
the transgressors of them, so that they are called the ministration of
death and condemnation, because man hath broken them, and so is under
the curse of them, which Christ hath delivered believers from, (Rom.
3:13;) and the ministration of it is really done away, that is, as I
said before, the reading of the law by a typical priesthood, which the
Jews would have set up in the room and place of the ministration of
the spirit. And whereas they lived under the hearing of the bare
letter of the law, which gave no strength to perform, we live under
the hearing of the gospel, which is spirit and life. John 6:36. But
that the matter of the law, or commanding power of it, should be done
away, this Scripture doth not in the least prove, but it is used in
the hand of the Spirit to convince of sin. This the same Apostle
proves in Rom. 7:7, where he saith, _I had not known sin but by the
law; I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not
covet._ This will appear evident if we consider the same chapter from
verse 8 to verse 14.

_Obj._ 2. Another Scripture is frequently urged from Acts 7:37--_A
prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,
like unto me; him shall ye hear._ From which it is concluded, that we
are to hearken only to Christ and not to Moses.

_Ans._ If by hearing of Christ you mean hearing only what he spake
with his own lips when he was on earth, then we are not to hear
his apostles. But if you mean, by hearing of him, to hear what he
spake upon earth and what he spake by his Spirit in his apostles, then
why are we not to hear what he spake by his Spirit to his prophets,
seeing we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Christ being the chief corner-stone. Eph. 21:20. And if those who are
of this persuasion would be true to their principle to hear Christ,
hear him what he saith in Luke 16:31--_They have Moses and the
prophets, let them hear them; for if they will not believe Moses and
the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the
dead._ And he counsels to keep the commandments, (Matt. 19:17, 18,)
and reproves for the breach of them, as also for the making them void
by traditions, (Matt. 15:6,) as might be made to appear by many other
Scriptures. Therefore there is nothing of weight in this objection to
shake the thing asserted. But for a more full answer to this objection
and the former, I must needs entreat the reader to see my other book
on the Sabbath.

_Obj._ 3. Moses was faithful over his house as a servant, so Christ is
faithful over his house as a son. Now, if Christ hath not given us all
the laws that we are to observe, this is to make Christ less faithful
than Moses.

_Ans._ Doubtless Christ as a son is faithful over his house, as Moses
was faithful over his house as a servant. But we are to consider, what
was Moses' house, and what is Christ's house. Moses' house, I
conceive, was the Tabernacle; his faithfulness did appear in that he
did all things according to the pattern showed him in the Mount.
Christ's house is the saints, the true tabernacle which the Lord hath
pitched and not man, (Heb. 8:2, 5,) of which the other was a shadow.
And as Moses as a servant gave forth ordinances for his house, so
Christ as a son has given out ordinances for his house. But the ten
commandments are a law which belongs to men as they are men, though
they be no part of Christ's house, it being, as before proved, the law
written in their very hearts.

_Obj._ 4. But when certain of the sect of the pharisees arose and said
it was needful to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, the
Apostle proves them to be tempters of God, in putting a yoke upon the
neck of the disciples, which neither they nor their fathers were able
to bear. Acts 15:5, 10.

_Ans._ Are the ten commandments such a yoke as is not to be borne? Is
it a yoke to have no other God but Jehovah, and to abstain from
murder, theft, adultery, and the like? For so it must be, if you judge
that the whole law is here slighted. But the thing under discussion
here is, whether such and such laws are to be kept or not, and the
stress that is laid upon the keeping of them, namely, the pressing of
them as things without which they could not be saved, as in Acts 15:1;
and therefore the Apostle, in answer to this, shows that the Gentiles
had received the gospel and did believe, God having given to them the
Holy Ghost, and put no difference between them and the Jews, purifying
their hearts by faith, (verses 7-9,) and that through the grace of
Jesus Christ both Jews and Gentiles should be saved, (verse 11;) and
as the Apostle opposeth the keeping of these laws for such a purpose
as to be saved thereby, so the bare keeping of them is forbidden. And
therefore James saith, (verses 19, 20,) _My sentence is, that we
trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God,
but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of
idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood._ So
that the Apostle's judgment is, that the Gentiles should keep some
part of the law. And therefore the question was not, whether any part
of the law should be kept; and the reason why they would write no more
seems to be in verse 20, _For Moses of old time hath in every city
them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day._
So the apostles and elders write, in verse 24, _Forasmuch as we have
heard that certain men that went out from us have troubled you with
words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep
the law, to whom we gave no such commandment._ Now can we be so gross
as to think, that it is subverting men's souls, and contrary to the
commandments of the apostles and elders, to bid them love the Lord
their God with all their hearts and with all their strength, and to
worship him alone, and not to take his name in vain, and the like?
This is to keep the law. But the difference was about other laws as
well as circumcision, and they are as really forbidden to keep them,
as they are forbidden circumcision; and therefore it cannot be the law
of the ten commandments, but the law of shadows, as is manifest by
chapter 21. When Paul came to Jerusalem, the brethren told him that it
was reported that he taught all the Jews which were among the Gentiles
to forsake Moses, saying, _that they ought not to circumcise their
children, neither to walk after the customs_, (verse 21;) therefore
they counseled Paul to purify himself, with some others, that it might
be seen that he walked orderly and kept the law. Verse 24. _But as
touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded
that they observe no such things._ Verse 25. So that it is very clear,
that it is circumcision and the customs that is here called the law of
Moses, which the Gentiles were commanded not to keep. But to think
that the Gentiles should be forbidden to keep the law of God that was
written in their natures is abominable, and contrary both to Scripture
and reason.

_Obj._ 5. But the Scripture saith, _Cast out the bond-woman and her
son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of
the free-woman_; which bond-woman was an allegory of the covenant from
Mount Sinai, and therefore to be cast out.

_Ans._ The Apostle is here showing how impossible it is for works and
grace to stand together in point of justification; for this people
were seeking to be justified by the works of the law. He shows the
difference betwixt the two covenants, one of works gendering to
bondage, _the righteousness of the law being this, that the man that
doeth these things should live in them_, (Rom. 10:5;) the other of
grace or free promise, without any respect to man's righteousness. He
shows that the sons of the covenants are like unto their mothers; the
sons of the one covenant are born after the flesh, the sons of the
other by promise; and those that are born after the flesh persecute
those that are born after the Spirit. Nevertheless, what saith the
Scripture? _Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the
bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman;_ that is,
the covenant of works with those that seek to be justified thereby,
_Christ being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth_. Rom. 10:4. But if we should understand the ten
commandments in themselves to be the bond-woman, then it is impossible
for them that keep them to be heirs or children of the promise, but
they must be cast out as children of the bond-woman, which is very
erroneous, and contrary to the current of the Scriptures. For the
doers of the law are justified before God, (Rom. 2:13,) though not for
doing. And mark how the Apostle forbids this notion in Romans
3:31--_Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Shall
we continue in sin,_ or transgress the law, _that grace may abound?
God forbid!_ Rom. 6:1, 2. _Is the law sin? God forbid!_ Rom. 7:7. _Was
the law, which was good, made death unto me? God forbid!_ Verse 13.
_Shall we transgress the law because we are not under the condemning
power of it,_ (Christ having redeemed us from it?) _God forbid!_ Rom.
6:15. Certainly the Scripture did foresee how apt men would be to
slight and make void the law of God under specious pretences, as their
being believers, and Gentiles which had not the law given to them, but
that they are under grace, and the like. _If the uncircumcision keep
the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted
for circumcision?_ Rom. 2:26.

Consider these queries--1. If the whole law was done away by the death
of Christ, why did the Apostle spend so much time to prove that by the
works of the law none could be justified, (Gal. 3,) seeing there was
no law to work upon? Would it not have been a nearer way to have told
them that the law was abolished?

2. If the whole law was done away at the death of Christ, how can any
part of it be now in force? If it be said it is upon a new account,
show me any one law that Christ hath once destroyed and again revived,
seeing the Apostle saith, if he should build again the things that he
destroyed, he should make himself a transgressor. Gal. 2:14.

3. What Scripture proves that we have any one of the ten commandments
given out on a new account?

4. If the whole law be done away, what law is there for the punishment
of evil-doers, thieves, murderers, and the like?

5. If the ten commandments are to be abolished, how is it that the
Lord hath annexed so many great and precious promises to the keeping
of them and delighting in them, as in Psalms 1:1-4, and many other
places, which do of right belong to such as keep the commandments?
Rev. 22:14.

6. How is it that the Apostle saith, the law is good if a man use it
lawfully, (1 Tim. 1:8,) if at the same time there be no law?

7. If the law was done away at the death of Christ, when was it given
again upon a new account? If it was given before his death, (in the
5th chapter of Matthew,) then how is it that the law that was given on
Sinai stood in force till that time? Could they both stand in force at
once? If not till after the death of Christ, then when was it given
out, seeing that we find not any of the commandments so much as
mentioned for a long time after the death of Christ? Can we think the
saints and the world were left without a law?

8. How is it that we contend for governors as at the first, and
counsellors as at the beginning, seeing there is no law for them to
rule and govern by, if this doctrine be true, that the whole law is
done away?

Thus I have endeavored in a measure to prove, that the ten
commandments are not only in force to unbelievers, but also to
believers. But believers are not under the law so as to be justified
or condemned by it; not under it as a covenant of works and
ministration of death, but under it as a righteous rule of life--a
holy, just, and good law; so they are under it, and do delight in it.
Rom. 7:22; Psalms 119:70, 72, 97; 1 Cor. 9:21. _It is time for thee,
Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law,_ (Psalms 119:122.)
_Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be
right, and I hate every false way,_ (Verse 128.)


THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH.

If the ten commandments be in force, every jot and tittle of them, it
must necessarily follow that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and is to
be observed according to the commandment. But because there is much
opposition against this truth, I shall offer something in particular
to it, which may tend to the clearing of it.

1. It was instituted by God before the fall of man, as appears in Gen.
1:31--_And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was
very good._ But when man sinned, God changed his voice, and then the
ground was cursed for his sake. Gen. 3:17. Farther, God was six days
upon his work of creation, and rested not until the seventh day. Now,
betwixt the end of the sixth day and the beginning of the seventh day,
there is no interval or space of time, (chap. 1:31, 2:2;) then why
should it be thought that the Sabbath was a shadow to hold forth rest
by faith, and why should we run into such imaginations concerning the
cause of God's instituting the Sabbath, seeing God so plainly declared
it himself, namely, _that he blessed the seventh day and sanctified
it, because that in it he rested, from all his works which God created
and made_. Gen. 2:3.

2. The reason that the Lord gave when he commanded the observance of
the seventh day, was as before, _because that 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_, (Exod. 20:11;) and it is as a motive to provoke man to
follow the Lord's example from the beginning, both in work and rest.
_Six days,_ saith the Lord, _thou shalt labor and do all thy work, but
the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt
do no manner of work._ And if thou wouldest know a reason why thou
shouldest do so, it is because I the Lord thy God did so. And truly,
to me it is clear, that one main reason why the Lord took so much time
as six days to create all things in, and rested the seventh day, was
to show man an example, and what he ought to do. Doubtless God could
have made all things in a moment; but six days he works, and rests the
seventh day, that man might do the same, and thereby not only hold
forth the creating power of God, and the method that he was pleased to
take in the creation, but also his great mercy in instructing and
commanding man to work six days and rest the seventh, that he might be
refreshed.

3. It plainly appears, that this institution was in force and to be
observed from the beginning, though no mention is made of the
patriarchs observing it, no more than of their sacrificing and doing
many other things, which it is judged that they did, notwithstanding
we hear nothing of them. But consider, God rested the seventh day and
sanctified it. Now to profane that which God sanctifies doubtless is a
sin; and had they done servile work upon the Sabbath, they had
profaned it. Neh. 13:16, 17. And what the Lord said to Peter, in
another case, may be rightly said in this, namely, _What God hath
sanctified, that call not thou common or unclean._ Acts 10:15. And the
Lord, when he gave forth this command, saith, _Remember the Sabbath_,
to note the importance of it, and the antiquity of it, it being no new
thing, but from the beginning; and that the Lord urges, in verse 11,
as the cause why it was to be observed. Israel observed the Sabbath
before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, as appears in Exod.
16:23, 25, 26. But mark what Nehemiah saith to this in, chapter 9:13,
14, _Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them
from heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, good
statutes and commandments, and madest known also unto them thy holy
Sabbath._ Mark, this commandment is singled out from all the rest, and
is said to be made known to them, which shows that it was in being
before, though probably they might lose the observation of it, by
reason of their hard bondage in Egypt. However, it is plain that they
had need of the knowledge of the Sabbath, and God makes it known unto
them. And Christ leads us plainly to the first institution of it when
he saith, _The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath._
He points to the making of it, and for whom it was made, not for the
Jews only as Jews, but for man, before there was any such distinction
as Jew and Gentile; and in that it was made for man, which was the
public person or representative of the whole of mankind, it was made
for all men, Adam standing as a public person before his fall.

4. Our Lord Jesus doth show the true end of God's giving the Sabbath,
and also how it ought to be kept, and shows the pharisees their
mistake in the observation of it, they being so rigid that they would
not suffer good works and works of mercy to be done, though there were
necessity for the doing of them, as will appear if we consider the
following Scriptures: The pharisees asked Christ if it was lawful to
heal on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him, (Matt. 12:10,)
and his answer was this, _What man is there among you that shall have
one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not
lay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a
sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day._ Matt.
12:10-12. Again, the pharisees told Christ that his disciples did that
which was not lawful, because they pulled the ears of corn upon the
Sabbath day. But mind the answer of Christ, _Have ye not read what
David did when he was a hungered and had need, how he entered into the
house of God, and did eat the shew-bread, which it is not lawful for
any to eat but the priests?_ Mark 2:24-26. _Have ye not read in the
law, that the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath day and are
blameless?_ Matt. 12:5. It was not unlawful to pluck the ears of corn
when they went through their neighbor's field, for that they might do
by the law of God, (Deut. 23:25,) and that the pharisees knew very
well; but they thought it was unlawful because they did it upon the
Sabbath day. But mark the answer of Christ, how he cleared the
disciples; it was unlawful for David to eat the shew-bread, but he was
a hungered and had need, and therefore to be excused. If the disciples
had pulled the ears of corn when they had no need, upon the Sabbath
day, it had been doing of needless work, and so had been unlawful. But
the text saith they were a hungered, therefore they might do it, it
being a work of mercy as David's was. And the same may be said of the
priests' profaning the Sabbath, who, notwithstanding, are said to be
blameless. Their preparation of the sacrifices was allowed, which work
in itself would have been counted servile work, but that it was for
such a merciful end, namely, the sins of the people; therefore saith
Christ, _Had ye known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless._ Matt. 12:7.
Clearly proving that the Sabbath was to be observed, (but not so as to
break another command, to neglect mercy, which the pharisees would
do,) and that his disciples, in having mercy on their bodies, were no
Sabbath-breakers.

Farther, observe what Christ saith in Mark 2:27, _The Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath._ The pharisees made themselves
slaves and bond-men by making the Sabbath a yoke, (whereas it should
have been a delight, Isa. 58:13,) by superstitious outside
performances, as though man had been made for the Sabbath. But Christ
tells them, it was made for man, that is, for the good and benefit of
man, that he might rest from his labors and be refreshed, as they were
in Exod. 31:17. And thus you see how clearly our Lord hath given the
sense of this law. It is lawful to do well upon the Sabbath day, to
visit the sick and to heal them, and to do works of mercy to our own
and others' bodies, the Sabbath being made for man.

5. Jesus Christ declares himself to be Lord even of the Sabbath day,
(Matt. 12:8,) and he takes his title thus: _The Sabbath,_ saith he,
_was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of
Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day._ Here seems to be two things from
whence Christ takes this title. First, the Sabbath was made for man,
that is, as before was said, for Adam, and so for all men, being made
for him before his fall. Now, Christ being the Son of Man, the chief
man, or second Adam, the man of God's right hand, the heir of all
things, is of right Lord even of the Sabbath day. Second, the Sabbath
was made for man, that is, for the good of man, and in mercy to man,
as is said before. Therefore, Christ being the author of all good, the
giver of all mercy, he is Lord of it; and, therefore, Christ doth not
slight the Sabbath (as some do imagine) by saying he is Lord of it, as
though he were not to keep it, or that his intent was to change it.
That were to strip himself of his title, or else to entitle himself
Lord of that which was not. But in that it is said Christ is Lord of
the Sabbath, it proves the Sabbath to be in force. As Christ proves
the resurrection, in Mark 12:26, 27--_I am the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, the God of Jacob; I am not the God of the dead, but of the
living_--so Christ is Lord of the Sabbath day. He is not Lord of the
dead types and shadows, or of that which is not in being, but he is
Lord of the lively oracles, of which I consider the Sabbath to be one.
Acts 7:38.

_Objection._ But did not Christ break the Sabbath, and teach men so to
do, in bidding the impotent man take up his bed and walk, it being
unlawful to carry a burden upon the Sabbath day?

_Answer._ The scribes and pharisees said so, indeed, and that his bed
was a burden; but they were very unfit judges, they being ignorant of
the right manner of observing the Sabbath, and seeking likewise to
take advantage against Christ in his words and actions. Their saying
the man's bed was a burden, and that it was unlawful for him to carry
it, doth prove no more that was it so, than their saying that the
disciples did break the Sabbath in plucking the ears of corn, and
Christ in healing the diseased. But was not this a work of mercy, the
man having been lame so long in the porch now being cured? Was it not
meet that he should be released from the place, and take his bed with
him to lay on at night? (for it is likely he had no other.) And who
can say that it was a burden? In some countries that which they call a
bed is no heavier than a good cloak or coat. But consider what gross
wickedness naturally flows from this opinion. The objectors
themselves, and all, must acknowledge that the whole law was in force
till the death of Christ--the very shadows, till he nailed them to his
cross; then the fourth commandment doubtless was in force. Now, to say
that Christ broke it, and taught men so, is to say that Christ sinned,
and taught men to sin, (for sin is the transgression of the law,) and
this roots up redemption by Christ; for if Christ was a sinner, he
could not be a Saviour. He had not been a meet offering for the sins
of others; he had been a sinner himself. But he was offered up a Lamb
without spot, (Heb. 7:26, 1 Peter 1:19,) and was made sin for us, that
knew no sin, (2 Cor. 5:2;) and therefore this objection is made so
gross, that every sincere heart that sees the tendency of it will not
touch it; and indeed I had not mentioned it here, but that many
through weakness have taken it up as a sufficient ground to prove the
making void of the Sabbath, for want of looking into the bottom of it.

6. Another ground to prove the Sabbath yet to be in force, may be
taken from the words of Christ to his disciples in Matt. 24:20--_But
pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath
day_; which is part of the answer Christ gave them when they came
privately to him to ask him when the destruction of the temple should
be, the signs of his coming, and the end of the world. It is generally
conceived that this part of Christ's answer relates to the destruction
of Jerusalem; and, indeed, that is the shortest time that can be
thought it relates to, as appears by the question which was asked him.
But suppose it to be so; doth it not plainly appear from hence, that
the Sabbath was to remain in full force after the death of Christ? The
destruction of Jerusalem was about forty years after the death of
Christ, and yet he commands his disciples to pray that their flight be
not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. Now, can we think that
Christ would lay such a foundation for superstition, as though the
Sabbath was to be at the ruin of Jerusalem, when it was to cease at
his death? Or can we think that Christ would teach his disciples to
pray false, or to pray that their flight should not be on the Sabbath,
when indeed there was to be no Sabbath? This is gross to imagine; for
as sure as winter was to remain winter, so the Sabbath was to remain
the Sabbath. And if their flight had been upon it, it would have been
the more tedious, it being a day of rest and refreshment to them,
wherein they used to rejoice and praise the Lord, as appears by that
song for the Sabbath day, in Psalm 92. But although this Scripture
looks to the destruction of Jerusalem, yet I conceive that it looks
farther, even to that distress that Jerusalem shall be in at the
second coming of Christ, and that for these reasons:--

1st. Those things that Christ spake of were accomplished in a measure
in the apostles' days; and yet they are not completely fulfilled. For
instance, Christ told his disciples that they should be delivered up
to be killed, and they should be hated of all nations for his name's
sake. This was in the apostles' days, and hath been since; and false
prophets did arise then, and so they have since. So that those things
which Christ spake looked to several times, and therefore, I conceive,
he saith, _Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till
all these things be fulfilled._ So I judge that what he spake
concerning Jerusalem had not only respect to that destruction that
came upon it during that generation, but also to that great calamity
that should be upon it in the last days.

2d. This will more plainly appear, if we consider the words of Christ,
_But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbath
day; for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be._ Matt.
24:20, 21. Now, with this compare Zech. 14:2, _For I will gather all
nations against Jerusalem to battle, and they shall be taken, and the
houses rifled, and the women ravished._ And in the third and fourth
verses it is said, _Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against
those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle, and his feet
shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives._ With which compare
Dan. 12:1, 2, _And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great
Prince, which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall
be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even
to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered,
every one that shall be found, written in the book. And many of them
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt._ Now, if that great
destruction of Jerusalem produced such great trouble as never was, nor
ever should be again, how is it that there shall be such great trouble
as never was since there was a nation, when Michael stands up to
deliver the people, every one that is written in the book, and
Jerusalem is taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished,
when the Lord comes forth to fight against those nations, and his feet
shall stand upon the Mount of Olives, according to that text in Acts
1:11, _So shall he come in like manner as ye have seen him go into
heaven_; and when the seventh angel pours out his vial, (Rev. 16:17,
18,) which time I conceive is one and the same with that in Zechariah
and Daniel--and the angel is Michael, the great prince which Daniel
speaks of, whose feet shall stand upon the Mount of Olives--then is
the time of great trouble, and such an earthquake as was not since men
were upon the face of the earth, so mighty an earthquake and so great.
So that to me it appears, that these three Scriptures do correspond
with the words of Christ, pointing out the same time; and if so, then
the Sabbath shall remain till the coming of Christ, and so shall stand
till heaven and earth pass away, according to the passage in Matt.
5:18; and for ever and ever, according to that in Psalm 111:8; and the
destruction of Jerusalem seems to be a type of that great destruction
that shall be at Christ's appearance. And, as Jerusalem was taken when
some from all nations were gathered together, as history reports, and
on the Sabbath day it was destroyed, so it appears that the strength
of the saints will be gathered together at Jerusalem, because all
nations will gather against it, and Jerusalem's strait will be upon
the Sabbath day, as seems to appear by the words of Christ, for then,
saith he, shall be great tribulation, such as never was; (then! when?
why, when their flight shall be upon the Sabbath day;) and this great
tribulation is when Jerusalem shall be taken, the houses rifled, and
the women ravished, as was said before; _at which time Michael shall
stand up and fight against these nations, as when he fought in the day
of battle; and the slain of the Lord shall be many, even from one end
of the earth to the other_, (Jer. 25:31-33,) _and the Mount of Olives
shall cleave in the midst thereof, and there shall be a very great
valley, into which the saints shall flee_, (Zech. 14:5.) Then shall
the Sabbath be swallowed up in the great Sabbath of a thousand years,
that glorious and holy rest which the saints shall enter into, and
live and reign with Christ. Rev. 20:4.

7. Another ground is taken from the practice of Christ's disciples
after his death, as recorded in Luke 23:5, 6, _And they returned and
prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day according to
the commandment._ Some say, that if we do observe the Sabbath, we must
do all those sacrifices which the Jews did upon it. But at this time
the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, and the
shadows were done away by the body of Christ, and yet they kept the
Sabbath, not through fear or ignorance, but according to the
commandment, which is to rest from their labors; and so they did, for
the text saith, _they returned and rested_. There is no sacrifice
expressed in the commandment, _The stranger and the cattle were to
rest on the Sabbath._ Exod. 20:10. So that the Sabbath was commanded
and observed before any of those sacrifices were commanded to be
offered upon it. But because the Jews did such a service upon the
Sabbath day, as they were a typical people, it doth not follow that
this was any part of the commandment; and therefore we are to rest, as
those disciples did, according to the commandment. It is remarkable,
that the Holy Ghost should leave this thing upon record, which would
not have been, I am persuaded, had the Sabbath then been abolished. He
doth not only say, they returned and rested on the Sabbath day, but,
to prevent all mistakes, lest it should be thought they did it
ignorantly or superstitiously, or for fear of the Jews, he saith they
did it groundedly, that is, according to the commandment.

_Obj._ But the disciples were met together upon the first day of the
week, and Christ appeared unto them. John 20:9.

_Ans._ It is true, they were assembled together upon the same day at
even, being the first day of the week, with the door shut; and the
cause is laid down why they were so, namely, for fear of the Jews.
Some of the disciples, as I said before, kept the Sabbath the day
before, and I think we can not reasonably imagine but that those did
who were together on the first day, for they did frequently correspond
together, that is manifest. But what doth their being together on the
first day evening, and Christ's appearing to them, prove for the
observation of the first day, more than his appearing to them eight
days after, and appearing to them the third time early in the morning
when they were fishing, (John 21:4, 5,) for the observation of those
days? It was necessary that Christ should appear to his disciples on
the first day of the week, that his word might be fulfilled of his
rising the third day, so that they might boldly witness the same.

_Obj._ But the disciples came together on the first day of the week,
and did break bread, and Paul preached unto them. Acts 20.

_Ans._ This is all the meeting or preaching that ever we find held
upon the first day, except the disciples being together for fear of
the Jews, mentioned before, at evening. So this seemed to be, because
when they came together Paul preached with them, continuing his speech
until midnight. It is not likely, then, that they observed the day and
came together in the morning, seeing he continued his speech so long.
And, as we have the cause of the disciples being together with their
doors shut, so we have the cause of this meeting. Paul was ready to
depart on the morrow upon an extraordinary occasion, and he had many
things to communicate to them, as appears by his discoursing with them
till midnight, and talking till break of day. But that which makes the
objectors lay such stress upon this text, is because the disciples
came together to break bread, which they judge to be the Lord's
Supper. Suppose it were so, what doth this make for the observation of
the first day, more than Christ's first instituting the Supper upon
the fifth day of the week, (as is generally conceived,) doth make for
the observation of it? But we have no proof that this was the Supper
of the Lord that they came to partake of, but it seems to be such
breaking of bread as the margin of some Bibles refers to. Acts 2:46.
_They continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking
bread from house to house, and did eat their meat with gladness of
heart._ So in Luke 24:30, 35. And it is explained what kind of
breaking of bread it was, where it is said, when he was risen up
again, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a good while, till
break of day, he departed. Here is eating and talking; it is not
solemnized as the Lord's Supper. Some would have this common breaking
of bread, and the other in verse 7, to be the Lord's Supper; but it is
very unlikely that there should be two sorts of breaking of bread at
one time, by the same persons, and yet nothing spoken distinctly by
which we might know the one from the other. The most that can be said,
is but a supposition; it can not be proved that this was the Lord's
Supper. How weak a ground this is for the observation of this day as a
Sabbath, or more than any other day, or to limit the administration of
the Lord's Supper to this day, I leave to the truly wise in heart to
judge.

_Obj._ But the church had their gatherings upon the first day of the
week, by which it appears that it was the day that they met together
upon. 1 Cor. 16:2.

_Ans._ The words are these, _Upon the first day of the week let every
one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there
be no gatherings when I come_. Here is no proof of their meeting
together, but rather the contrary, every one was to lay by him in
store as God had prospered him; no public gathering, but private
laying up. But because the Apostle saith, in the close of the verse,
_that there be no gatherings when I come_, therefore it is thought the
Scripture can not be so understood, because it would not prevent
gatherings. But is this fair, when a text of Scripture stands alone,
to put such a sense upon it as doth contradict the very letter of
it--when it saith, let every one of you lay by him in store, then to
say the meaning is to have public gatherings and but one store? And
would not the end of the Apostle be fully answered, namely, to have no
gatherings, if each of them did lay by in store, as God had prospered
them in the world, ready against the Apostle came, they knowing of his
coming? And when he came, was it not as easy to carry it with them to
him, as for us to carry our Bibles to a meeting; and what need would
there be then of gatherings? And this way of giving would not be
pharisee-like, but according to the words of Christ, in Matt. 6:1-4,
_Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them;
otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. But
when thou doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right
hand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret; and thy Father which
seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly._

_Obj._ But John was in the spirit on the Lord's day, (and had the
various revelations upon it,) which is conceived to be the first day
of the week. Rev. 1:10.

_Ans._ It is true, John was in the spirit on the Lord's day. But the
question will be, what day that was. If any particular one of the
seven, it must have been the Sabbath, for no other day is so called
but that. God calls it his holy day in Isa. 58:13, and Christ saith he
is Lord even of the Sabbath day. And if so, then it is his day, for he
is Lord of it, and that by way of eminence; not, as some would have
it, to show that he is Lord of every day, but as it is the Sabbath;
for so it is said the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. So
that this notion that the Lord's day is the first day, is merely taken
up on trust one from another, without one word of Scripture to prove
it.

_Obj._ But it will be yet objected, by those that are for no Sabbath,
in the words of the Apostle in Col. 2:16, 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_; whence it is concluded that the
Sabbath was but a shadow, and none are to be judged for not observing
it.

_Ans._ There were holy-days and Sabbaths besides the seventh-day
Sabbath, or the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, for so it is called in
the commandment, as doth appear in Lev. 23:39. Now, because it is
implied by the words of the Apostle, that Sabbaths were shadows, to be
done away by the body of Christ, doth it therefore follow that all
Sabbaths were so, any more than the words of the Apostle that men
shall be saved, prove that all men shall be saved? And if we consider
the verses before, it will plainly appear, that the Apostle was not
speaking of any of the ten commandments. In verse 15, the Apostle is
speaking to the Gentiles, showing how they were dead in sins, and in
the uncircumcision of their flesh, but are now quickened by Christ,
and all their trespasses forgiven them. In verse 14, he shows what
farther benefit they had by the death of Christ, Blotting out the
hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us, and contrary to us,
he took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and the Scripture
on which the objection is founded hath its dependence upon that which
comes in with, Therefore let no man judge you in meats, and drinks,
&c.; as though the Apostle had said, Forasmuch as Christ hath blotted
out and nailed to his cross those ordinances which are against the
Gentiles, you are not to be judged for the non-performance of them.
Now the ten commandments were never against the Gentiles, nor contrary
to them; for the same Apostle saith the matter of them was written in
their hearts, as was said before, and they did by nature the things
contained in them, and therefore they were not contrary to them. But
circumcision and other ordinances stood as a wall against the
Gentiles, which Christ broke down, by taking them out of the way and
nailing them to the cross, _having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in
himself of twain one new man, so making peace that he might reconcile
both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity
thereby_. Eph. 2:15. So that it is clear, that the Apostle is speaking
of such commandments as were contained in ordinances, and not those
commandments that were eminently distinguished from ordinances; but
those ordinances which were against the Gentiles, and made them and
the Jews two, as did drinks, new-moons, holy-days, and Sabbath-days,
Christ by his blood having taken these away, hath made them one. That
the ten commandments should be struck at, there is no cover in this
Scripture for, or that the Sabbath should only be taken from them and
nailed to the cross with new-moons, meats, and other shadows and
ordinances which were against man. But Christ saith, The Sabbath was
made for man. So that in this place there is no proof for the
abrogation of this command of God. But for a more full answer see my
other book.

_Obj._ How is it that the Apostle saith, in Rom. 14:5, 6, _that one
man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day
alike_, and yet he does not reprove either of them?

_Ans._ I make no doubt but if the controversy here alluded to had been
about the Sabbath, whether it were to be observed or not, it would
have been plainly expressed, and not passed over so slightly. But the
Apostle is speaking of _indifferent things_, which men were not to be
judged for their doing or not doing, and not of commandments. Because
it is said that some esteem every day alike, therefore some conclude
that this takes away the Sabbath day; but we must compare Scripture
with Scripture, adopt such a sense as may bring them into harmony, and
sometimes explain general terms by restrictive Scriptures. For
instance, Christ says to his disciples, _Go preach the gospel to every
creature_; we must understand it to mean to every creature that is in
a condition to hear the gospel. The Apostle saith, that every creature
of God is good, and nothing to be refused. But some are poison, and
are to be refused. So is every day alike, that is, every working day,
which God hath made alike; but the seventh day he hath sanctified and
made a Sabbath of rest, and so not like the others. This
interpretation is according to that Scripture in Exod. 16:4, _Behold,
I will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and
gather a certain rate every day_; and in verse 12, _They gathered
every morning every man according to his eating, yet on the Sabbath
day there was none to gather._ And in our common speech it is so; we
call the six days every day. Men say, we work every day, or we travel
so far every day, when they mean only the six days that they count
working days. So the Apostle, speaking to them that kept the Sabbath,
speaks in the same language, and we have no ground to think otherwise;
for there is no Scripture that we find before this that hath any
seeming dislike against the observation of the Sabbath, but the
contrary.

_Obj. Ye observe days, and years, and times, and months; I am afraid
of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain._ Gal. 4:10, 11.

_Ans._ This cannot be understood that the Apostle here strikes at the
mere observation of days, a thing of such dangerous consequence, for
he would not have them judged that observed one day above another. In
Rom, 14:5, 6, and in this place, he himself judges these as persons
that had so far degenerated, that he was afraid he had bestowed upon
them labor in vain; but it is manifest that these Galatians were gone
back to circumcision, and so were debtors to the whole law, seeking
justification thereby. Gal. 5:2-4. So they observed days and years,
according to the law that was a shadow of good things to come,
solemnizing the days, and months, and years, with those things that
were appointed for them, as burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, the
waving of the sheaf, the Passover, and Feast of Unleavened Bread, and
the like, as may be seen at large in Lev. 23:8-11; for they could not
be said to observe times, and months and years, according to the law,
except they did such service. And this gave the Apostle just ground to
fear that he had bestowed on them labor in vain. But to imagine that
to observe the Sabbath according to the commandment, or to observe a
day voluntarily to the Lord, is so dangerous, is contrary both to
Scripture and reason.

_Obj._ We who believe are entered into rest, of which the Sabbath was
but a type, as appeals by the words of the Apostle in Heb. 4:3.

_Ans._ If eternal rest by faith be the antitype of the Sabbath, the
Sabbath ceased to be in force to every man so soon as he believed;
which is ridiculous to think, and contrary to the current of
Scripture. But the Apostle saith, _We who believe do enter into rest;
for he that is entered into his rest is ceased from his own works, as
God did from his. Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest
any man fall after the example of unbelief._ Heb. 4:10, 11. Mind this
chapter well, and I am persuaded you will see that the drift of the
Apostle, in mentioning the seventh day here, is but to amplify and set
forth that perfect rest which they that believe do and shall enjoy, of
which the land of Canaan was but a type; and to show that God's rest
was before the Land of Canaan, and that there yet remains a rest to
the people of God. As God did rest the seventh day from all his works,
so they that enter into rest do cease from their own works, as God did
from his. And this is not as soon as men believe, for the Apostle
provokes himself and others which were believers to labor to enter
into it. And therefore, if you will have the Sabbath, a type from this
Scripture, though it is nowhere so called, it must be a type of
eternal rest, which saints do enter into when they cease from their
own works, as God did from his. And that will not be till they lay
down this tabernacle, which will not affect the thing asserted. And
indeed I cannot deny but the Sabbath is an earnest of that rest, and
saints that are spiritual in the observation of it find it so, and of
great use to put them in mind of that glorious rest, as the bread and
wine in the Lord's Supper put us in mind of the sufferings of Christ;
so this being a day of rest and delight, being striped of all worldly
incumbrances, and devoted to the Lord, to pray unto him, and to praise
his holy name, to meditate upon heaven and heavenly glory.

_Obj._ But many say, If the Sabbath be in force, then the penalty must
needs be so, and then those that do not keep it must be stoned;
therefore this opinion is dangerous, and will lead saints to destroy
one another.

_Ans._ This is a very showy objection, but indeed it is a very weak
one. I do not find that any more than one was stoned, and it was for
presumptuous breaking of the Sabbath. But suppose that penalty be in
force; every saint is not a magistrate to put it in execution. If a
saint should kill a man, saints as they are saints are not to execute
him; all that they can do is to endeavor his repentance, but it
belongs to the true magistrate to inflict the punishment. The penal
laws of God take hold of presumptuous sinners, not for sins of
ignorance, and therefore it is not to be thought that any punishment
will be inflicted upon any for a breach of the Sabbath till it be
universally acknowledged. So then, if God hath annexed the penalty of
death to the breaking of it, doubtless it will be just. But we find in
Nehemiah's time, that although they had made a market-day of the
Sabbath, treading of wine-presses, lading of asses, and selling of all
manner of provisions upon it, yet he doth but contend with them. He
contends with the Jews of Jerusalem, the nobles of Judah, and the men
of Tyre, but inflicts no punishment on either. Neh. 13:15-17, 21. But
what a strange thing is this, that men should count it a dangerous
opinion, to hold that the Sabbath is in force, because of the penalty!
Suppose it be so; the same may be said of the rest of the
commandments. For instance, the first commandment is, _Thou shalt have
no other gods before me_; he that worshiped a strange god was to be
put to death. Now, shall we not own this commandment, because the
breakers of it were so punished? Again, _He that sheddeth man's blood,
by man shall his blood be shed._ Now, is there any danger in the
owning of this commandment, _Thou shalt do no murder_, because the
punishment is in force? Again, the fifth commandment is, _Honor thy
father and thy mother_, but he that cursed father or mother was to be
put to death. Now, shall we not honor father and mother, and so shall
we break this commandment, because this punishment belongs to the
breakers of it? So this objection is of no weight or use at all,
except it be as a bear-skin put upon the truth to frighten children
away, lest they should look into it.

_Obj._ But we do not find any of the apostles urge this commandment in
any of their epistles, namely, that the Sabbath day should be observed.

_Ans._ Neither do we find the apostles urging the first, second, or
third commandment in particular, as laid down in the table, but they
are frequently urged in the general, as in Rom. 7:12, 13:8-10, and
generals comprehend particulars. James saith, _Whosoever shall keep
the whole law, yet offend in one point, is guilty of all_; and he
proves it thus, _Because he that said, Do not commit adultery, said
also, Do not kill; now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law._ The same argument may be
drawn from the thing in hand. He that saith, Do not commit adultery,
saith also, Keep the Sabbath; now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if
thou break the Sabbath, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
James 2:10, 11. And Paul saith, _Circumcision is nothing, and
uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of
God._ 1 Cor. 7:19. John saith, in his first epistle, chapter 5:2, 3,
_By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God
and keep his commandments; for this is the love of God, that we keep
his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous._ And if the
apostles had not spoken a word to this commandment, in general or in
particular, it is no ground for us to lay it by, except the
observation of it were forbidden, because it is so plainly commanded
by God, explained by Christ, observed by his disciples, both before
and after his death, as was said before, and will farther appear by
and by.

_Obj._ But we do not find that any of the churches kept the Sabbath.

_Ans._ That is no proof that they did not keep it. But it is clear
that the church of Jerusalem kept it, though it is not plainly
expressed, for they were so zealous for the very customs, that Paul is
counseled to purify himself, lest they should be offended at him. Acts
21:21, 24. Now, if they were for the observation of those things that
were but shadows, there is no doubt but they were very strict for the
observation of the Sabbath. And there was such offence taken against
Paul for preaching against circumcision and the customs, that we need
not question, if the Sabbath had been preached against, but we should
have heard a great noise of it in the Scriptures, and seen strong
convincing reasons why it was abolished. And it is as clear that the
apostles kept the Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ as before.
_Paul went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down, and
after the reading of the law preached the gospel, and told them of the
ignorance of those that dwelt at Jerusalem of the voice of the
prophets which were read every Sabbath day. And the Gentiles besought
him that these words might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. And the
next Sabbath came almost the whole city together to hear the word of
God._ Acts 13:14, 15, 42, 44. So that it is clear, that the Sabbath
was Paul's resting-day and preaching-day, both to the Jews and
Gentiles, that being the day that the Gentiles used to hear; and
though they had a desire to hear the same words again, yet it must be
next Sabbath; and Paul fulfills their desire, and preaches to them the
next Sabbath, and almost the whole city came to hear. Can we think, if
there had been no Sabbath, that Paul would have countenanced them so
in their ignorance? Or, if the first day had been a day that was
observed, would he not have told them so, that they might have heard
the word before the next Sabbath. And when Paul came to Philippi, a
Gentile city, mind what is said in Acts 16:12, 13, _We were in that
city abiding certain days, and on the Sabbath day we went out of the
city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made, and we sat
down and spake unto the women that resorted thither._ The seventh day
hath its title still, as is said by the Spirit in Acts; speaking of
certain days, this is singled out and called the Sabbath day, with an
account how they spent it, and the blessing they received upon it;
they resorted to the place of prayer, and there they preached, and the
Lord opened Lydia's heart to attend to the words of Paul. And in Acts
17:2, it is said, _That Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,
and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures._ And
when Paul came to Corinth, which was a Gentile city, and found Aquila,
a Jew, and his wife Priscilla, and because they were of the same
craft, he abode with them, and wrought, for by occupation they were
tent-makers, _he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath day, and
persuaded the Jews and Greeks_. Acts 18:2-4. So that it is manifest,
that the Greeks kept the Sabbath as well as the Jews, and that though
Paul wrought at his trade and made tents, yet he rested every Sabbath
day; and as we have an account how he spent his time, namely, in
working at his trade, so we have an account how he spent his time on
the Sabbath. Now, if it be such a strong argument for the observation
of the first day, because Paul preached upon it once; what is this for
the observation of the seventh day, that Paul did not only preach
constantly upon it, but wherever the Spirit speaks of it he calls it
the Sabbath day, without the least hint that he did so out of
condescension to the weakness of others? And let it be shown by the
Scriptures that the apostles did countenance and own any shadow that
was done away, as they owned and countenanced the keeping of the
Sabbath, and we may follow the apostles as they followed the Lord in
this matter, though we have no express word that the churches kept it.
And, indeed, I think I may say in this case, as the Apostle said in
another, that it would have been superfluous for the apostles to have
told any people in their time that such and such a church kept the
Sabbath; it being a truth not so much as questioned, that we hear of,
but Jews and Gentiles both observed it. But now I cease answering
objections, as I have spoken to those that are the most material of
them that I have heard, and I shall proceed to another ground.

8. Consider the bondage and slavery that both man and beast would be
in if this doctrine were received for truth. Would it not now, however
have the tendency to bring the world more to atheism? Some men would
not allow themselves nor their servants time to rest, or hear the word
of God, if they were persuaded that there was no Sabbath; yea, and the
greater part of saints are left to the mercy of merciless men, most of
them being children, and wives, and servants; and they cannot
challenge a day in seven, or a day in seventy, as their right to rest
upon, and to worship the Lord in, from any commandment of God, if this
doctrine be true, that the Sabbath is abolished. And were this but to
bring a yoke of bondage upon us, that neither we nor our fathers were
able to bear, we should not so much as take notice at this time how it
goes in probability, for the way of numbering is by sevens.

But some will say, It is good to observe one day in seven, though it
be not a constant day. This will be confessed, for one to observe one
day, and another to observe another day, while others are for a
seventh day to be constantly observed. But why not the seventh day
which God hath commanded, for the seventh day is the Sabbath? It
plainly appears, that there is something of the table-law yet upon the
table of the hearts of most men, though worn by much transgression;
for men generally plead to have one day in seven to rest in, and yet
because of custom they contend against this holy, just law of God,
that was made in mercy for man. I am persuaded in my very heart, and
that not without good ground, that if the seventh day had been
observed as the first day is, no man that owns the Scriptures would
have questioned whether it ought to be observed or not, or at least no
opposition would have been made against it; and when all is said,
custom and worldly interest are the two great things that stand in
opposition to it.

9. And lastly, consider those great and precious promises made to them
that keep the Sabbath according to the inside and spirituality of it;
not that we are so to spiritualize it as to make void the letter, but
according to the letter, as Christ doth. For instance, he saith, _Ye
have heard that it hath been said of old time, Thou shalt not commit
adultery; but I say unto you, Whosoever looketh on a woman and lusteth
after her, hath committed adultery with her in his heart._ Now, if it
be adultery to lust, doubtless it is to act, and this is forbidden in
the commandment, for the commandment is, _Thou shall not commit
adultery_; but Christ unfolds this commandment, and gives such a sense
of it as the scribes and pharisees understood not. Again, the sixth
commandment is, _Thou shalt do no murder_; and John saith, _Whosoever
hateth his brother is a murderer._ John 3:15. Now, all murder was
forbidden in the commandment, yet this was not understood to be
murder; but John obeyed the spirituality of the commandment. And the
same may be said of the fourth commandment, _Remember the Sabbath day
to keep it holy_; all servile work is forbidden in it, and that the
pharisees understood; but they did not understand that works of mercy,
as curing the sick, and healing the diseased, might be done upon it.
Neither did they understand that inward and spiritual rest that was
held out in the commandment, as appears by the words of the Lord in
Isa. 58:13, 14, _If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from
doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the
holy of the Lord, honorable, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own
ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words._
So that the saints are not only to cease from outward work in their
callings, but also from works that are inward and spiritually wicked,
that so the Sabbath may be a delight unto them, the holy of the Lord,
honorable. And mark the promise that is to such Sabbath-keepers, in
the fourteenth verse, _Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord,
and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and
will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of
the Lord hath spoken it._ First, they shall delight themselves in the
Lord, and that will make the Sabbath a delight. Second, they shall
ride upon the high places of the earth; the high places of the earth
holding forth, as I conceive, the great opposition, whether of great
and mighty men, or great walled cities, according to that in Deut.
1:28, which hath an allusion to Israel's subduing the land of Canaan.
Deut. 32:13. Thou shalt ride upon them, that is, subdue and conquer
them. Psalm 45:4, 66:12. _They shall tread upon their high places._
Deut. 33:39. _They shall be as ashes under the soles of their feet._
Mal. 4:3. Now, when did the Lord's people do such work as this since
this prophesy? or, is it yet to be fulfilled?

Again, consider what the Lord saith in Isa. 56:6, 7, _Also the sons of
the stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to
love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth
the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant, even
them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my
house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be
accepted upon mine altar, for mine house shall be called an house of
prayer to all people._ By the sons of the stranger, I understand is
here meant Gentiles, who were strangers to the commonwealth of Israel
and afar off, but are now made nigh by the blood of Christ, and so
they join themselves to the Lord, and serve him, and love the name of
the Lord; these are such as keep the Sabbath, and take hold of God's
covenant, and it is such a Sabbath as may be polluted, and therefore
not Christ's, as some would have it. Now, the promises that are made
to these strangers, do look at clear gospel times.

They shall be brought into God's holy mountain, and there be made
joyful, when it is so mountainous that it is the house of prayer for
all people, or for all nations, as Christ saith in Matt. 11:17.
_Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that taketh
hold on it, that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth
his hand from doing any evil. Thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs
that keep my Sabbath, and choose the things that please me, and take
hold on my covenant, even unto them will I give a name and a place
better than of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting
name, that shall not be cut off._ Isa. 56:2, 4, 5. The eunuchs are
such as care for the things that please the Lord, when the married
careth for the things that please his wife. Cor. 7:32, 33. And when
two parts shall be cut off and die, the eunuchs that keep the Sabbath
shall have an everlasting name, which shall not be cut off.

Now, let us not think it incredible that the Sabbath should be yet in
force, because it hath been so long laid aside; it hath been so with
other truths, and so with this, before now. It seemed to be so out of
knowledge with Israel in the wilderness, that when the people had
gathered twice as much manna on the sixth day, they did not understand
the meaning of it; but the nobles came and told Moses, and he told
them what the Lord had said, that to-morrow should be the rest of the
holy Sabbath. And also, after their coming out of Babylon, when they
had built the house of God, and set it in order, placing the priests
and Levites, and had chosen faithful men to distribute the maintenance
to their brethren. Neh. 13:10, 13. In a word, their reformation was
much about the light of ours, and it is confessed by the enlightened
that it was a type of this reformation that the Lord hath begun
amongst us in these isles, namely, in bringing his people out of
Babylon, and building up of Zion; and, indeed, as their sins and ours
are alike in many things, so in this, namely in breaking the fourth
commandment; for Nehemiah saith, in chap. 13:15, that in those days he
saw in Judah some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and lading
asses, and bringing in sheaves, as also wine, grapes, and figs, and
all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem upon the
Sabbath day; and he testified against them in the day wherein they
sold victuals. Notwithstanding all the reformation, yet this was seen
in Judah. They had laid by the observation of the Sabbath, and had
made it a common working, market day, as may be seen at large in that
chapter. It was not in vain, therefore, that the Lord said, _Remember
the Sabbath_, he foreseeing how it would be slighted and forgotten,
not only by those that were brought out of literal Babylon, but also
by those that should be brought out of spiritual Babylon in the latter
days; and when the day of the Lord burns as an oven, it will be
remembered to some purpose. Mal. 4:4. In the mean time, the Lord is
stirring up some of his poor babes and sucklings. Such he is pleased
usually to discover truth unto at the first breaking out of it, and
they are to contend for it, though in much weakness.

But a word to the beginning and ending of the Sabbath. There are
various apprehensions about it, which, for brevity's sake, I shall
omit. The Scripture is plain, that from evening to evening is the set
time, or from the going down of the sun to the going down of the sun.
This is clear from the beginning, according to Gen. 1:5, _The evening
and the morning was the first day_. The evening and morning make a
complete natural day, and the evening goeth before the morning,
because the darkness was before the light.

_Obj._ But some will say, It is not said the evening and the morning
was the seventh day.

_Ans._ If the evening and the morning be the sixth day, the evening
and the morning must needs be the seventh day, unless we should think
that the seventh day hath no night belonging to it. Some think that
the reason why no mention is made of the evening of the seventh day,
is, because the Sabbath is a day of joy and delight, or an earnest of
the new Jerusalem state, wherein shall be no night. Rev. 21:25. Night
doth frequently, in the Scripture, hold forth a state of affliction,
but the Sabbath is a holy, sanctified time; on it the Creator rested
and was refreshed, and commanded the observation of it that his
creatures might be refreshed.

Nehemiah's practice is sufficient proof for the beginning of the
Sabbath at evening, (chap. 13:19,) who, when the gates of Jerusalem
began to be dark, commanded them to be shut till after the Sabbath.
And if you would know when the evening begins, the evangelist Mark
doth inform you in chapter 1:32, _At even, when the sun did set, they
brought unto him all that were diseased_. When the sun doth set, then
begins the evening, then begins the holy rest or seventh-day Sabbath.
So the disciples of Christ began the Sabbath; and so the Lord's
ancient people celebrate the Sabbath unto this day.

But what confusion are they in who say the Sabbath was changed from
the seventh day to the first day, and yet observe neither, but part of
the first day and part of the second day; for they begin their Sabbath
at midnight, when a good part of the first day is spent, and they end
at midnight, when a good part of the second day is spent; and yet they
will have this to be a Sabbath, yea, and a first day Sabbath, and will
highly charge a man to be an offender if he work one hour upon the
first day, though themselves work five; and thus we see how
anti-Christ hath changed times as well as laws; a first-day Sabbath
instead of a seventh-day Sabbath; instead of from even to even, from
midnight to midnight, when most are fast asleep, being insensible of
the beginning of their Sabbath, or the ending of it.

But, blessed be the Lord, that he hath revealed this his ancient,
useful, and honorable truth, to wit, the holy seventh-day Sabbath,
notwithstanding all the inventions of anti-Christ to bury it in
oblivion, and that he is pleased to separate a remnant, that are
resolved to search and try their ways, and to turn unto him, to follow
him in the ways of his precepts, (notwithstanding the dragon's wrath,)
who will not take things upon trust, nor go upon the legs of men, but
will try all things, and hold fast that which is good, for they are
virgins, and they will follow the Lamb, though their company be small
and their charge great. They will not be afraid of the Sabbath because
it was given to the Jews, any more than they are afraid of the
adoption, and the glory, and the promises, and the other nine lively
oracles, which were all given to the Jews. Rom. 9:4. And this I may
modestly say, to the praise of the Lord of the Sabbath, and without
boasting, that if the saints did know how the Lord delights to meet
with his people in this way of obedience in celebrating the Sabbath,
they would soon call the Sabbath _a delight, the holy of the Lord,
honorable_, and honor him by ceasing from their own works, as God did
from his, and doing those works which are suitable for the blessed
season. But I shall say no more at present, save only this, that
whoever they are that would follow the Lord in this appointment of
his, they must labor much in the strength of his Spirit to get this
world under them, for it stands in direct opposition to earthly men,
and earthly principles; therefore pray with the Psalmist, _Incline my
heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness_.




VINDICATION OF

THE TRUE SABBATH

IN TWO PARTS:

 PART FIRST,
 Narrative of Recent Events;

 PART SECOND,
 Divine Appointment of the Seventh Day.

 BY J. W. MORTON,
 LATE MISSIONARY OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

 NEW-YORK:
 PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR,
 AT THE SABBATH RECORDER OFFICE,
 No. 9 Spruce Street.


PART I.

NARRATIVE OF RECENT EVENTS


CHAPTER I.

On the 13th of December, 1847, I landed with my family in
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, the first Foreign Missionary of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church in the United States. I began my labors soon
afterwards, and continued them, without serious interruption, till the
21st of April, 1849, when a train of circumstances, to which I am
about to advert, made it necessary that I should return home.

In the latter part of December, 1848, I was unexpectedly called upon
to defend the practice of keeping holy the first day of the week, in
place of the seventh. I had been taught from my infancy, that the
moral law, "summarily comprehended in the ten commandments," is the
only rule of moral conduct; and I had supposed, that it required me
and everybody else to keep the "Christian Sabbath" on the first day of
the week. On examination, however, I was forced to the conclusion,
that the fourth commandment enjoins nothing else than the
sanctification of the seventh day. Of course, then, I must either
renounce this precept, as a part of the rule of my life, or endeavor
to keep holy the seventh day of the week. The former I might not dare
to do; the latter I knew I might _attempt_, without offending God, or
insulting the majesty of his law.

The question then came up, Is there any scripture authority for
keeping holy the first day? Does God require it? I knew very well,
that if God does _not_ require it, I could not, as a Reformed
Presbyterian, bind my conscience to it. I took up the Bible, resolved
on a prayerful and thorough search. I wished to assure myself of the
divine authority of the first day, even after I was satisfied that the
claims of the seventh are indisputable. But how was it possible to
gain this object? Every text to which I was referred for proof seemed
to lack the very thing that I most wanted, _a certain testimony to the
institution of a Christian Sabbath_. I reasoned thus:--The fact that
Christ appeared once or twice to his disciples on the first day of the
week, and the fact that the disciples met _once_ on that day to break
bread, and the fact that Paul commanded the Corinthians and Galatians
to 'lay by them in store' on that day, as God had prospered
them--these facts, with a few others, _might_ shed light on the
_institution_, if _one single text_ could be found, to prove its
_existence_. But if this can not be found, they do not touch the
question at issue. And how I did long for that _one text_! How I
chided with the Apostles for not having made known more clearly what I
had determined to be the will of God! Never did Rachel mourn for her
children, as I mourned for that _one text_; but, like her, I could not
be comforted, because _it was not_!

I was thus driven to the conclusion, that, should I make conscience of
keeping holy the first day of the week, I would offer to God a service
that he did not require, and could not accept at my hands.

But what was I to do? This was the great _practical_ question. Could
I, with my then present views, continue to preach the gospel, as I had
done before, in that "land of darkness, and of the shadow of death?"
Could I teach the children in the school, as I had taught them before,
that God had changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week? Could I
proclaim to the benighted heathen, that they might habitually break
the fourth commandment with impunity? Could I, as a Protestant
missionary, become the partizan of him who thought "to change times
and laws,"[14] by assuring his blinded devotees, that his changes had
been made by divine authority? Or, on the other hand, could I carry
out my convictions of truth and duty, declaring the whole counsel of
God, as I then understood it, and retain, at the same time, my
connection with my brethren at home? Would they grant me this
privilege, and, if they would, could I accept it?

A little reflection served to convince me, that all these questions
must be answered in the negative. It was no small matter, to resolve
upon breaking those bonds of ecclesiastical fellowship that had so
sweetly bound me to the Reformed Presbyterian Church. A struggle,
painful indeed, but not protracted, ensued. I resolved at once to keep
the Sabbath in my family, though I feared it would not be honest to
make any _public_ exhibition of my views, while I continued to
minister by the authority of the Synod. I know not what I should have
done, had not my change of sentiments brought with it the needed
consolations. Whatever were the "vexing thoughts" with which my heart
was oppressed, during the first six days of the week, I found
invariably, in the quiet retreat of my little family, on the seventh,
that "peace of God that passeth all understanding." Yes, Haiti, when
the recollection of thy brilliant skies, thy evergreen mountains, and
thy sweet clear rivers, shall have ceased to awaken joy in my bosom,
the memory of thy Sabbaths shall be "my songs in the house of my
pilgrimage!"


CHAPTER II.

Convinced as I was, that something must be done
immediately to bring the subject of my change to
the attention of the rulers of our church, before the
next meeting of Synod, I prepared the following
Circular Letter, which I transmitted to more than
seventy ministers and elders, in different parts of the
United States.

 CIRCULAR.

 PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, Jan. 17, 1849.

 MY DEAR BROTHER,--The mutual relation existing between us, as members
 of the same Synod, the glory of our common Lord, the interests of our
 Mission, and a sacred regard for personal character, all require,
 that the following statement be transmitted to you and my other
 co-presbyters, with as little delay as possible. If I am not actuated
 herein by a desire to promote God's glory and the salvation of men,
 may the Lord rebuke and forgive me, and "let the righteous smite me,
 it shall be a kindness!" May the Head of the Church grant to you, and
 to all the other members of Synod, a disposition to hear, with
 patience and candor, a narration of my recent experience, in which
 perhaps you _may_ find things both "new and old."

 My sentiments in relation to the "Sabbath of the Lord our God," have
 undergone an important change; to which I now wish to call your
 attention. Our Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Testimony, all
 teach that the first day of the week is, and has been ever since the
 resurrection of Christ, the Christian Sabbath. This doctrine _alone_,
 of all those contained in our Standards, though I did believe it till
 lately, I can no longer receive. As to the _manner_ of sanctifying
 the Sabbath, I believe all that you and I have always contended for;
 but, for the present, I am constrained to believe, that the seventh
 day of the week is the only weekly Sabbath that God has ever
 appointed.

 My attention was first called to this subject by Rev. W. M. Jones,
 Missionary of the Baptist Church, who has recently abandoned his
 earlier views and practice in regard to the Sabbath. He not only
 argued the question with me at length, but gave me some publications
 of the American Sabbath Tract Society, which, as they seemed to
 breathe a spirit of ardent piety and zeal for God's law, I read with
 attention. Both in my discussion with him, and in the reading of
 those tracts, I struggled with all my might to convince myself, from
 the Scriptures, of the divine appointment of the first-day, or
 Christian Sabbath. But though I did not then doubt it, I was
 astonished to find how hard it is to prove it.

 I searched all the books I could find, bearing on this question, and
 discovered, what I had never noticed before, that the early French
 and Genevan Reformers, with Calvin at their head, had taught the
 abrogation of the fourth commandment, as a ceremonial institution;
 and that they contended for a Sabbath, or stated day of worship,
 under the gospel, only as a wise and necessary human arrangement. I
 found that even Turretin, at a later period, had taught that the
 fourth commandment is _partly_ ceremonial, and that it was necessary
 to change the Sabbath from the seventh day, in order to put a
 difference between Jews and Christians. I found also, in my books,
 quotations, containing similar sentiments, from the celebrated
 Augsburg Confession. The only authors I could find who had attempted
 to prove, from the Scriptures, that the Sabbath has been changed from
 the seventh to the first day of the week, by divine authority, were,
 Turretin, and the framers of our Standards. Those authors appeared to
 depend _mainly_ for proof upon three texts of Scripture:--Acts 20:7;
 1 Cor. 16:1, 2; and Rev. 1:10. When I came to examine these texts, I
 was surprised and mortified, to find that they contain neither the
 word "Sabbath," nor any other synonymous with it. True, I had always
 thought that the "Lord's day," Rev. 1:10, was the first day of the
 week; but my opponents contended that the terms refer more properly
 to the seventh, which God styles "my holy day," Is. 58:13; and when I
 remembered "his challenging a special propriety in the seventh," I
 could not well deny it. Moreover, I could not find a single passage
 asserting that the first is holier than any other day of the week, or
 that Christians were, in the Apostles' days, in the habit of holding
 religious meetings _regularly_ on that day. Neither could I discover
 that Christ or his Apostles had ever spoken, directly or indirectly,
 of keeping a day holy in honor of his resurrection; nor that that
 event, which is always held up as the occasion of the change of the
 Sabbath, is even once mentioned in connection with the first day,
 unless where it is recorded as a historical fact. On the other hand,
 I observed that Christ and his Apostles _were accustomed_ to enter
 into the synagogue on the seventh day, or Sabbath, for public
 worship. Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2, and elsewhere.

 Thus, my dear brother, I saw at this critical moment all Scripture
 evidence forsaking me, while every inch of ground on which I could
 set my foot was trembling. It seemed as if the thunders of Sinai were
 uttering anew their awful threatenings, while the "still small voice"
 of "Him that dwelt in the bush" was whispering in my ears, "The
 _seventh_ day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10. "I am
 Jehovah, I change not." Mal. 3:6. "Verily, I say unto you, till
 heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
 from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18. Still I hesitated.
 For a moment I thought of "going down to Egypt for help." The
 Fathers, thought I, have fixed the interpretation of these texts in
 favor of the observance of the first day. But immediately I heard a
 voice within me, saying, "Would you then observe a holy-day, whose
 appointment cannot be proved from the Bible, without the aid of human
 tradition? Could you admit the 'testimony of the Fathers,' to set
 aside one of the plainest injunctions of the moral law, that law that
 was written upon tables of stone, 'by the finger of God,' and styled,
 by way of preeminence, '_the_ Testimony?'" No! I replied, with an
 involuntary shudder; and another flood of Scriptures came rushing in,
 like "deep waters," to the very soul. "The law of the Lord is
 perfect." Ps. 19:7. "Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."
 Ps. 119:89. "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and
 thy law is the truth." Ps. 119:142. "All his commandments are sure;
 they stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and
 uprightness." Ps. 111:7, 8. "Think not that I am come to destroy the
 law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matt.
 5:17. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea,
 we establish the law." Rom. 3:31. O my brother, "the word of God is
 quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword."

 You have now my reasons for embracing a doctrine which is confessedly
 at variance with our Standards. What I entreat of you is, that you
 will once more examine this subject for yourself, and see whether
 those Standards are consistent, on this point, either with the
 Scriptures, or with themselves.

 You perhaps think that I have forsaken the "footsteps of the flock,"
 and that testimony which has been sealed with the blood of martyrs.
 But tell me candidly, was there ever a martyr who died in defense of
 the first-day Sabbath? Or, could _you_, my brother, collect from the
 Scriptures evidence of its divine appointment, clear enough to solace
 your soul in the midst of the flames? From my inmost soul I pity that
 Covenanter who may be called to testify, at the stake, to the change
 of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.
 Remember, too, that I am now in the path that was trodden by the
 saints for more than four thousand years; and it is for _you_ to show
 that that path was ever stopped up, unless by the presumption and
 inexcusable neglect of man. Truly, I am "compassed about by a great
 cloud of witnesses." I would follow the example of Jehovah himself,
 who "blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," and by whom "the
 Sabbath was made for man;" the example of Adam, Enoch, and Noah; of
 Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs; of Moses, Aaron,
 and those millions of Pilgrim Covenanters who united in its
 observance in the wilderness; the example of Samuel, David, and a
 host of other prophets; of Jesus Christ, our Divine Mediator, and
 "Lord of the Sabbath;" and of the Apostles of our Lord, together with
 the churches established and watered by them;--in one word, the
 example of all the saints, from Adam to the last Apostle; all of whom
 kept and honored the seventh day as "the Sabbath of the Lord their
 God," and, having finished their course with joy, are entered into
 that heavenly rest, of which that Sabbath was, and still is, an
 emblem.

 I intend, if the Lord will, to be present at the next meeting of our
 Synod, and meet my brethren face to face. I expect, of course,
 nothing less than to be excluded from the privileges of the church;
 but I rejoice that I have learned to respect the discipline of the
 Lord's house. I desire, therefore, with a willing heart to approach
 the altar, and, if the Head of the Church require it, to be "offered
 upon the sacrifice and service of your faith," that God may be
 glorified in my salvation, and not in my destruction. God forbid,
 that either prejudice, willful ignorance, passion, or personal
 resentment, should fan the flames of that altar!

 In conclusion, rest assured of my continued and unabated attachment
 to the cause of the Reformation, in general, and to the interests of
 the Reformed Presbyterian Church, in particular; and allow me to
 repeat what I have already intimated, that with every other doctrine
 contained in our Standards I am, so far as I understand my
 profession, entirely satisfied; nor have I abandoned _this one_, but
 from a firm conviction that it is not taught in God's Word. I know
 well, that trials sore and many await me. God doth know, that my
 heart delighteth not in contention; but, my brother, have we not all
 "entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which
 was given by Moses, the servant of God, and to observe and do all the
 commandments of the Lord our God?" Neh. 10:29.

 Your Brother in Gospel bonds,
 J. W. MORTON,
 Missionary of the Ref. Presb. Church


CHAPTER III.

On the 21st of April, 1819, I set sail, with my family, from
Port-au-Prince, bidding farewell to Haiti and her children, whom
perhaps we shall never see again in this vale of tears. We arrived at
Boston, all in good health, on the first Sabbath in May.

On the evening of Tuesday, May 22, the Synod was convened in
Philadelphia; and the next morning I appeared and took my seat with
the other members.

After noon, the same day, Rev. David Scott stated to Synod, that I had
made known a change of views in relation to the Sabbath, and moved
that a committee of three be appointed to confer with me, and report
what farther action should be taken in the case.

While this motion was pending, I stated, in substance, that, as I was
alone in a Synod of more than sixty members, without a single man to
plead my cause, I thought I had a right to _demand_ that the
proceedings should be instituted in strict accordance with the letter
of the law. I was here interrupted by the Moderator, who, having
informed me that I had no right to dictate to the Court the method of
proceeding with its own business, peremptorily ordered me to take my
seat. I obeyed, of course, though I could not see what dictation there
was in demanding a legal trial, according to the printed rules of
Synod. The motion was carried, and the committee appointed.

Next morning, May 24, I had a conference of half an hour with this
committee, and at noon another, that lasted about the same time. Their
principal object seemed to be, to ascertain whether I was ready to
_recant_, and submit to censure for my past errors, I assured them,
that while I had not the slightest wish to withdraw from the communion
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, I adhered to every word in my
Circular, and must continue to do so, till convinced of error by the
infallible scriptures. The committee quoted several texts, and advised
me to read several authors, after which our conference was closed.

After noon they presented their report, recommending that the
following Libel be preferred against me by Synod:--

 LIBEL PREFERRED AGAINST J. W. MORTON.

 Whereas, denying that the first day of the week is the day on which
 the Christian Sabbath should be kept, is a heinous sin and scandal,
 contrary to the Word of God, and the Profession of the Reformed
 Presbyterian Church, founded thereon--_Acts_ 20:7, "And upon the
 first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break
 bread," &c.; _Shorter Catechism_, "From the beginning of the world to
 the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week
 to be the weekly Sabbath, and the first day of the week ever since,
 to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath."

 Yet true it is, that you, Rev. J. W. Morton, are guilty of the
 scandal above stated, in so far as you, the said J. W, Morton, at
 Port-au Prince, Haiti, 17th of January, 1849, did publish a Circular,
 in which you oppugned and denied that the first day of the week is
 the Christian Sabbath, which being found relevant, and proved against
 you, you ought to be proceeded against by the censures of the Lord's
 House.

 A true copy. By order of the Synod.
 [Signed] JOHN WALLACE, Ass't Clerk.

After some discussion, the above Libel was decided to be relevant, and
the Clerk was directed to serve a copy on me, with citation to appear
for trial the next day, after noon.

       *       *       *       *       *

I went to my lodgings that evening with a heavy heart, I was
convinced, from the spirit of determined opposition that had been
manifested by many of the brethren, when the Libel was under
consideration, that the majority had already determined that I should
not be permitted to "speak for myself." True, I knew very well that
the Apostle Paul had once enjoyed this liberty, through the cool
civility of a Roman Governor, and afterwards, through that of a Roman
King; but I knew just _as_ well, that Felix and Aggrippa were
heathens, while my brethren are Christians; and that the dignity of a
court, composed of "worms of the dust," has been much better
understood, since the famous "Diet of Worms," than ever before.

Still, I could not forbear asking myself, Why is there now such bitter
opposition to an Institution that was once the delight of both God and
man? Why do men hate with such perfect hatred what Jehovah made, and
blessed, and sanctified, before sin had entered into the world? Why
should _this_ daughter of Innocence be spurned, from every door, and
loaded with the damning reproach of Judaism, while her twin sister,
Marriage, sucks the breasts, and is dandled upon the knees of
Orthodoxy? Why should I be ranked with thieves and murderers, for
believing that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord my God?"
Bitter were the tears that flowed; and more bitter still was the
reflection, that "when I wept, that was to my reproach."

I was hedged in round about, and what could I do? I could only
exclaim, with the "sweet Singer of Israel," "Let not them that wait on
thee, O Lord God of Hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that
seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy
sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a
stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For
the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them
that reproached thee are fallen upon me." Never shall I forget the
sensation experienced while the last sentence was passing through my
mind: "_And the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen
upon me_." I know not how often, during that night, I repeated these
words, and compared them with the exhortation of the Apostle: "Let us
go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach."
These were the comforts, that, "in the multitude of my thoughts within
me," then delighted my soul. I was about to go forth "without the
camp;" and it was indeed refreshing, in that hour of trial, to
believe, that I was bearing a portion of the same burden that had once
bowed down the "Man of Sorrows."


CHAPTER IV.

My trial came on after noon, May 25th. The following extract from the
published Minutes of Synod is, I believe, a correct, and sufficiently
full, account of the final issue; only it makes no mention of the fact
that I protested against the proceedings, and appealed to the head of
the Church, for reasons to be given in afterwards. Why this fact was
not recorded, I have not been able to ascertain.

 EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF SYNOD.

 Order of the day, viz., the case of Mr. Morton, called for. The libel
 was then read by the Clerk; when Mr. Morton having, in reply to the
 Moderator, answered that he was prepared for trial, the substance of
 the libel was again stated in his hearing. Mr. Morton was then called
 upon, according to the rule provided for in such cases, either to
 confess the charge or put himself upon his trial. Mr. Morton in
 return acknowledged that he had denied that the day commonly called
 the Christian Sabbath is so by Divine appointment, and then proceeded
 to plead the irrelevancy of the charge by endeavoring to prove the
 perpetuity of the law for the observance of the seventh day. While so
 doing, he was arrested by the Moderator, who informed him that the
 charge contained in the libel was such that Mr. Morton could only
 prove its irrelevancy to censure by proving that the appropriation of
 the first day of the week, known as the Christian Sabbath, to secular
 employments, or teaching so to do, is not relevant to censure, which
 attempt the Moderator would consider disorderly, and would not allow.

 From this decision J. M. Willson appealed, when the Moderator's
 decision was unanimously sustained. Upon this Mr. Morton declined the
 authority of the court.

 _Resolved_, That Mr. Morton's appointment as missionary to Haiti be
 revoked.

 _Resolved_, That inasmuch as Mr. Morton has now publicly declined the
 authority of this court, he be suspended from the exercise of the
 Christian ministry, and from the privileges of the Reformed
 Presbyterian Church.

 The Moderator then publicly pronounced the sentence of suspension on
 Mr. Morton, agreeably to the above resolution.

Not long afterwards I presented to the Moderator the following Reasons
of Protest and Appeal, with a request that he would allow them to be
laid before the court, which he utterly refused to do.

 REASONS OF PROTEST AND APPEAL.

 I do respectfully protest against the action of Synod in my case, on
 the 24th of the present month, and appeal therefrom to the Lord Jesus
 Christ, the King and Head of the Church, for the following reasons:--

 1st. Because I was not allowed to prove the irrelevancy of the charge
 made against me, by an appeal to the Bible, "the only rule of faith
 and manners."

 2nd. Because I believe that the statements, on the subject of the
 Sabbath, set forth in our subordinate standards, are inconsistent
 with one another, and in part contrary to the Word of God: yet it was
 by these unscriptural portions, that I was tried and condemned.

 Brethren, I entertain no hard feelings towards you. My daily prayer
 to God is, that you may be saved, and led into all truth. I did hope
 that you would hear and consider the claims of the Lord's holy
 Sabbath, when presented in a mild and affectionate manner. But either
 I have failed to present the question with sufficient tenderness, or
 you have determined to avoid all discussion in regard to it.

 It grieves me to the soul to bid you farewell. Both God and man will
 bear witness, in the day of final reckoning, that you have trampled
 down, by the resistless force of an overwhelming majority, one who
 was endeavoring with both hands to hold up the standard of the great
 Covenant God of our fathers. But though for the present cast down, I
 am not dismayed. The Sabbath of the Lord God is a richer treasure
 than the richest you can either give or take away. "Rejoice not
 against me, O mine enemy; when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in
 darkness, the Lord will be a light unto me. I will bear the
 indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he
 plead my cause, and execute judgment for me; he will bring me forth
 to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness."

 Brethren, I shall meet you before the judgment seat of Christ, on
 that day when he shall come "with ten thousand of his saints."
 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they
 also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail
 because of him. Even so, amen."

 J. W. MORTON

 PHILADELPHIA, MAY 29th, 1849.

REFLECTIONS.

I did believe, and believe yet, that, had I been sustained by twenty
ministers and as many congregations, I should have had leave to defend
myself to my heart's content. But it was very evident to the Synod,
that I stood alone. They knew that I could do them no harm, by
fomenting discord; and--may I not add?--they knew that I was not the
man to be found employed in such a work. The only loss they could
sustain, in cutting me off, with all my adherents, was that of two
adults and as many little children. Indeed, many of the members
_seemed_ to regret the _trouble_ far more than the _necessity_ of
executing the law; and one aged father has remarked to me since, that
till then he never witnessed a trial, before a church court, in which
_there was not one atom of mercy_.

Now, is there not a reason for all this? Unquestionably there is. The
loose and unpresbyterial doctrine, that a majority has a right to
determine what _is_, and what _is not_ truth, and that the greater the
majority in favor of any dogma, the more firmly its truth is
established, has leavened, sadly and extensively, even the Reformed
Presbyterian Church. This is the reason why one who represents a lean
minority cannot be heard, even in defense of ecclesiastical life. The
majority have said, that the first day is the Sabbath, and who dare
call in question the assertion? A man may be denounced as a
covenant-breaker; yet, because he belongs to a small minority, he may
not attempt to prove his innocence of the crime. Thus the right of the
minority to vindicate themselves from the Scriptures, in defense of
which many of the old Covenanters bled, is practically denied by their
descendants. "O Lord, how long!"

Brethren, are you really so wedded to this _majority principle_? Know,
then, that _God is a majority_; and that those that are with _me_ are
more than those that are with _you_. God's testimony is worth more
than that of all men. What though millions _have_ affirmed, that the
seventh day is NOT the Sabbath? _He_ hath left us this imperishable
testimony: "The seventh day IS the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." And
this is the testimony of the _greatest majority_ that ever gave
utterance to truth. But God hath not left himself without other
witnesses. Where are those myriads of angels who were present when
"the Sabbath was made for man?" Where are those "morning stars" who
"sang together," and those "sons of God" who "shouted for joy," when
our Father "laid the foundations of the earth?" They are not _now_
present with us, 'tis true, to bear their testimony; but they _will
be_ present, when you and I shall appear before the judgment seat of
Christ, to hear the decision of this controversy. And do you think
that you will then dare, on the authority of what is said in Acts
20:7, to lift up your hands, and swear "by Him that liveth forever and
ever," that the Sabbath has been "changed into the first day of the
week"--and that, too, in presence of those who saw the foundations of
the ancient Sabbath, like those of the earth itself, laid and balanced
upon God's eternal decree, and inwrought with the very stones of "the
everlasting hills?" No! No!! The Sabbath was one of those _pillars_ of
the ancient earth, which Christ, the Mediator, seized with the hand of
his omnipotence, and bare up, when "the earth and all its inhabitants"
were sinking into nothing. I repeat it--and who dare gainsay it?--the
Lord of Hosts is an overwhelming _majority_!

But this is not all. There is, indeed, no _greater_ witness than
these; but there is _other_ witness. Look into your own hearts, ye
children of God, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and you will find
recorded there: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;
in it thou shalt not do any work." "For this is the covenant that I
will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord;
I will put _my laws_ into their mind, and write them in their hearts."
Here there is not the least hint of any exception. The same moral law
that was written "with the finger of God," on tables of stone, is now
written "by the Spirit of the living God," on the fleshly tables of
_your_ hearts. Yes, brethren, turn your eyes inward, and you will
read, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou
shalt not do any work." If you say, We have sought this law, but find
it not--O brethren, you have not "sought it carefully with tears." It
is hidden among the rubbish, and you will never find it, till that be
removed. But I speak what I do know, when I assure you, that it _is_
recorded there; and in the day of the Lord Jesus, if not sooner, you
will find it there, to your unspeakable joy and satisfaction. O Lord,
"open thou our eyes, that we may behold wondrous things out of thy
law."


PART II.

DIVINE APPOINTMENT OF THE SEVENTH DAY


INTRODUCTION.

The following pages, containing a brief discussion of a small but
intensely interesting portion of the Sabbath controversy, are designed
especially for the perusal of those Christians, styled orthodox, who
do not keep holy the seventh day of the week.

Dear brethren, this is a subject of fearful importance. If the views
herein advocated are correct, _you_ are guilty both of breaking and of
teaching men to break one of God's holy commandments; if they are
incorrect, I am no less guilty. Need I say any thing more to convince
you that you ought to give this subject a candid and prayerful
examination? "Ye are the light of the world;" take heed, brethren,
that your light be not darkness! You know--you cannot but know--that
there is much, _very much_, said in the Bible about the Sabbath, and
that men are very often commanded to keep it holy. You must know,
also, that God has said in the fourth commandment, "The _seventh day_
is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work;"
and that, for more than four thousand years, no other day of the week
ever claimed to be holy. Moreover, you cannot but know, if you have
read the Bible carefully, that the first day of the week, which you
call "the Christian Sabbath," is _very seldom_ mentioned; that there
are only six passages in which the name occurs, and that four of these
may be viewed as one, being the records of the same events, by
different Evangelists; and how can you have failed to notice the fact,
that in not one of these six passages are we, or any of our
fellow-creatures, commanded to keep the first day holy? Yet you are
convinced that the first day of the week is _the very Sabbath-day_,
while among all those Scripture commands, before referred to, you find
nothing to sustain the claims of the seventh. O brethren, you "put
darkness for light, and light for darkness." Let us bow before the
mercy-seat of Him who is the Author of life and light, and, renewing
our personal covenant with him, plead his precious promise: "If ye
continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

I shall endeavor, in the following pages, to establish the truth of
the following proposition:--

_That the seventh day of the week is the only weekly Sabbath of God's
appointment._

I intend to present and enforce _four reasons_ for believing this
proposition:--

First--Because the original Sabbath law requires the sanctification of
no other day.

Second--Because Adam and all his posterity have solemnly covenanted to
keep holy the seventh day.

Third--Because Christ and his Apostles honored this day; and did not
intimate that it would ever cease to be the Sabbath, but the contrary.

Fourth--Because God has never blessed and sanctified any day of the
week but the seventh.

As the discussion is limited by design to a narrow range, you will
please to bear in mind, that the following points are assumed as
true:--

First--The Sabbath was instituted before the fall of man.

Second--Adam represented all his posterity in the covenant of works.

Third--The Sabbath law is perpetual, "binding all men in all ages."

Fourth--The seventh day was the _only_ weekly Sabbath for at least
four thousand years.

Lord, sanctify us by thy truth. May the Holy Ghost, the Comforter,
whom thou sendest in the name of thy Son our Lord, abide in us and
preside in this controversy. May he teach us all things, and bring all
things to our remembrance. May all bitterness, and wrath, and malice,
and evil-speaking, be far from us; and may we love one another with
pure hearts fervently--for Christ's sake. Amen.


CHAPTER I.

PROPOSITION.

That the seventh day of the week is the only weekly sabbath of God's
appointment.

_First Reason._

My first reason for believing this proposition is, That the original
Sabbath law, referred to in Genesis 2:2, 3, and embodied in Exodus
20:8-11, requires the sanctification of no other day.

 Genesis 2:2, 3.--"And on the seventh day (_on day the seventh_) God
 ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day
 (_on day the seventh_) from all his work which he had made. And God
 blessed the seventh DAY (_the day the seventh_,) and sanctified it:
 because that in IT he had rested from all his work which God created
 and made."

 Exodus 20:8, 11.--"Remember the Sabbath-DAY, (_the day of the rest,
 or Sabbath_,) to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all
 thy work; but the seventh day (_day the seventh_) is the Sabbath
 (_rest_) of the Lord thy God: _in it_ thou shalt not do any manner of
 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 (_on day the
 seventh_;) wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-DAY (_the day of
 the rest, or Sabbath_,) and hallowed IT."

The only object, direct or indirect, of this commandment, is "_the
day_." What are we commanded to remember? "The day." What are we
required to keep holy? "The day." What did the Lord bless and hallow?
"The day." In what are we forbidden to work? In "the day," Now let us
inquire--

1. What day? _Not_ the day of Adam's fall; nor the day Noah went into
the ark; nor the day of the overthrow of Sodom; nor the day of the
Exodus; nor the day of the Provocation; nor the day of the removal of
the ark; nor the day of Christ's birth; nor the day of his
crucifixion; nor the day of his resurrection; nor the day of his
ascension; nor the day of judgment. It may be, and certainly is,
proper, that we should remember all these; but we are not told to do
so in this commandment. Neither is it some one day of the week, but no
one in particular; for how could we remember "_the_ day," that is no
day in particular?--how could we keep holy "_the_ day" that has not
been specified?--and how could we say that God had blessed and
hallowed "_the_ day," that was no one day more than another? What day,
then? God says, Remember _the Sabbath-day_, or _the day of the
Sabbath_; Keep holy _the day of the Sabbath_; The Lord blessed and
hallowed _the day of the Sabbath_. He also says, _The seventh day_ is
the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; _in it_ thou shalt not do any work.
This day, therefore, is "the seventh day," or "the day of the Sabbath."

2. What Sabbath? Not "_a_ Sabbath," or any Sabbath that man may
invent, or that God may hereafter keep; for that would be "some
Sabbath," but no one in particular. Not some institution yet
undetermined, that God may require man to observe weekly; for the
command is not, "Remember the Sabbath institution," but, "Remember the
_day_ of the Sabbath;" not, "Keep holy the Sabbath institution," but,
"Keep holy the _day_ of the Sabbath." The Lord did not bless and
hallow "the Sabbath institution," but "the _day_ of the Sabbath." We
are not forbidden to do work in "the Sabbath institution," but in "the
_seventh day_." In fact, the phrase "the Sabbath," in this
commandment, means neither more nor less than "the rest." It is not
_here_ the name of any institution at all, though it is often thus
used in other parts of the Bible. Hence, this Sabbath is "the Sabbath
or rest of the Lord thy God."

3. Which day of the week is "the day of the Sabbath?" No other than
that day on which the Lord rested; for the command refers to God's
Sabbath, On which day of the week did he rest? "And he rested on the
seventh day." Genesis 2:2. Therefore, "the day of the Sabbath" is the
same day of the week on which God rested from the work of creation;
and as he rested on the seventh day of the first week, and on no
other, the seventh and no other day of every other week must be the
only "day of the Sabbath."

Let it be particularly observed, that God does not say, Remember the
Sabbath, or, Remember the Sabbatic institution, though this is
necessarily implied in the command; but, Remember "the day of the
Sabbath"--the day on which I have ordained that the Sabbatic
institution be observed. As if he had said, There is little danger,
_comparatively_, that you will forget the fact of my having kept
Sabbath; nor is it likely that you will altogether neglect to observe
_some day_ of rest from your arduous toils, for you will be driven to
this by the ever returning demands of your exhausted bodies; but you
are, and always will be, in especial danger of forgetting the proper
day of the week for honoring me in my own institution. Satan, who
takes infinite delight in all kinds of "will-worship," while he hates
with a perfect hatred every act of strict obedience to my law, will do
all he can to persuade you that some other day will do just as well,
or even better. Remember, therefore, the day of my Sabbath, and keep
the same day holy in every week; for--mark the reason--I have myself
rested on the seventh day, and on that account I have blessed and
sanctified that and no other day of the week, that you may observe it,
and keep it holy, not because it is in itself better than any other
day, but because I have blessed and sanctified it.

But you say that the phrase, "the Sabbath-day," or "the day of the
Sabbath," does not mean any particular day, but "one day in seven," or
some one of the days of the week. You alledge that "the day of the
Sabbath," like "the Pope of Rome," "the Emperor of Russia," or "the
King of Denmark," is a generic term, alike applicable to all the
members of the same class. The phrase, "the Emperor of Russia," you
say, refers alike to Peter, to Alexander, and to Nicholas, though only
one of them could be Emperor at any given time; so "the day of the
Sabbath" refers alike to the seventh and to the first day of the week,
though there never was but one Sabbath at any one time. This is a very
ingenious and plausible method of evading the force of the Divine
testimony; but, as the reasoning by which it is sustained appears to
be entirely sophistical, I cannot but look upon the whole thing as a
fabrication. I believe that any man, possessing the requisite
qualifications, _may_ become "Emperor of Russia," but deny that any
day but one _can_ be the day of God's Sabbath, inasmuch as God had
never kept, at that time, but one Sabbath, and that occupied only one
day. There is only one day of American Independence; only one day of
the Resurrection of Christ; only one day of the birth of any one man;
and only one day of Judgment. And why? Because American Independence
was declared on but one day; Christ rose on but one day; the same man
cannot be born on two different days; and God hath appointed only one
day in which he will judge the world. Now, on the same principle,
there can be but one "day of the Sabbath" of the Lord our God. If I
should say that the day of Christ's Resurrection is not any particular
day of the week, but only "one day in seven," you would not hesitate
to call me a fool, while my ignorance would excite your deepest
sympathy; but when _you_ say that "the day of the Sabbath" does not
mean that particular day on which the Lord's Sabbath occurred, but
only "one day in seven," you expect me to receive your assertion as
the infallible teaching of superior wisdom. I cannot, however, so
receive it, for the following reasons:--

1. If God had meant "one day in seven," he would have said so. His
first and great design, in writing his law on tables of stone, was to
be understood by his creatures; but, for more than two thousand years
after he gave the law, no human being ever suspected that "the day of
the Sabbath" meant anything else than the seventh day of the week,
because it was commonly known that that day alone was in reality "the
day of the Sabbath." Indeed, this "one-day-in-seven" doctrine is known
to have been invented within a few hundred years, with the pious
design of accounting for a change of Sabbath, without the necessity of
repealing a portion of the moral law. It is matter of great surprise,
that those pious theologians, who first substituted "one day in seven"
for "the day of the Sabbath," did not shudder at the thought of
presuming to mend the language of the Holy Ghost. "The words of the
Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified
seven times." Ps. 12:6. Brethren, are you prepared to enter into
judgment, and answer for the liberties you have taken with God's word?
In substituting the vague and indefinite expression, "one day in
seven," for the definite and unequivocal terms, "the Sabbath-day," and
"the seventh day," you have as truly taken "away from the words of the
prophecy of this book," as if you had blotted the fourth commandment
from the Decalogue; while your leading object has been, to make way
for the introduction of a new command that, for aught the Scriptures
teach, it never entered into the heart of the Almighty to put into his
law. "A faithful witness will not lie," and when the world asks, Which
day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath? God
expects that you, as faithful witnesses, will not only "not lie," but
that you will not equivocate, or give with the gospel trumpet "an
uncertain sound." He does not expect that you will quote a text from the
Acts of the Apostles, that says not one word about Sabbath-keeping, to
prove that the fourth commandment enjoins the keeping holy of "one day
in seven," but of "no day in particular."

2. God never blessed "one day in seven," without blessing a particular
day. He either blessed some definite object, or nothing. You _may_
say, indeed, without falsehood, that God blessed "one day in seven;"
but if you mean that this act of blessing did not terminate on any
particular day, you ought to know, that you are asserting what is
naturally impossible. As well might you say of a band of robbers, that
they had killed "one man in seven," while in reality they had killed
no man in particular. No, brethren, yourselves know very well, that
God had not blessed and sanctified any day but _the seventh of the
seven_, prior to the giving of the written law. You know, that if God
blessed any day of the week at all, it was a definite day, distinct
from all the other days of the week. But this commandment says, that
"the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day." Therefore the Sabbath-day must be
a particular day of the week. Therefore "the Sabbath-day" is not "one
day in seven," or an indefinite seventh part of time. Therefore it is
not "one day in seven" that we are required to remember, and keep
holy, and in which we are forbidden to do any work; but "the seventh
day" of the week, which was then, is now, and will be till the end of
time, "the day of the Sabbath" of the Lord our God.

3. No day of the week but the seventh was ever called "the day of the
Sabbath," either by God or man, till long since the death of the last
inspired writer. Search both Testaments through and through, and you
will find no other day called "_the_ Sabbath," or even "_a_ Sabbath,"
except the ceremonial Sabbaths, with which, of course, we have nothing
to do in this controversy. And long after the close of the canon of
inspiration, the seventh day, and no other, was still called "the
Sabbath." If you can prove that any one man, among the millions of
Adam's children, from the beginning of the world till the _rise of
anti-Christ_, ever called the first day of the week "_the Sabbath_,"
you will shed a light upon this controversy, for which a host of able
writers have searched in vain.

But, farther; the first day of the week was not observed by any of the
children of men, _as a Sabbath_, for three hundred years after the
birth of Christ. Do you ask proof? I refer you to Theodore de Beza,
who plainly says so. If you are not satisfied with the witness, will
you have the goodness to prove the affirmative of the proposition?

I infer, therefore, that "the day of the Sabbath," or "the
Sabbath-day," is the proper name of the seventh day of the week, as
much so as "the day of Saturn;" and that to attach this proper name
_now_ to some other day of the week, and to affirm that God meant that
other day, as much as he did the seventh, when he wrote the law on
tables of stone, is as unreasonable as it is impious. If you say, that
when God speaks of "the Sabbath-day," he means "one day in seven, but
no day in particular," you are as far from the truth as if you said
that, when he speaks of Moses, he does not mean any particular man,
but "some one of the Israelites." Moses _was_ one of the Israelites,
just as the Sabbath-day _is_ one day in seven. But when God says
Moses, he means Moses the son of Amram; and when he says "the
Sabbath-day," he means the seventh day of the week. You _may_ give
different names to the same object, without interfering with its
identity; but to apply the same name to two different objects, and
then to affirm that these two objects are identically the same, so
that what is predicated of the one must be true of the other, is as
though a navigator should discover an island in the Southern Ocean,
and call it "England," and then affirm that the late work of Mr.
Macaulay, entitled "The History of England," is a veritable and
authentic history of his newly-discovered empire. Which would you
wonder at most, the stupidity or the effrontery of that navigator?

I cannot close this chapter without reminding you that, in attempting
to refute the above reasoning, the main thing you will have to show
is, that "the Sabbath-day," or "the day of the Sabbath," is an
indefinite or general expression, applicable alike to at least two
different days of the week, and that it is used indefinitely in this
commandment. If it has been proved, that "the day of the Sabbath"
refers, and can refer, _only_ to the seventh day of the week, then it
is true, and will remain forever true, that the original Sabbath law
requires the sanctification of no other day. This is the truth which I
undertook to exhibit in this chapter, and is my first reason for
believing the proposition under consideration.


CHAPTER II.

_Second Reason._

My second reason for believing this proposition is, That Adam and all
his posterity have solemnly covenanted to keep holy the seventh day.

 Genesis 2:15-17--"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the
 Garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it. And the Lord God
 commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest
 freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
 shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
 shalt surely die."

 Romans 5:12, 19--"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the
 world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that
 all have sinned." "For as by one man's disobedience many were made
 sinners; so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous."

 Galatians 3:10--"For as many as are of the works of the law, are
 under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that
 continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law
 to do them."

On these passages it may be remarked--

1. "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound
him, _and all his posterity_ to personal, exact, _entire_, and
_perpetual_ obedience."

2. "This law, after his fall, continued to be _a perfect rule of
righteousness_; and, _as such_, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai
in ten commandments, and written in two tables." Therefore, the fourth
commandment and the Sabbath law of the covenant of works are _one and
the same law_; and all believers in Christ are now bound by this law,
_as a rule of life_, to remember and keep holy the _same Sabbath-day_
that Adam and all his posterity covenanted to remember and keep holy.

3. You admit that Adam, _and all his posterity_, pledged themselves to
keep holy the seventh day of every week, _and no other_. Therefore,
_we_ are all born under a solemn obligation, our own obligation in
Adam, to keep holy that same seventh day of every week as long as we
remain on earth: "_Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve
but much strengthen this obligation_."

4. It is now too late to alter the covenant of works, by substituting
some other day of the week for the seventh, for the following
reasons:--

First--Because the whole transaction was finished, in the person of
our representative, nearly six thousand years ago. The covenant was
made, the obligation assumed, the deed of transgression consummated,
the curse pronounced, and the bitter _death_ experienced, in _kind_,
though not _in degree_, and all this before the first revelation of
the mercy of God in Christ. We are, therefore, all of us, the very
moment we are born, accursed of God, for not having kept holy the
seventh day of the week, according to our covenant. And all who are
not redeemed therefrom by Christ, remain forever under this curse.
From which it is plain, that to substitute some other day for the
seventh, since the fall of man, is as impossible as it would be to
substitute _some other tree_ for the "tree of knowledge." To all who
admit that God made a covenant of works with all mankind _in Adam_,
these truths ought to be self-evident. Brethren, _we_ acknowledge that
we are all guilty before God of having eaten of the fruit of the tree
of knowledge, while we disclaim _any guilt whatever_ in regard to the
fruit of every other tree; so are we guilty of violating the rest of
the seventh day of the week, while we are not by nature guilty of
polluting any other day.

Second--Because such substitution would destroy an integral part of
the moral law. The law written on the heart of man said nothing about
keeping holy any other day than the seventh; for all admit that, had
Adam not fallen, there never would have been any other holy day. If,
then, this law does _not now_ require the sanctification of the
seventh day, _the fourth commandment must have been annihilated_; and
if another day is _now_ the Sabbath, a new commandment, requiring _for
a new reason_ the sanctification of a different day, must have been
substituted in its place. But this new law can be _no part of the
moral law_, because it was _not written on man's heart_, nor did any
human being know of its existence till thousands of God's people had
been taken home to glory. God gave to Adam _free permission_ to labor
and do work on every day but the seventh, and he, as a free moral
agent, accepted the proffered boon. Therefore, to labor on any one of
the first six days of the week is, under the covenant of works, _as
innocent in itself_ as to pray to the Creator of the Universe. It is
as much a natural and inalienable right, as "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." Now, if there is a law that requires the
keeping holy of some other day, it must have its origin in the
new-covenant grace of God; and if that other day, and not the seventh,
is _now_ the Sabbath, men are _now_ no more under a _natural_
obligation to keep a Sabbath than to be baptized, or to celebrate the
Lord's Supper. The obligation to keep it _must_, on your principle,
grow out of their new-covenant relation to God in Christ.

Let us now look for a moment at the consequences flowing from the
doctrine, that some other day--the first, for example--has been
substituted for the seventh. "Try the spirits." "By their fruits ye
shall know them."

1. If this doctrine be true, the doctrine _that Adam represented all
his posterity, must be false_; for, if Adam covenanted, as you admit
he did, to keep holy the seventh day of every week, and _we_ are not
bound to do so, he certainly did not represent us, neither in that nor
in any other part of the covenant; for, if we did not promise in Adam
to keep holy the Sabbath-day, we did not promise to keep any thing
else.

2. If this doctrine be true, _there is now no such thing as original
sin_. This follows as a matter of course; for, if Adam did not
represent us, we are not _born sinners_. The fact might be proved in
another way, but this is enough.

3. If this doctrine be true, and the law of the new Sabbath bind "all
men," as you say it does, it must bind _the heathen_, who are a part
of "all men." But if there is a new Sabbath instituted, it can only be
made known through the written word of God, of which the heathen _can
know nothing_. This new Sabbath has never been made known to them, nor
to any of their ancestors. Nevertheless, you say that they are bound
to observe it, _according to the written word_, and that they shall be
punished to all eternity for breaking it; which is contrary to the
teaching of the Apostle, (Rom. 2:12,) that the heathen shall be judged
and condemned, not by the written word, but by _the law of nature_,
which you know can reveal no Sabbath but that of the seventh day; for
Adam, who understood the law of nature better than any other mere man,
never thought of keeping holy any other day. And, moreover, the
heathen have, on your principle, only nine commandments to obey or
disobey; for they are under the law of nature, which says, "Keep holy
the seventh day:" but you say that God does not _now_ require this:
therefore they are released from the obligation. And, what is stranger
still, the heathen have no means of knowing that to keep the seventh
day _is a work of supererogation_. These are _a few_ of the
consequences of your doctrine of a change of Sabbath. What must be the
character of that tree which yields such fruits!

Let us now attend for a moment to your objections.

Do you say, Those who believe in Christ are redeemed, not only from
the curse of the Sabbath law, but also from the obligation to obey it
in future? If so, who can tell but we are redeemed from _every other_
moral obligation?

Or, do you alledge, that Christ makes a new contract with the sinner,
saying, If you keep holy the first day, I will release you from the
obligation to sanctify the seventh? "Do we then make void the law
through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law," Rom. 3:31. But
perhaps you say, To change the Sabbath from one day to another is not
to make void the law; it is only to vary its application. I reply, It
_is_ to make void, to _annul_, to _annihilate_, one tenth part of that
law that God wrote on Adam's heart; for, as has been shown already,
that law required him to keep no day holy but the seventh.

Or, do you plead that, as God _has_ substituted the Lord Jesus Christ
for the sinner, without violating the moral law, so he _may_ have
substituted some other day for the seventh? I reply, The cases are not
parallel; for--

1. The substitution of Christ does not render a change of any part of
the law necessary; but the other does. Christ "came not to destroy"
the law, but to fulfill it; and in fulfilling it, he honored the
seventh day: but the substitution of some other day for the seventh,
had it taken place before Christ came, would have released him, as
well as us, from the obligation to obey a part of the law of the
covenant of works.

2. A change of Sabbath is not, like the substitution of Christ,
_necessary_ to the salvation of sinners; for God had saved thousands
before this change is alledged to have taken place.

3. The substitution of Christ changes the moral condition _of the
church only_; but the change of Sabbath would affect the moral
relations of all men; for the Sabbath was made, not for the church,
but "for man."

4. The evangelical doctrine of the substitutionary sacrifice of
Christ, of itself, proves the impossibility of a change of Sabbath.
All evangelical Christians hold, that believers are delivered, through
Christ, from the _curse_ of the law--the law of the covenant of
works--_but not from the obligation to obey it_. If, therefore, that
law required _Adam and his posterity_ to keep holy the seventh day of
the week, Christ has never redeemed them from the obligation to render
"_exact obedience_," in this particular, as in every other.

Do you plead, as a last resort, that, as the command not to eat of the
fruit of the tree of knowledge has passed away, so it may be with the
law of the seventh-day Sabbath? I reply, The cases are not parallel;
for that command never was a part of the moral law. It was never
written, either on man's heart, or on tables of stone; but this was.
Besides, the tree of knowledge has been destroyed from the face of the
earth, so that to eat of its fruit is now impossible; but the seventh
day will continue to return "while the earth remaineth."

Brethren, you bewilder yourselves and others, by adopting, as a moral
axiom, the false principle, that whatever is in its nature positive,
is _for that reason_, changeable. There is no principle more deadly
than this. Do you not know, that all our hopes, as Christians, for
time and for eternity, are suspended on the _immutability_ of that
_positive arrangement_ between the Father and the Son, which we call
the covenant of grace? Are not the decrees of God all _positive_, yet,
at the same time, immutable? So, also, the _Sabbath law_, though in
its nature positive, has been made unchangeable, by a solemn covenant
arrangement, "in which it was impossible for God to lie." If God had
not made the law, requiring the sanctification of the seventh day, an
essential part of the covenant of works, your doctrine of a change of
Sabbath would not be so preposterous. As it is, how can serious,
thinking men, help viewing it as a monstrous and impious absurdity!


CHAPTER III.

_Third Reason._

My third reason for believing this proposition is, That Christ and his
Apostles honored this day; and did not intimate that it would ever
cease to be the Sabbath, but the contrary.

1. Christ honored this day.

 Luke 4:16--"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up:
 and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the
 Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read."

 Luke 4:30, 31; (See also Mark 1:21)--"But he, passing through the
 midst of them, went his way, and came down to Capernaum, a city of
 Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath-days."

 Luke 13:10--"And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the
 Sabbath."

 Mark 3:1, 2--"And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was
 a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him whether
 he would heal him on the Sabbath-day."

 Mark 6:2--"And when the Sabbath-day was come, he began to teach in
 the synagogue."

2. The Apostles honored this day. Read carefully the following
passages and their contexts.

 Acts 13:14--"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch
 in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and sat
 down."

 Acts 13:44--"And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city
 together to hear the word of God." (That is, to hear Paul and
 Barnabas preach.)

 Acts 14:1--"And it came to pass in Iconium, that they (Paul and
 Barnabas) went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so
 spake, that a great multitude, both of the Jews, and also of the
 Greeks, believed."

 Acts 16:23--"And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river
 side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake
 unto the women which resorted thither."

 Acts 17:2--"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three
 Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures."

 Acts 18:4--"And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath,
 and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks."

Brethren, if you produce one solitary apostolic example of unnecessary
labor performed on the seventh day, I will at once give up the
argument in its favor.

3. Neither Christ nor his Apostles intimated that the seventh day
would cease to be the Sabbath.

This being a negative assertion, I am not bound to prove it, of
course. If you assert that they did, I demand the proof of it.

4. Christ has very plainly intimated the contrary.

 Matthew 24:20--"But pray ye that your flight be not in winter,
 neither on the Sabbath-day."

The "flight" here spoken of was to take place about the time of the
destruction of Jerusalem; and the Saviour admonishes his disciples to
pray that it might not happen on the Sabbath-day. Now, if he knew that
the Sabbath-day would be changed into the "Lord's day," forty years
before the event he had just alluded to, why did he speak of it as a
thing that would be then in existence? Many are the efforts that have
been made to evade the force of the argument from this text; but they
are all unavailing.

 Matthew 5:17, 19--"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
 the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I
 say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall
 in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever
 therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
 teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but
 whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in
 the kingdom of heaven."

It is almost universally admitted, that the Saviour, in these verses,
refers principally to the ten commandments, which were then, as now,
called, by way of preeminence, "_the_ law." That he may have referred
also to the ceremonial code, which he came to fulfill, we do not deny.
But this has nothing to do with our present purpose.

That the fourth commandment enjoins the sanctification of the seventh
day of the week, no man in his senses denies. But you alledge that
that part of it has been taken away, so that it does not now bind us.

Now, in making this assertion, you either affirm what is positively
denied in the above quotation, or you make this commandment at least
_partly_ ceremonial, and _peculiar to the Jews_. This will appear
evident from the following considerations:--

First--The command to keep holy the seventh day of the week, is far
more than "one jot or one tittle" of this law. It could be no less,
but it is much more. Indeed, it is very certain, that Adam considered
it a very important part of the law; and so did Christ, when he
uttered those words, for he kept the Sabbath as devoutly as Adam ever
did.

Second--Heaven and earth have not yet passed away; but you say that
this seventh-day law has; therefore, much more than "one jot or one
tittle" has passed from the law--which is contrary to Christ's
assertion.

Third--If you say that Christ has fulfilled this law, and so taken it
away, you make it a ceremony, like the Passover. You know that Christ
never fulfilled, _so as to take away_, any law but those that he
"nailed to his cross," and that he never nailed to his cross any law
that bindeth "all men in all ages." If, then, the law requiring the
sanctification of the seventh day of the week has been nailed to the
cross of Christ, it must have been a ceremony peculiar to the Jews,
and to which the Gentiles were never bound. Was Adam a Jew? Was Enoch
a Jew? Were Noah and his sons Jews? But these all kept the seventh
day, _and no other_.[15]

Brethren, it has been proved, in the first chapter of this treatise,
that the fourth commandment requires simply the observance of the
seventh day of the week. I will not repeat what is there said. I now
ask you, as candid inquirers after truth, to place this commandment
and our Saviour's declarations, quoted above, side by side, and see if
_your_ conduct is not at war with both. You neglect the only day that
God's law requires you to remember, while Christ assures you, in the
most solemn manner, that "one jot or one tittle" shall in no wise pass
from the law, "till heaven and earth pass," or till time shall be no
more.

There is a little commandment in that law that says, "The seventh day
is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work."
Christ says, that whosoever doeth and teacheth this commandment "shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven." But this hath been my only
crime. God knows, and you know, that the only thing I have done to
offend you is, that I endeavor to refrain from doing work on the
seventh day, and to "teach men so." Yet for this I am declared to be
the "least in the kingdom of heaven," and no longer worthy of a seat
at the table of Him who said, that "one jot or one tittle" should _in
no wise_ pass from the law.

Blessed be God! it is a light thing to be judged of man's judgment.
But I confess that sometimes my blood runs cold, when I think of this
solemn declaration of the same "Lord of the Sabbath," (John 12:48,)
"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that
judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in
the last day." "Never man spake like this man." O, brethren, are you
ready for that awful judgment day? Nothing but God's _word_ will avail
you there. If you are determined to go on, appropriating the seventh
day to secular purposes, and "teaching men so," I cannot help it; but
I call heaven and earth to witness, that, in regard to every reader of
these pages, my skirts are henceforth clear. On your own souls will
rest the responsibility of rejecting these solemn words of Christ. And
you who are ministers--how will you answer for the wanderings of those
lambs of Christ's fold, whom you are leading into strange pastures?


CHAPTER IV.

_Fourth Reason._

My fourth reason for believing this proposition is, That God has never
blessed and sanctified any day of the week but the seventh.

In sustaining this reason, as I occupy negative ground, I shall simply
defend it against your usual scripture arguments in defense of your
favorite doctrine, that God blessed and sanctified the first day of
the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ.

In arguing this doctrine, you do not pretend to offer _positive_, but
only _inferential_ proof. You quote certain texts, and say, Hence we
infer that the first day of the week is the Sabbath. Now, as there are
many possible, and even plausible, inferences, that are not
necessarily true, I intend to be governed, in the examination of your
scripture proofs, by the following rule of interpretation:--

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own
glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down
in scripture, or _by good and necessary consequence_ may be deduced
from scripture."

Brethren, I intend, with God's help, to show that, according to the
above rule, which you admit to be correct, all your inferences in
favor of a first-day Sabbath are _unnecessary_, and some of them
wholly inadmissible.

YOUR FIRST PROOF.

 Hebrews 4:9, 10--"There remaineth, therefore, a rest (sabbatism) to
 the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath
 ceased from his own works, as God did from his."

Your premises consist of four assertions:--First, That the rest, or
sabbatism, that remaineth, is something different from the ancient
Sabbath. Second, That the person who "hath ceased from his own works,
as God did from his," is the Lord Jesus Christ. These two assertions I
most cheerfully admit. Third, That Christ entered into his rest on the
day of his resurrection. Fourth, That the sabbatism of God's people is
enjoyed in this life. These last two assertions I utterly deny.

Your inference is, That the first day of every week, that being the
day of the week on which Christ rose, is the sabbatism of God's
people. Of course, if I prove that the last two assertions are false,
your inference will be shown to be inadmissible.

I assert, then,--

1. That Christ did _not_ "enter into his rest" on the day of his
resurrection; for the following reasons:--First, Because the
Scriptures do not say so. Second, Because this earth is not the place
of his rest. He was, to the last day he spent here, "a pilgrim and a
stranger in the earth," and had not therein "where to lay his head."
But his resurrection took place on earth, and he continued on earth
for "forty days" afterwards. Third, Because the scriptures plainly
teach, that the Mediator _did_ "enter into his rest," when he "sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb. 1:3. "Arise, O
Lord, into thy rest; thou and the ark of thy strength." Ps. 132:2.
This was the prayer of David and the congregation of Israel, when they
removed the ark from the house of Obed-Edom to the place "that David
had pitched for it." When Solomon and the Elders of Israel brought up
the ark from the city of David, and placed it in the holy of holies,
in the temple "made with hands," they prayed in like manner, "Now
therefore arise, O Lord God, into thy resting-place, thou, and the ark
of thy strength." 2 Chron. 6:41. Now the ark was a type of Christ,
while "heaven itself" is the true "holy of holies," "whither the
forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever
after the order of Melchizedek." Heb. 6:20. If, then, the ark entered
into its rest, when it was placed in the holy of holies, Jesus Christ,
the anti-typical ark, entered into _his_ rest when he sat down on the
right hand of God, in the anti-typical holy of holies. Fourth, Because
the Apostle's great design, in this epistle, was to convince the
church, and especially the Hebrews, that Christ, having "by himself
purged our sins," as they all admitted he had done, "sat down on the
right hand of the Majesty on high," (ch. 1:3,) as our ever-living
Intercessor. Yes, the "one idea," that runs through the whole Epistle,
is to illustrate and magnify the doctrine of the glorious intercession
of Christ the Mediator, who, "after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God." Do you ask proof?
Take, then, the apostle's own assertion, (ch. 8:1,) "Now, of the
things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such a high
priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in
the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle,
which the Lord pitched, and not man." All that is said in the third
and fourth chapters, about the rest of Christ and the sabbatism of the
people of God, is included in this summary; so that it is to Christ's
eternal rest in the heavens that the verses under consideration refer.
Indeed, we have evidence of this fact, satisfactory enough, in the
immediate context, (ch. 3:4,) "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of
the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our
profession, Christ Jesus"--compared with ch. 4:14--"Seeing, then, that
we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus
the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Fifth, Because there
is not, in this epistle, one solitary reference to the resurrection of
Christ, except in the concluding benediction; but it abounds in
references to his ascension and intercession.

2. If I have reasoned correctly above, your assertion, that the
sabbatism of God's people is enjoyed in this life, scarcely needs
refutation. As Christ entered into his rest, when he received the
crown of glory from the Father; so believers shall enter into his
rest, when they "shall be glorified with him." Moreover, as Christ did
not enter into his rest on the first day of the week, your inference,
that that day is the Sabbath, is not only _unnecessary_, but wholly
inadmissible.

Bear in mind also, brethren, that, if Christ did not enter into his
rest on the first day of the week, then your great philosophical
argument for the first-day Sabbath, founded upon the fact, that the
work of redemption is greater than that of creation, vanishes at once
into smoke, or, at least, becomes useless for your purpose.

YOUR SECOND PROOF.

 Psalm 118:22, 24--"The stone which the builders refused is become the
 head-stone of the corner." "This is the day which the Lord hath made,
 we will rejoice and be glad in it."

 Acts 4:10, 11--"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of
 Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye
 crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man
 stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at
 nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner."

You premise, that "the day which the Lord hath made" is the day of the
resurrection of Christ. Whence you infer, that the first day of the
week is the Sabbath.

1. If what you premise were true, the inference does not follow. The
prophet does not say, We will rejoice and be glad in the same day of
every week; but, We will rejoice and be glad _in it_, that is, in that
day, whatever it may be. Now Christ did not rise on the first day of
every week, but on one single day; and we may very well rejoice and be
glad in that one day, without keeping any Sabbath in connection with
it. Abraham rejoiced and was glad in the day of Christ; but he kept no
Sabbath in honor of it. So, doubtless, _you_ rejoice and are glad in
the day of his crucifixion, though you do not celebrate it on any
particular day of the week. But--

2. You are evidently mistaken in referring this language of the
Psalmist to the resurrection of Christ--for the following reasons:--

First--Because "the day which the Lord hath made" is the same in which
Christ went in by the gates of righteousness. Verses 19 and 20. "Open
to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will
praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall
enter." Now, though Christ _did_ come up from "the gates of death" on
the day of his resurrection, he _did not_ formally "enter" by "the
gates of righteousness," till that day when he ascended from Mount
Olivet, which was not the first day of the week. His almighty power
and eternal Sonship were declared most gloriously on the day of his
resurrection; but it was on the day of his ascension that his
mediatorial righteousness was formally approved by the Father; while
it was visibly manifested, in the presence of the universe, that the
door of heaven had been opened to all true believers. Then shouted the
seraphim, and all the host of heaven, while the door-posts of the New
Jerusalem trembled at the voice, "Arise, O Jehovah, into thy rest,
thou, and the ark of thy strength. Let thy priests be clothed with
righteousness; and let thy saints shout for joy!" Therefore, this is
not the day of Christ's resurrection, but that of his ascension.

Second--Because "the day which the Lord hath made" is the same in
which "the stone which the builders refused" became "the head-stone of
the corner," (verse 22.) Christ did not become "the head of the
corner," till he "sat down on the right hand of God." You assert that
he did, and refer to Acts 4:10, 11, quoted above, as proof. From what
the apostle there sets forth, you draw the inference, that, as he was
set at nought by the builders, when he was crucified, so he became the
head of the corner, when God raised him from the dead. The apostle
does not say, however, that this took place on the same day that he
rose from the dead; and all that we must _necessarily_ infer from what
he _does say_, is, that he became the head of the corner since his
resurrection, which is cheerfully admitted. But whether it was on the
same day, or two, or ten, or forty days after, the apostle saith not.
Still your inference would be entirely natural and proper, if it were
not contrary to the analogy of faith, and to the teachings of the same
spirit in other parts of the Scriptures.

I suppose it will be admitted, that when Christ became the head of the
corner, he became "the head over all things to the church," and that
then "all things were put under his feet." Now the apostle clearly
teaches, that these things took place when he sat down on the right
hand of God, as appears from the following texts:--

 Ephesians 1:20-22--"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him
 from the dead, (or, having raised him from the dead,) and set him at
 his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all
 principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that
 is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
 and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over
 all things to the church."

 Hebrews 2:8, 9--"But now we see not yet all things put under him
 (man;) but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels,
 for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." Observe,
 that the Apostle's great object in this epistle is, to show that
 Christ is _in heaven_, forever interceding for the church.

Now, is it not manifest from these texts, that Christ became the head
of the corner when he ascended to his Father and our Father, to his
God and our God? Nor is there any thing in Acts 4:10, 11, that
contradicts this idea.

Brethren, the glorious building of grace has its foundation, not on
earth, where we are pilgrims and strangers, but in heaven, where
Jesus, the corner-stone, "elect and precious," sitteth at the right
hand of God, and is constantly occupied in gathering from afar the
"lively stones" of the glorious edifice. Blessed forever be his holy
name!

YOUR THIRD PROOF.

 John 20:19, 26--"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of
 the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled
 for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith
 unto them, Peace be unto you." "And after eight days again his
 disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus; the
 doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto
 you."--See also Luke 24:26.

You premise, that the disciples, on the two days referred to above,
one of which certainly was, and the other may have been, the first day
of the week, had met together for public or social worship, when
Christ appeared to them. Whence you infer, that the first day of the
week is the Sabbath.

Now, what you premise _seems_ to be a mere assumption, for which there
is not a shadow of proof, either in the text or context. No one of the
Evangelists says that they met for worship; nor did they worship, so
far as we know, when met together. In regard to the first of those
occasions, we are told, that they "were assembled for fear of the
Jews;" and, as to the second, we are simply informed, that they "were
within," which means, probably, that they were _at home_; for Luke
tells us, that, on the day of the ascension, the eleven "abode" in an
upper room. Acts 1:13.

Again, your inference is not _necessary_; for the matter may be
explained thus: On the day of the resurrection, the eleven, having
procured a common lodging-room, "assembled for fear of the Jews;" and
Christ appeared to them before the close of the same day, in order
that they, who were to be witnesses of his resurrection, might have
ocular demonstration of the fact, that he rose "according to the
scriptures." On the other occasion, "after eight days," he met them,
probably, "as they sat at meat," (Mark 16:14,) because Thomas, who had
not seen him since his resurrection, was then with them.

These reasons are surely sufficient to account for his appearing on
those occasions. But why demand reasons at all? Had he not a right to
meet his disciples on any day of the week that he chose, without
telling us why? Can you tell us why he appeared to the brethren when
they were fishing? Christ has done many things for which the only
reason we can give is, that it seemed good to him.

YOUR FOURTH PROOF.

 Acts 2:1--"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were
 all with one accord in one place."

Your premises are--1. That the Feast of Pentecost fell that year on
the first day of the week. 2. That the disciples were, _for that
reason_, with one accord in one place. Whence you infer, that the
first day of the week is the Sabbath. I reply--

Whether the Feast of Pentecost fell that year on the first day of the
week, or not, the disciples did not meet to keep the Sabbath, but to
celebrate Pentecost. They would have been, in like manner "with one
accord in one place," if it had been the fourth day of the week,
because it was the day of Pentecost. Therefore, your inference is not
only _unnecessary_, but wholly inadmissible.

YOUR FIFTH PROOF.

 Acts 20:7--"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples
 came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to
 depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

You premise, that the disciples came together, in this instance, to
celebrate the Lord's Supper, and to hear the word. Whence you infer,
that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

What you premise is very uncertain; for--

1. There is no evidence that they met to hear the word. The object of
the meeting was "to break bread;" and the preaching of Paul seems to
have been _incidental_, and not by appointment.

2. It is not certain that "to break bread" means to partake of the
Lord's Supper. The Greek word, translated, _to break_, is used very
often in the New Testament in reference to ordinary meals. An instance
occurs in Luke 24:35--"And they told what things were done in the way,
and how he was known of them _in breaking of bread_."

But if what you assert were true, your inference is not _necessary_;
for--

1. It is entirely proper, for aught we know to the contrary, to
celebrate the Lord's Supper and hear preaching on any day of the week.

2. Perhaps this meeting was held at that particular time, because the
Apostle and his company were "ready to depart on the morrow." It was
probably a farewell meeting, as many learned men think, and the text
itself _seems_ to hint.

3. There is not one word said in the text about Sabbath-keeping; nor
is there the least intimation, either in the text or context, that the
disciples were _accustomed_ to meet on the first day of the week for
any purpose whatever.

But you say, Paul waited there seven days, and we have no account of
his preaching till the last night of his stay, which was the first of
the week. We reply, This is no evidence that he did not preach during
the other six days. Luke tells us, in this same chapter, verses 2 and
3, that "he came into Greece, and there abode three months;" and he
does not say that he preached once during that time. But a small part,
indeed, of the doings of the Apostles is recorded.

It is a remarkable fact, that this text, which is the only one in the
New Testament that speaks of public religious exercises on the first
day of the week, is, at the same time, the only one in the Bible that
directly proves, that this day is _not_ the Sabbath. I have already
proposed to give up the argument in favor of the seventh day, if you
produce one apostolic example of unnecessary labor performed therein.
Will you give up your argument for the first day on the same
condition? I believe this verse furnishes such an example.

The text proves nothing for you, if Paul's sermon and the breaking of
bread were not on the first day. The sermon was preached between
evening and midnight, and the bread was broken between midnight and
break of day, and then Paul set out on his journey. According to the
Roman method of computing time, the breaking of bread, at least, was
in the morning of the same day in which Paul traveled from Troas to
Assos, and thence to Mitylene; and, according to the Jewish method,
the sermon, the breaking of bread, and the journey from Troas to
Mitylene, were all within the compass of the same "first day of the
week." That Luke should follow the unnatural Roman method, is so
unlikely as hardly to be supposable. Now, if Paul traveled
unnecessarily from Troas to Mitylene, as it seems he did, on the first
day of the week, surely that day was not then the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment. This text, therefore, _proves positively that the
first day is not the Sabbath_, on which account it is of no little
value in this controversy.

YOUR SIXTH PROOF.

 1 Corinthians 16:2--"Upon the first day of the week, let every one of
 you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no
 gatherings when I come."

Your premises are--1. That the Apostle here commands the Corinthians
to make public collections on the first day of the week. 2. That,
therefore, public assemblies were accustomed to be held on that day.
Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

I deny both your premises. The apostle simply orders, that each one of
the Corinthian brethren should lay up _at home_ some portion of his
weekly gains on the first day of the week. The whole question turns
upon the meaning of the expression, "by him;" and I marvel greatly how
you can imagine that it means "in the collection box of the
congregation." Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term,
"_by one's self, i. e. at home_." Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and
that of Castellio, render it, "_apud se_," with one's self, at home.
Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy,
"_chez soi_," at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, "_bei
sich selbst_," by himself, at home. The Dutch, "_by hemselven_," same
as the German. The Italian of Diodati "_appresso di se_," in his own
presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, "_en su casa_," in his
own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, "_para isso_," with himself.
The Swedish, "_naer sig sielf_," near himself. I know not how much this
list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one
translation that differs from those quoted above. Now, if your
premises are false, your inference is not only _unnecessary_, but
wholly inadmissible.

YOUR SEVENTH PROOF.

 Revelations 1:10--"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day."

You premise, that the "Lord's day" is the first day of the week.
Whence you infer, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath.

You here assume the principal point in dispute, namely, that God has
appointed the first day of every week to be kept in commemoration of
the resurrection of Christ. Is every Friday the "Lord's day," because
he was crucified on Friday? You answer, No. Is every Thursday the
"Lord's day," because he ascended on Thursday? You answer, No. So,
when you ask, Is every first day of the week the "Lord's day," because
he rose on the first day? I answer, No. And is it too much that I
should ask you to prove your assumption? I have never yet met with an
attempt to prove it.

But, were this even proved, your inference would not be _necessary_.
The first day _might_ be the "Lord's day," and yet not the Sabbath.
Would the bare mention of this day by the Apostle John, even if it
were certain that he referred to the first day of the week, repeal or
alter the fourth commandment? Certainly not. But you ask, What day did
he mean? I reply, Most probably he meant the seventh, since we know
from several scriptures that this _is in fact the Lord's day_. See
Nehemiah 9:14, and Isaiah 58:13. But you ask again, Why did he not say
"the Sabbath," if he meant it? I reply by asking you, Why did he not
say "the first day," if he meant it?

Brethren, who can say, that, from any or all of the texts commented
upon above, the inference is _necessary_, that the first day of the
week _is_, and that the seventh _is not_, _holy_? But this is
precisely what _you_ infer from them. On the sole authority of these
passages, together with that one in which Christ says, that he is
"Lord of the Sabbath," you have no hesitation in affirming that the
first day of the week is the very Sabbath day spoken of in the fourth
commandment, and that the seventh day of the week is not _now_ more
holy than any other; or, in other words, that the blessing which God
put upon it in the beginning, (Gen. 2:21,) has been taken from it, and
given to another day. What! because "there remaineth a sabbatism to
the people of God," therefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to be
the Sabbath! Because "we will be glad and rejoice" in "the day which
the Lord hath made," therefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to
be holy! Because Christ showed himself to his disciples once or twice
on the first day of the week, therefore the seventh day _cannot_ be
the Sabbath! Because the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Ghost
happened on the first day of the week, as is clearly demonstrated by
arithmetical calculation, therefore the seventh day _cannot_ claim to
be the Sabbath! Because the disciples met _once_ "to break bread" on
the first day of the week, therefore God _must_ have unsanctified the
seventh day! Because the Corinthian and Galatian Christians were
commanded to "lay by them in store" on the first day of the week, for
the relief of the poor saints, therefore the seventh day _can be
nothing more_ than a working day! Because John was "in the spirit on
the Lord's day," therefore the seventh day _cannot_ be "the Lord's
day," as it used to be! Because Jesus Christ is "Lord of the Sabbath,"
and has the right to change it, or even to annihilate it, (?)
therefore the seventh day _must_ have ceased to be a day of rest! O
brethren, you dare not say, that any of these inferences flow from the
Scriptures as _necessary consequences_. But if they are not
_necessary_--if there is any way of avoiding them, without doing
violence either to the text or context--how _can_ you ask me to
believe that the first day _is_, and that the seventh _is not_, holy?


CONCLUSION.

"The Sabbath was made for man." I am a man; therefore, the Sabbath was
made for me. God has blessed and sanctified _the seventh day_ of the
week, and commanded me to keep it holy _for that reason_; therefore,
as long as the seventh day continues to be divinely blessed and
sanctified, I am bound to keep it holy. But it is nowhere said in the
Bible that God has removed the blessing from this day, or that he has
unsanctified it. _You_ say so, indeed; but you are neither the authors
nor the finishers of my faith; nor will your unsupported assertion, a
thousand times repeated, amount to a divine revelation. If you assert
that it is the will of God that I should cease to regard the seventh
day as holy, I ask, Where is this revealed? What Prophet or Apostle
has said so, _directly or indirectly_? It is not enough for you to
answer, that the first day has been blessed and sanctified, as a
memorial of the work of redemption. That assertion, if it were true,
would not prove that the seventh day _is not holy_. No, brethren, your
own conscience must tell you, that there is not one syllable in the
Bible on which to ground the doctrine that God has _unsanctified_ the
seventh day of the week.

But one of your ministers has told me, that God did not bless and
sanctify any particular day of the week, but only the Sabbath
Institution. To this I have only to say, "Let God be true, and every
man a liar." The Holy Ghost says, (Gen. 2:2,) "And God blessed the
_seventh day_, and sanctified it;" and again, (Exod. 20:11,)
"Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath DAY, and hallowed it." Now, if
you assert, with these scriptures staring you in the face, that God
never blessed and sanctified any particular day, but only the Sabbath
Institution, do you not make God a liar, in order to excuse your own
rebellion? O brethren, I perceive that these texts are an eye-sore to
you, and that in your hearts you wish they were out of the Bible. If
you loved them you would not flatly contradict them. I appeal to your
own consciousness, is it not your great effort, when you take up the
fourth commandment, to convince yourselves and others, that God's
Spirit _does not mean_ what he says, in as plain language as any
Sabbatarian could employ; that is, that 'the seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' And, when you take up these passages in
the New Testament, which have been considered above, do you not labor
to convince yourselves, that the same Spirit _does mean_ what he _does
not say_; that is, that the first day is the Sabbath?

You do not believe that what God says a dozen times, or more, _can_ be
true; but you are sure, that what he _does not say even once_ is
infallibly true; and that nothing but stupidity or scepticism would
presume to doubt it. When you are told that the seventh day is the
Sabbath, and the testimony of God's Spirit, plainly uttered in one
dozen passages, together with the uniform practice of the church as
long as we can trace the inspired history of the Sabbath, is offered
in proof of the assertion, you shut your eyes, and declare that you
can see nothing, and that all this proves nothing. But when you tell
me, that the first day _is_, and that the seventh _is not_, the
Sabbath, and quote, as proof, Acts 20:7, and a few other passages, not
one of which says one word about the Sabbath, or the seventh day, or a
day of rest, or holy time, or exercises which are proper only on the
Sabbath, you affirm, that you have proved your position beyond all
doubt, and that the only reason why I cannot see the evidence is
because the vail of Judaism is over my eyes. The moral law says, "The
seventh day is the Sabbath;" but you say, "No, the seventh day is not
the Sabbath; you do not understand the law; you mistake its meaning."
Neither that law, nor any other in the Bible, says, "The first day is
the Sabbath." Notwithstanding, you dare to lift up your hands, and
swear by the living God, that the first day _is_ the Sabbath. But this
is not all. Oh! that it were! The Holy Ghost has said, not only in the
record that God made on Adam's heart, and in the covenant of works,
but also in the written law given at Mount Sinai, and in several other
passages of Scripture, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy
God." But you have repeatedly sworn by the infinite, eternal, and
unchangeable Jehovah, that _this assertion is not true_--that the
seventh day is _not_ the Sabbath of the Lord our God--that it is a
common working day. Because I can no longer join you in this
heaven-daring oath, you have declared me unworthy of the confidence of
a Christian people, and forbidden me to perform any longer the
functions of a missionary of the cross. You have told the church,
that, having violated my ordination vows, I have forfeited my
ministry, and that my seat at the Lord's table is vacant. You have
thus flung upon the heedless winds the mad-dog cry of "suspended
minister," "covenant-breaker," and "disturber of the church's peace."

But think not, brethren, beloved in the Lord, that the treatment which
I have received at your hands shall deter me from proclaiming what I
believe to be God's truth, as God may give me utterance. That you wish
to do what is right, I do not doubt. That you believe you do God
service in thrusting me from your Christian embraces, is evident
enough. That many of you love me yet, and pray for me, I can but hope.
But that you all sin in not searching the Scriptures daily to see
whether these things are so, I do firmly believe.

And now, brethren, I cannot close this treatise without uttering a
word of warning to every one of you, which will, I fear, be very
generally disregarded by you. Yet "wo is me" if I utter it not! Do
not, I beseech you, be angry at any thing I have written, or refuse to
hear my parting words because I am a "suspended minister." You have
loaded me with reproach, not because I have committed any crime, but
because I have plead for the integrity and immutability of the moral
law. I am neither a thief, nor a murderer, nor a robber of churches,
but I do most firmly believe, that the seventh day is the Sabbath of
the Lord my God, and that you, and all others who do not keep it holy,
are guilty before God of a gross violation of the moral law. And can
I, under those circumstances, regard your reproaches as a legitimate
expression of the Divine displeasure? No. That I am really unworthy of
the gospel ministry, I confess. That I am not sufficient for these
things, I know. But, after having been regularly called to this
responsible work, I will not be driven from it, for such a cause. Know
then, ye rulers in the house of God, that I am still a minister of
Jesus Christ, sent forth to proclaim the terrors of God's law to the
rebellious and impenitent, and to promise the grace of the gospel to
the penitent and believing. Know also, ye professors of the Christian
religion who neglect the sanctification of the seventh day, and
especially ye ministers of Jesus who "teach men so," that you make
dark what God has made plain; that you pluck out of the hand of God's
schoolmaster one of those rods wherewith he would lash the carnal
heart; that you hide one of God's candles under a bushel, and compass
yourselves about with sparks, and a fire of your own kindling; that
you provoke the Holy Spirit, in rejecting his testimony, and teaching
for doctrine the commandments of men. Yes, brethren, though my words
fall upon your ears as an idle tale that you believe not, I declare to
you, in the name of Him whom your doctrine dishonors and your
philosophy insults--in the name of that _suspended Minister_, to whom
all the ends of the earth shall look for salvation--that, if you
repent not, the Holy Ghost will bear witness against you, in the awful
day of retribution, that you have refused his words, and that you have
"put darkness for light, and light for darkness!"

Think not that I am your enemy, because I thus speak. Think not that I
have no confidence in your piety, because I rebuke you sharply. Think
not that I am proud, boastful, and self-confident, because I dare to
approach _you_, who are vastly my superiors in knowledge, and remind
you of your duty. I would gladly have avoided this public exhibition
of my sentiments. Had it been possible to withhold my testimony, you
would never have seen these pages. But "necessity is laid upon me."
And think not, I beseech you, that I am against the church of our
Redeemer, or would hinder her prosperity, because I oppose a human
institution which Christians very generally observe. "If I forget
thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not
remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I
prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy."

[14] I believe, that the prophecy in Dan. 7:25, refers mainly to the
change of Sabbath-time, and Sabbath-law. What time, of divine
appointment, it may be asked, was ever changed, except the time of the
Sabbath?

[15] Some of my Reformed Presbyterian brethren appear to be as far
from believing "the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of
Faith" as myself, only they are a little more guarded in the choice of
words. That Confession says, (ch. 21, sec. 7,)"--so, in his word, by a
positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, _binding all men in all
ages_, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath,
to be kept holy unto him." But Rev. Andrew Stephenson, in a letter to
me, speaking of the seventh-day Sabbath, styles it, "This relict of
Judaism;" and Rev. James Milligan, in a recent letter, asks me, "Why
has not the Lord's day as good a right to take the place of the
seventh day, as the Lord's Supper has to take the place of the
Passover?" Query--Are Reformed Presbyterians, who hold such
sentiments, any better qualified to judge their brethren for
Sabbath-breaking, than I would be to judge them for a like offense?





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Tracts on the Sabbath, by Various

*** 