Transcriber's Note:

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

The numbers of some of the tracts are missing and have been inserted. The page numbers of the individual tracts have been prefixed by the number of the tract.

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.

[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.

REASONS

FOR INTRODUCING THE SABBATH OF THE FOURTH
COMMANDMENT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC.

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 retard 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 coöperate 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.

[No. 2.]

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?

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!"

[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.

[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.

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

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 reënforcement 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 Ælia, in honor of the emperor Ælias 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 Cæsarea, 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 papists. 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 Papists; 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 Papists 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 papists 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 reäction 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?