Chapter VI: Section V: Manner of Observing the Sabbath (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Wilson.

[2] Burnside.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SIXTH-DAY NIGHT.

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

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

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

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

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

No. 3.

THE SABBATH:

AUTHORITY FOR THE CHANGE OF THE DAY.

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

Another of the proofs alledged for the abrogation of the Decalogue, and consequently of the Sabbath, is Colossians 2:14-17. "Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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