{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_22098/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_22098","id":"gutenberg_22098","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22098","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sabbath","Seventh-Day Adventists -- Doctrines"],"text":"Produced by Cally Soukup, Heiko Evermann, Lisa Reigel, and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\nSEVENTH DAY SABBATH,\n\nA\nPERPETUAL SIGN,\n\nFROM THE BEGINNING TO THE ENTERING INTO THE\nGATES OF THE HOLY CITY,\n\nACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT.\n\n\nBY JOSEPH BATES:\n\n\n     \"Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old\n     commandment which ye had from the _beginning_. The old\n     commandment is the WORD which ye have heard from the\n     _beginning_.\" _John_ ii: 7.\n\n     \"In the _beginning_ God created the heaven and the earth.\"\n     Gen. i: 1. \"And God blessed the seventh day, and rested from\n     all his work.\" ii: 3.\n\n     \"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have\n     right to the tree of life and enter in,\" &c. _Rev._ xxii: 14.\n\n\nNEW-BEDFORD\nPRESS OF BENJAMIN LINDSEY\n1846.\n\n\n\n\n[1]PREFACE.\n\nTO THE LITTLE FLOCK.\n\n\n\"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.\" \"Six days work may be done,\nbut the _seventh_ is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt\nnot do any work.\" This commandment I conceive to be as binding now as it\never was, and will be to the entering into the \"gates of the city.\" Rev.\nxxii: 14.\n\nI understand that the _seventh_ day Sabbath is not the _least_ one,\namong the ALL things that are to be restored before the second advent of\nJesus Christ, seeing that the Imperial and Papal power of Rome, since\nthe days of the Apostles, have changed the seventh day Sabbath to the\nfirst day of the week!\n\nTwenty days before God re-enacted and wrote the commandments with his\nfinger on tables of stone, he required his people to keep the Sabbath.\nExo. xvi: 27, 30. Here he calls the Sabbath \"_my commandments and my\nlaws_.\" Now the SAVIOR has given his comments on the commandments. See\nMatt. xxii: 35, 40. \"On these two (precepts) hang ALL the law and the\nprophets.\" Then it would be impossible for the Sabbath to be left out. A\nquestion was asked, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Says Jesus,\n\"If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments\"--xix. Here he\nquotes five from the tables of stone. If he did not mean all the rest,\nthen he deceived the lawyer in the two first precepts, love to God and\nlove to man. See also Matt. v: 17, 19, 21, 27, 33. PAUL comments thus.\n\"The law is holy, and the commandments holy, just and good.\"\n\"Circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the\ncommandments of God.\" \"All the law is fulfilled in one word: thou shalt\nlove thy neighbor as thyself.\" JOHN says, \"the old commandment is the\nWORD from the beginning.\"--2, 7. Gen. ii: 3. \"He carries us from thence\ninto the gates of the city.\" Rev. xxii: 14. Here he has particular\nreference to the Sabbath. JAMES calls it the _perfect_, royal law of\nliberty, which we are to be doers of, and be judged by. Take out the\nfourth commandment and the law is imperfect, and we shall fail in one\npoint.\n\nThe uncompromising advocate for present truth, which feeds and nourishes\nthe little flock in whatever country or place, is the restorer of all\nthings; one man like John the Baptist, cannot discharge this duty to\nevery kindred, nation, tongue and people, and still remain in one place.\nThe truth is what we want.\n\n  _Fairhaven_, August 1846.                    JOSEPH BATES.\n\n\n\n\n[3]THE SABBATH.\n\n\nFIRST QUESTION IS, WHEN WAS THE SABBATH INSTITUTED?\n\nThose who are in the habit of reading the Scriptures just as they find\nthem, and of understanding them according to the established rules of\ninterpretation, will never be at a loss to understand so plain a passage\nas the following: \"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it;\nbecause that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and\nmade.\" Gen. ii: 3. Moses, when referring to it, says to the children of\nIsrael, \"This is that which the Lord hath _said_, to-morrow is the REST\nof _the_ holy Sabbath unto the Lord.\" Exod. xvi: 23.\n\nThen we understand that God established the seventh day Sabbath in\nParadise, on the very day when he rested from all his work, and not one\nweek, nor one year, nor two thousand five hundred and fourteen years\nafterwards, as some would have it. Is it not plain that the Sabbath was\ninstituted to commemorate the stupendous work of creation, and designed\nby God to be celebrated by his worshipers as a weekly Sabbath, in the\nsame manner as the Israelites were commanded to celebrate the Passover,\nfrom the very night of their deliverance till the resurrection of Jesus\nfrom the dead; or as we, as a nation, annually celebrate our national\nindependence; or as type answers to antetype, so we believe this must\nrun down, to the \"keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God\" in the\nimmortal state.\n\nIt is argued by some, that because no mention is made of the Sabbath\nfrom its institution in Paradise till the falling of the manna in the\nwilderness, mentioned in Exo. xvi: 15, that it was therefore _here_\ninstituted for the Jews, but [4]we think there is bible argument\nsufficient to sustain the reply of Jesus to the Pharisees, \"that the\nSabbath was made for MAN and not man for the Sabbath.\" If it was made\nfor any one exclusively it must have been for Adam, the father of us\nall, two thousand years before Abraham (who is claimed as the father of\nthe Jews) was born. John says, the old commandment was from the\nbeginning--1: ii: 7.\n\nThere is pretty strong inference that the antideluvians measured time by\nweeks from the account given by Noah, when the waters of the deluge\nbegan to subside. He \"sent out a dove which soon returned.\" At the end\nof _seven_ days he sent her out again; and at the end of _seven_ days\nmore, he sent her out a third time. Now why this preference for the\nnumber _seven_? why not five or ten days, or any other number? Can it be\nsupposed that his fixing on upon _seven_ was accidental? How much more\nnatural to conclude that it was in obedience to the authority of God, as\nexpressed in the 2d chap. of Gen. A similar division of time is\nincidentally mentioned in Gen. xxix:--\"fulfill her _week_ and we will\ngive thee this also; and Jacob did so and fulfilled her _week_.\" Now the\nword _week_ is every where used in Scripture as we use it; it never\nmeans more nor less than _seven_ days (except as symbols of years) and\none of them was in all other cases the Sabbath. But now suppose there\nhad been an entire silence on the subject of the Sabbath for this\ntwenty-five hundred years, would that be sufficient evidence that there\nwas none. If so, we have the same evidence that there was no Sabbath\nfrom the reign of Joshua till the reign of David, four hundred and six\nyears, as no mention is made of it in the history of that period. But\nwho can be persuaded that Samuel and the pious Judges of Israel did not\nregard the Sabbath. What does God say of Abraham? that he \"obeyed my\nvoice, and kept my charge, my _commandments_, my _statutes_ and my\n_laws_.\" (See what he calls them in Exo. xvi: 27, 30.) This, of course,\nincludes the whole. Then Abraham reverenced God's Sabbath. Once more,\nthere is no mention of the circumcision from the days of Joshua till the\ndays of Jeremiah, a period of more than eight hundred years. Will it be\nbelieved that Samuel and David, and all those pious worthies with the\nwhole Jewish nation, neglected that essential seal of the covenant for\neight hundred years? It cannot be admitted for a moment. How [5]then\ncan any one suppose from the alleged silence of the sacred history that\nAdam, Enoch, Noah and Abraham, kept no Sabbath, because the fact was not\nstated? If we turn to Jer. ix: 25, 26, we find that they had not\nneglected this right of circumcision, only they had not circumcised\ntheir hearts; so that the proof is clear, that silence respecting the\nkeeping any positive command of God, is no evidence that it is not in\nfull force.\n\nAgain, if the Sabbath was not instituted in Paradise, why did Moses\nmention it in connection with the creation of the world? Why not reserve\nthis fact for two or three thousand years in his history, until the\nmanna fell in the wilderness, (see Exo. xvi: 23) and then state that the\nseventh day Sabbath commenced, as _some_ will have it? I answer, for the\nvery best of reasons, that it did not commence there. Let us examine the\ntext. \"And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as\nmuch bread as on any preceding day, and _all the rulers of the\ncongregation came and told Moses_. And he said unto them this is that\nwhich the Lord hath said, _to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath_,\nbake that which ye will bake, &c. &c.\" If this had been the establishing\nof the holy Sabbath and Moses had said to-morrow _shall be_ the Sabbath,\nthen would it have been clear; but no, he speaks as familiarly about it\nas we do when we say that to-morrow is the Sabbath, showing conclusively\nthat it was known before, or how could the people have known that they\nmust gather two day's manna on Friday the sixth day, unless they had had\nsome previous knowledge of the Sabbath? for Moses had already taught\nthem not to \"leave any of it until the morning\"--v. 19. The 20th verse\nshows that the Sabbath had not yet come since their receiving the manna,\nbecause it spoiled and \"bred worms by the next morning;\" whereas, on the\nSabbath morning it was found sweet and eatible--24th v. This was the\nthirtieth day after leaving Egypt (1st v.) and twenty days before it was\ngiven on Sinai. The weekly Sabbath then was appointed before this or\nbefore the days of Moses. Where was it then? Answer, in the second\nchapter of Genesis and no where else; and the same week on which the\nmanna fell, the weekly Sabbath was revived among or with God's chosen\npeople. Grotius tells us \"that the memory of the creation's being\nperformed in seven days, was preserved not only among the Greeks and\nItalians, but among the Celts and Indians.\" Other [6]writers say\nAssyrians, Egyptians, Arabians, Britons and Germans, all of whom divide\ntheir time into weeks. Philo says \"the Sabbath is not peculiar to any\none people or country, but is common to all the world.\" Josephus states\n\"that there is no city either of Greeks or barbarians or any _other\nnation_, where the religion of the Sabbath is not known.\" But as they,\nlike the great mass of God's professed people in christendom, paid\nlittle or no heed to what God had said about the particular day, (except\nthe Jews, and a few others) they (as we are informed in history) adopted\npeculiar days to suit themselves, viz: the christian nations chose to\nobey the Pope of Rome, who changed the _seventh_ day Sabbath to the\nfirst day, and call it the holy Sabbath; the Persians selected Monday;\nthe Grecians Tuesday; the Assyrians Wednesday; the Egyptians Thursday;\nthe Turks Friday, and the Jews the seventh day, Saturday, as God had\ncommanded. Three standing miracles a week, for about forty years\nannually, ought to perpetuate the Sabbath. 1st, double the quantity of\nmanna on the sixth day; 2d, none on the seventh; 3d, did not spoil on\nthe seventh day. If it does not matter which day you keep holy to the\nLord, then all these nations are right. Now reflect one moment on this,\nand then open your bible and read the commandment of the God of all\nthese nations! \"REMEMBER! (what you have been taught before) _the\nSabbath day to keep it holy_;\" (which day is it Lord?) \"_the_ SEVENTH\n_is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,\nthou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant nor thy maid\nservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger, that is within thy gates_.\"\nWho is the stranger? (Gentiles.) Now the reason for it will carry us\nback again to Paradise. \"_For in six days the Lord made heaven and\nearth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the_ SEVENTH;\n_wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it_.\"\n\"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the\n_Sabbath_ throughout their generations for a _perpetual covenant_; it is\na SIGN between me and the children of Israel _forever_.\" (Why is it\nLord?) \"_For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the_\nSEVENTH _day he rested and was refreshed_.\" Exo. xx and xxxi. Which day\nnow will you choose? O, says the reader, the seventh if I knew which of\nthe days it was. If you don't know, why are you so sure that the _first_\nday is right? O, [7]because the history of the world has settled that,\nand this is the most we can know. Very well then, does not the _seventh_\ncome the day before the eighth? If we have not got the days of the week\nright now, it is not likely that we ever shall. God does not require of\nus any more than what we know; by that we shall be judged. Luke xxiii:\n55, 56.\n\nOnce more: think you that the spirit of God ever directed Moses when he\nwas giving the history of the creation of the world, to write that he\n(God) \"blessed the _seventh_ day and sanctified it, because that in it\nhe had rested from all his work,\" unless he meant it to be dated from\nthat very day? Why, this is as clear to the unbiassed mind as it is that\nGod created man the sixth day. Would it not be the height of absurdity\nto attempt to prove that God only intended Adam should be created at\nsome future period, or that the creation of the heavens and earth was\nnot in the beginning, but some twenty-five hundred years afterward? All\nthis would be as cogent reasoning as it would be to argue that God did\nnot intend this day of _rest_ should commence until about twenty-five\nhundred years afterwards. (The word Sabbath signifies rest.)\n\nIt follows then irresistibly, that the weekly Sabbath was not made for\nthe Jews only, (but as Jesus says, for 'man') for the Jews had no\nexistence until more than two thousand years after it was established.\nPresident Humphrey in his essays on the Sabbath says, \"That he (God)\ninstituted it when he rested from all his work, on the _seventh_ day of\nthe first week, and gave it primarily to our first parents, and through\nthem to all their posterity; that the observance of it was enjoined upon\nthe children of Israel soon after they left Egypt, not in the form of a\nnew enactment, but as an ancient institution which was far from being\nforgotten, though it had doubtless been greatly neglected under the\ncruel domination of their heathen masters; that it was reenacted with\ngreat pomp and solemnity, and written in stone by the finger of God at\nSinai; that the sacred institution then took the form of a statute, with\nexplicit prohibitions and requirements, and has never been repealed or\naltered since; that it can never expire of itself, because it has no\nlimitation.\"\n\nIn Deut. vii: 6-8, God gives his reasons for selecting the Jews to keep\nhis covenant in preference to any other nation; only seventy at\nfirst--x: 22. God calls it his [8]\"Sabbath,\" and refers us right back\nto the creation for proof. \"For in six days the Lord made heaven and\nearth and sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the _seventh_,\"\n&c. Here then we stand fixed by the immutable law of God, and the word\nof Jesus, that \"the Sabbath was made for man!\" Paul says, \"there is no\nrespect of persons with God.\" Rom. ii: 11. Isaiah shows us plainly that\nthe Jew is not the only one to be blessed for keeping the Sabbath. He\nsays \"Blessed is the _man_ (are not the Gentiles men) that keepeth the\nSabbath from polluting it.\" \"Also the sons of the stranger, (who are\nthese if they are not Gentiles?) every one that keepeth the Sabbath from\npolluting it, (does he mean me? yes, every Gentile in the universe, or\nelse he respects persons) even them will I bring to my holy mountain and\nmake them joyful in my house of prayer; for my house shall be called an\nhouse of prayer for _all_ people.\" Isa. lvi: 2, 6, 7. If this promise is\nnot to the Gentile as well as the Jew, then \"_the_ house of prayer for\nall people\" is no promise to the Gentile.\n\nNow we ask, if God has ever abrogated the law of the Sabbath? If he has\nit can easily be found. We undertake to say without fear of\ncontradiction, he has not made any such record in the bible; but to the\ncontrary, he calls it a perpetual covenant, a \"sign between me and the\nchildren of Israel forever,\" for the reason that he rested on the\nseventh day. Exo. xxxi: 16, 17. Says one, has not the ceremonial law\nbeen annulled and nailed to the cross? Yes, but what of that? Why then\nthe Sabbath must be abolished, for Paul says so! Where? Why in Cols. 2d\nchapter, and xiv. Romans. How can you think that God ever inspired Paul\nto say that the _seventh_ day Sabbath was made void or nailed to the\ncross at the crucifixion, when he never intended any such change; if he\ndid, he certainly would have deceived the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in\nthe promise which he made them about two thousand four hundred and\nforty-six years ago! Turn now to Jer. xvii: 25, and tell me if he did\nnot promise the inhabitants of Jerusalem that their city should remain\nforever if they would hallow the Sabbath day. Now suppose the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem had entered into this agreement, and entailed\nit upon their posterity (because you see it could not have been\nfulfilled unless it had continued from generation to generation,) to\nkeep the Sabbath holy, would not God have been bound to let Jerusalem\nremain forever? You say [9]yes. Well, then, I ask you to shew how he\ncould have kept that promise inviolate if he intended in less than six\nhundred and fifty years to change this seventh day Sabbath, and call the\nfirst day of the week the Sabbath, or abolish it altogether? I say,\ntherefore, if there has been any change one way or the other in the\nSabbath, since that promise, it would be impossible to understand any\nother promise in the Bible; how much more reasonable to believe God than\nman. If men will allow themselves to believe the monstrous absurdity\nthat FOREVER, as in this promise, ended at the resurrection, then they\ncan easily believe that the Sabbath was changed from the _seventh_ to\nthe first day of the week. Or if they choose the other extreme,\nabolished until the people of God should awake to be clothed on with\nimmortality. Heb. iv: 9.\n\nNow does it not appear plain that the Sabbath is from God, and that it\nis coeval and co-extensive (as is the institution of marriage) with the\nworld. That it is without limitation; that there is not one thus saith\nthe Lord that it ever was or ever will be abolished, in time or\neternity.--See Exod. xxxi: 16, 17; and Isa. lxvi: 22, 24; Heb. iv: 4, 9.\nBut let us return and look at the subject as we have commenced in the\nlight of Paul's argument to the Romans and Collossians, for here is\nwhere all writers on this subject, for the change or the overthrow of\nthe _seventh_ day Sabbath attempt to draw their strong arguments. The\nsecond question then, is this:\n\n\nHAS THE SABBATH BEEN ABOLISHED SINCE THE SEVENTH DAY OF CREATION? IF SO,\nWHEN, AND WHERE IS THE PROOF?\n\nThe text already referred to, is in Rom. xiv: 5, 6.--\"One man esteemeth\none day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man\nbe persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it\nunto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord, he doth\nnot regard it.\" Does the apostle here mean to say, that under the new or\nChristian dispensation it is a matter of indifference which day of the\nweek is kept as a Sabbath, or whether any Sabbath at all is kept? Was\nthat institution which the people of God had been commanded to call a\ndelight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, now to be esteemed of so\ncarnal a nature as to be ranked among [10]the things which Jesus \"took\nout of the way, nailing it to his cross.\" If this be true, then has\nJesus, in the same manner, abolished the eight last verses in the\nfifty-eighth of Isaiah, and the 2d, 6th and 7th verses of the 56th\nchapter have no reference to the Gentile since the crucifixion. O Lord\nhelp us rightly to understand and divide thy word. But is it not evident\nfrom the four first verses in the same chapter of Romans, that Paul is\nspeaking of feast days; giving them again in substance the decrees which\nhad been given by the Apostles in their first conference, in A. D. 51,\nheld at Jerusalem. See Acts xv: 19. James proposes their letter to the\nGentiles should be \"that they abstain from pollution of Idols, and from\nfornication, and from things strangled, and from blood;\" to which the\nconference all agreed. Now please read their unanimous _decrees_ (xvi:\n4,) from twenty-three to thirty verses. \"For it seemed good to the Holy\nGhost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary\nthings.\" \"That ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from blood,\nand from things strangled, and from fornication, from which if ye keep\nyourselves ye shall do well.\" Reading along to the 13th of the next\nchapter, we find Paul establishing the Churches with these decrees; (see\n4, 5,) and at Philippi he holds his meeting, (not in the Jews Synagogue)\nbut at the river's side, on the _Sabbath_ day. A little from this it is\nsaid that Paul is in Thesalonica preaching on the Sabbath days. Luke\nsays this was his _manner_! What was it? Why, to preach on the Sabbath\ndays, (not 1st days.) Observe here was three Sabbaths in succession.\nxvii: 2. A little while from this Paul locates himself in Corinth, and\nthere preaches to the Jews and Greeks (or Gentiles) a year and six\nmonths _every Sabbath_. Now this must have been seventy-eight in\nsuccession. xviii: 4, 11. Does this look like abolishing the Sabbath\nday? Has anything been said about the 1st day yet? No, we shall speak of\nthat by and by.\n\nBefore this he was in Antioch. \"And when the Jews were gone out of the\nsynagogue the GENTILES besought that these words might be preached to\nthem the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole\ncity together to hear the word of God.\" xiii: 42, 44. Here is proof that\nthe Gentiles kept the Sabbath. Now I wish to place the other strong text\nwhich is so strangely adhered to for abolishing or changing this\n[11]Sabbath along side of this, that we may understand his meaning.\n\"Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which\nwas contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his\ncross.\"\n\n\"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a\nholy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.\" Coll. ii: 14, 16.\nNow here is one of the strong arguments adhered to by all those who say\nthe seventh day Sabbath was abolished at the crucifixion of our Lord;\nwhile on the other hand by the great mass of the Christian world, (so\ncalled,) the seventh day Sabbath ceased here, and in less than\nforty-eight hours the change was made to the first day of the week. Now\nremember Paul's manner, (before stated) itinerating from city to city\nand nation to nation, always preaching to Jews and Gentiles on the\nseventh day Sabbath, (for there is no other day called the Lord's\nSabbath in the Bible.) Now if the Apostle did mean to include the\nSabbath of the Lord God with the Jewish feasts and Sabbaths in the text,\nthen the course he took to do so, was the strangest imaginable. His\n_manner_ always was, as recorded, with the exception of one night, to\npreach on the very day that he was laboring to abolish. If you will look\nat the date in your bibles, you will learn this same apostle had been\nlaboring in this way as a special messenger to the Gentiles, between\ntwenty and thirty years since (as you say) the Sabbath was changed or\nabolished, and yet never uttered one word with respect to any other day\nin the week to be set apart as a holy day or Sabbath. I understand all\nthe arguments about his laboring in the Jewish Synagogue on their\nSabbath, because they were open for worship on that day, &c., but he did\nnot always preach in their Synagogues. He says that he preached the\nKingdom of God, and labored in his own hired house for two years. He\nalso established a daily meeting for disputation in the school of\nTyranus. Acts xix: 9. Again he says, I have \"kept _back_ NOTHING that\nwas PROFITABLE _unto you_. (Now if the Sabbath had been changed or\nabolished, would it not have been _profitable_ to have told them so?)\nand have taught you publicly, and from house to house.\" \"For I have not\nshunned to declare unto you ALL the council of God.\"--Acts xx: 20, 27.\nThen it is clear that he taught them by example that the Sabbath of the\nLord God was not abolished. Luke says it was the _custom_ (or manner) of\nChrist [12]to teach in the synagogues on the Sabbath day. iv: 16, 31.\nMark says, \"And when the Sabbath day was come he began to teach in their\nsynagogue.\" Mark vi: 2.--Now if Jesus was about to abolish or change\nthis Sabbath, (which belonged to the first code, the moral law, and not\nthe ceremonial, the second code, which was to be nailed to his cross, or\nrather, as said the angel Gabriel to Daniel, ix: 27, \"he (Christ) in the\nmidst of the week shall cause the _sacrifice_ and _oblation_ to cease,\"\nmeaning that the Jewish sacrifices and offerings would cease at his\ndeath.) Jesus did not attend to any of the ceremonies of the Jews except\nthe passover and the feasts of tabernacles. Why did he say, \"Think not I\nam come to destroy the _law_ or the prophets? I am not come to destroy\nbut fulfill. One jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the _law_\n'till all be fulfilled.\" \"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these\nleast commandments\" &c. Did he mean the ten commandments? Yes; for he\nimmediately points out the third, not to take God's name in vain; sixth\nand seventh, not to kill nor to commit adultery, and styles them the\n_least_. Then the others, which include the fourth, of course were\ngreater than these. Matt. v: 17, 19, 21, 27, 23, and were not to be\nbroken nor pass away. Then the Sabbath stands unchanged.\n\nAlmost every writer which I have read on the subject of abolishing or\nchanging the seventh day Sabbath, call it the Jewish Sabbath, hence\ntheir difficulty. How can it be the Jewish Sabbath when it was\nestablished two thousand years before there was a Jew on the face of the\nearth, and certainly twenty-five hundred before it was embodied in the\ndecalogue, or re-enacted and written in stone by the finger of God at\nSinai. God called this HIS _Sabbath_, and Jesus says it was made for\nman, (not particularly for the Jews.)\n\n\"Well,\" says one, \"what is the meaning of the texts which you have\nquoted, where it speaks of Sabbaths?\"--Answer: These are the Jewish\nSabbaths! which belong to them as a nation and are connected with their\nfeasts. God by Hosea makes this distinction, and says, \"I will also\ncause all _her_ mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons and _her_\nSabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.\" These then belong to the text\nquoted, and not God's Sabbath. Do you ask for the proof? See xxiii\nLevit. 4. \"_These are the_ FEASTS _of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim\nin their [13]seasons_, EVERY THING UPON HIS DAY\"--37th v. (May we not\ndeviate a little? If you do it will be at your peril.) Fifteenth and\nsixteenth verses gives them a fifty day's Sabbath; twenty-fourth verse\nsays: \"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying in the seventh month in\nthe first day of the month, shall ye have a _Sabbath_, a memorial of\nblowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.\"\n\n\"Also on the tenth day of the seventh month there shall be a day of\natonement. It shall be unto you a _Sabbath_ of rest.\" 27, 32.\n\n\"Also on the fifteenth day of the seventh month when ye shall have\ngathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord\nseven days. On the first shall be a Sabbath, and on the eighth day shall\nbe a Sabbath. 39v. And Moses _declared_ unto the children of Israel the\nFEASTS of the Lord.\" 44v. Now here we have FOUR kinds of _Jewish_\nSabbaths, also _called_ \"FEASTS _of the Lord_,\" to be kept annually. The\nfirst fifty days or seven weeks Sabbath ends the third month, seventh.\nIn three months and twenty-four days more commences the second Sabbath,\nseventh month, first; the next, the tenth; the last the fifteenth of the\nmonth. Between the first two Sabbaths there is an interval of one\nhundred and twelve days; the next two, ten days, and the next, five\ndays. Now it can be seen at a glance, that neither of these Sabbaths\ncould be on the seventh day any oftener than other annual feast could\ncome on that day. These then are what Hosea calls HER Sabbaths. Paul\ncalls them HOLY DAYS, _new moons, and Sabbaths_; and this is what they\nare stated to be. The first day of the seventh month is a _new moon_\nSABBATH, the tenth is a Sabbath of rest and Holy convocation, a day of\natonement, and the fifteenth a feast of Sabbaths. Do you ask for any\nmore evidence that these are the Jewish Sabbaths, and that God's Sabbath\nis separate from them? Read then what God directed Moses to write in the\nthird verse: \"Six days shall work be done, but the _seventh_ day is the\nSabbath of rest, an holy convocation, ye shall do no work therein, it is\nthe Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.\" Now Moses has here\ndeclared from the mouth of the Lord, that these are ALL the feast of the\nLord, (there is no more nor less) and every thing is to be upon _his\nday_, and he has clearly and definitely separated his Sabbath from the\nother four. And in the 28th and 29th chapters of Numbers the sacrifices\n[14]and offerings for each of these days are made so plain, beginning\nwith the Sabbath, 9v, that we have only to read the following to\nunderstand. 26. xxix: 1. First day, seventh month, (new moon;) 7v, 10th\nday Sabbath; 12v; 15th day Sabbath, and 35v, 23d day Sabbath. And in the\ndays of Nehemiah when Ezra had read the law to the people, viii (more\nthan one thousand years after they were promulgated,) they bound\nthemselves under an oath \"to walk in God's law which was given _by the\nhand of Moses_, the servant of God.\" \"And to observe and _do all the\ncommandments_ of the Lord, our Lord.\" x: 29. And that there might be no\nmisunderstanding about the kind of Sabbaths, they say, \"If the people\nbring ware or any victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not\nbuy it of them on the Sabbath or on the holy day,\" (31v.) but they would\n\"charge themselves yearly with a third part of a shekel\" (to pay for)\n\"the burnt _offerings_ of the _Sabbaths_, of the _new moons_, for the\n_set feasts_,\" &c. (33v.) for the house of God, including what has\nalready been set forth in Leviticus and Numbers. Now as their feast days\ncommenced and ended with a Sabbath, so when their feasts ceased to be\nbinding on them these Sabbaths must also, and all were \"nailed to the\ncross.\" Now I ask if there is one particle of proof that the Sabbath of\nthe Lord is included in these Sabbaths and feast days? Who then dare\njoin them together or contradict the Most High God, and call HIS the\n_Jewish_ Sabbath. _Theirs_ was nailed to the cross when Jesus died,\nwhile the Lord's is an _everlasting_ sign a _perpetual covenant_. The\nJews, as a nation, broke their covenant. Jesus and his disciples were\none week (the last of the seventy) that is seven years, confirming the\nnew covenant for another people, the Gentiles. Now I ask if this\nchanging the subjects from Jew to Gentile made void the commandments and\nlaw of God, or in other words, abolished the fourth commandment; if so,\nthe other nine are not binding. It cannot be that God ever intended to\nmislead his subjects. Let us illustrate this. Suppose that the Congress\nof these United States in their present emergency, should promulgate two\nseparate codes of laws, one to be perpetual, the other temporary, to be\nabolished when peace was proclaimed between this country and Mexico. The\ntime _comes_, the temporary laws are abolished; but strange to hear, a\nlarge portion of the people are now insisting upon it that because peace\nis proclaimed that both [15]these codes of laws are forever abolished;\nwhile another class are _strenuously_ insisting that it is only the\n_fourth_ law in the perpetual code that's now abolished, with the\ntemporary and all the rest is still binding. Opposed to all these is a\nthird class, headed by the ministers and scribes of the nation, who are\nwriting and preaching from Maine to Florida, insisting upon it without\nfear of contradiction, that when peace was proclaimed this fourth law in\nthe perpetual code was to change its date to another day; gradually,\n(while some of them say immediately) and thenceforward become perpetual,\nand the other code abolished; and yet not one of these are able to show\nfrom the proceedings of Congress that the least alteration had ever been\nmade in the perpetual code. Thus, to me, the case stands clear that\nneither of the laws or ten commandments in the first code, ever has or\never can be annulled or changed while mortality is stamped on man, for\nthe very reason that God's moral law has no limitation. Jesus then\nbrought in a new covenant, which continued the Sabbath by writing his\nlaw upon their hearts. Paul says \"written not with ink, but with the\nspirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables\nof the heart.\" 2 Cor. iii: 3. And when writing to the Romans he shews\n_how_ the Gentiles are a law unto themselves. He says, they \"shew the\nwork of the law written in their hearts, their consciences always\nbearing them witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else\nexcusing one another,\" (when will this be Paul) \"in the day when God\nshall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.\"\nii: 15, 16. How plain that this is all the change. The Jews by nature\nhad the law given them on tables of stone, while the Gentiles had the\nlaw of commandments written on their hearts. Paul tells the Ephesians\nthat it was \"the law of commandments contained in ordinances,\" (ii: 15)\nnot on tables that were nailed to the cross. If the ten commandments,\nfirst written by the finger of God on stone, and then at the second\ncovenant on fleshy tables of the heart, are shadows, can any one tell\nwhere we shall find the substance? We are answered, in Christ. Well,\nhear Isaiah. He says, \"that he (Christ) will magnify the law and make it\nhonorable.\" lxii: 21. Again, I ask, where was the necessity and of what\nuse were the ten commandments written on our hearts, if it was not to\nrender perfect obedience to them. If we do not keep the day God has\nsanctified, then [16]we break not the least, but one of the greatest of\nhis commandments. Still, there are many other texts relating to the law,\npresented by the opposite view, to show that the law respecting the\nSabbath is abolished. Let us look at some of them. But it will be\nnecessary in the first place, to make a clear distinction between what\nis commonly called the\n\n\nMORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAW.\n\nBro. S. S. Snow, in writing on this subject about one year ago, in the\nJubilee Standard, asks \"by what authority this distinction is made.\" He\nsays \"neither our Lord or his apostles made any such distinction. When\nspeaking of the law they never used the terms moral or ceremonial, but\nalways spake of it as a _whole_, calling it _the_ law,\" and further\nsays, \"we must have a thus saith the Lord to satisfy us.\" So I say! I\nhave no doubt but thousands have stopped here; indeed, it has been to me\nthe most difficult point to settle in this whole question. Now let us\ncome to it fairly, and we shall see that the old and new testament\nwriters have ever kept up the distinction, although it may in some parts\nseem to be one code of laws.\n\nFrom the twentieth chapter of Exodus, where the law of the Sabbath was\nre-enacted, and onward, we find two distinct codes of laws. The first\nwas written on two tables of stone with the _finger_ of God; the\n_second_ was taken down from his mouth and recorded by the hand of Moses\nin a book. Paul calls the latter carnal commandments and ordinances,\n(rites or _ceremonies_) which come under two heads, religious and\npolitical, and are Moses's. The first code is God's. For proof see Exo.\nxvi: 28, 30. \"How long refuse ye to keep _my_ commandments and _my_\nlaws: see for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath; and so the\npeople rested on the Sabbath day.\" Also in the book of Leviticus, where\nthe law of ceremonies is given to the levites or priests, Moses closes\nwith these words: \"_These_ are the commandments which the Lord commanded\nMoses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai;\" in Heb. vii: 16, 18,\ncalled carnal commandments.\n\nAgain, \"the Lord said unto Moses, come up to me into the Mount, and be\nthere: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments\nwhich I have written.\" Exo. xxiv: 12. Further he calls them the ten\n[17]commandments--xxxiv: 28. And Moses puts them \"into the ark\"--xl:\n20. _Now for the second code of laws._ See Deut. xxxi: 9, 10; and xxiv:\n26. \"And when Moses had finished writing the law, he commanded them to\nput _this book_ of the LAW (of ceremonies) in the side of the ark of the\ncovenant, to be read at the end of every seven years.\" This is not the\nsong of deliverance by Moses in the forty-fourth verse of the\nthirty-second chapter. For, eight hundred and sixty-seven years after\nthis, in the reign of Josiah, king of Israel, the high priest found this\nbook in \"the Temple,\" (2 Chron. xxxiv: 14, 15) which moved all Israel.\nOne hundred and seventy-nine years further onward, Ezra was from morning\ntill noon reading out of this book. Neh. viii: 3; Heb. ix: 19. Paul's\ncomments.\n\nBro. Snow says in regard to the commandments, \"The principles of moral\nconduct embraced in the law, was binding before the law was given,\n(meaning that one of course at Mt. Sinai) and is binding _now_; it is\nimmutable and eternal! It is comprehended in one word, LOVE.\" If he\nmeant, as we believe he did, to comprehend what Jesus did in the xix.\nand xxii. chap. Matt. 37-40, and Paul, and James, and John after him,\nthen we ask how it is possible for him to reject from that code of laws,\nthe only one, _the seventh day rest_, that was promulgated at the\n_beginning_, while at the same time the other nine, that were not\nwritten until about three thousand years afterwards, were eternally\nbinding; without doubt, the whole ten commandments are co-eval and\nco-extensive with sin. Again, he says, \"We readily admit, that if what\nis called the decalogue or ten commandments be binding on us, _we ought_\nto observe the seventh day, for that was appointed by the Lord as the\nSabbath day.\" Let us see if Jesus and his apostles do not make it\nbinding. _First then, the distinction of the two codes by Jesus._\n\nThe Pharisees ask the Saviour why his disciples transgress the tradition\nof the elders? His answer is, \"Why do ye transgress the commandment of\nGod?\" and he immediately cites them to the fifth commandment, Matt. xv:\n25. Again, \"The law and the prophets were until John; since that time\nthe kingdom of God is preached,\" &c. Luke xvi: 16. Jesus was three years\nafter this introducing the gospel of the kingdom, unwaveringly holding\nhis meetings on the Sabbath days, (which our opponents say were now\nabout to be _abolished_; others say changed,) and never uttering a\nsyllable to show to the contrary, but that this was [18]and always\nwould be the holy day for worship. Mark says when the Sabbath (the\nSeventh day, for there was no other,) was come, he began to teach in the\nSynagogue, vi: 2. Luke says, \"as his _custom_ was, he went into the\nSynagogue and taught on the Sabbath day.\" iv: 16, 31. Will it be said of\nhim as it is of Paul on like occasions, some thirty years afterwards,\nthat he uniformly held his meetings on the Sabbath because he had no\nwhere else to preach, or that this day was the only one in the week in\nwhich the people would come out to hear him? Every bible reader knows\nbetter; witness the five thousand and the seven thousand, and the\nmultitudes that thronged him in the streets, in the citys and towns\nwhere they listened to him; besides, he was now establishing a new\ndispensation, while theirs was passing away. Then he did not follow any\nof their customs or rites or ceremonies which he had come to abolish.\n\nI have already quoted Matt. v: 17, 18, where Jesus said he had come to\nfulfil the law, and immediately begins by showing them that they are not\nto violate one of the least of the commandments, and cites them to\nsome--see vi: 19, 21, 27, 33. Again, he is tauntingly asked \"which is\nthe great commandment in the law: Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love\nthe Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all\nthy mind. This is the _first_ and great commandment. And the second is\nlike unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two\ncommandments hang all the law and the prophets.\" xxii: 36, 40. Here\nJesus has divided the ten commandments into two parts, or as it is\nwritten on two tables of stone. The first four on the first table treat\nof those duties which we owe to God--the other six refers to those which\nwe owe to man, requiring perfect obedience.\n\nOnce more, \"One came and said unto him, good master what good thing\nshall I do that I may have eternal life? He said, If thou wilt enter\ninto life keep the commandments. Then he asked him which? He cited him\nto the last part of what he called the second, loving his neighbor as\nhimself.\" If he had cited him to the first table, as in the xxii, quoted\nabove, he could not have replied \"_all_ these have I kept from my youth\nup.\" Why? Because he would have already been perfect, for Jesus in reply\nto his question, what he should do to inherit eternal life, said he must\n\"keep the commandments.\" Matt. xix: 16-20. Is not the Sabbath included\nin these commandments? Surely [19]it is! Then how absurd to believe\nthat Jesus, just at the close of his ministry, should teach that the\nway, the only way, to enter into life, was to keep the commandments, one\nof which was to be abolished in a few months from that time, without the\nleast intimation from him or his Father that it was to take place. I say\nagain, if the Sabbath is abolished, we ask those who teach it to cite us\nto the chapter and verse, not to the law of rites and ceremonies which\nare abolished, for we have already shown that the Sabbath was instituted\nmore than twenty-five hundred years before Moses wrote the carnal\nordinances or ceremonies. God said, \"Abraham kept _my_ charge, _my_\ncommandments, _my_ statutes, and _my_ laws.\" Gen. xxvi: 5. This must\ninclude the Sabbath, for the Sabbath was the first law given, therefore\nif Abraham did not keep the Sabbath, I cannot understand what\ncommandments, statutes and laws mean in this chapter. Jesus says, \"As I\nhave kept my Father's commandments,\" John xv: 10. Did he keep the\ncommandments? Yes. Mark and Luke, before quoted--(but more of this in\nanother place.)\n\nIn John vii: 19, Jesus speaks of \"Moses law,\" \"_your law_.\" x: 34.\nAgain, \"_their law_.\" xv: 25. Here then we show that Jesus kept up a\nclear distinction between what God calls _my_ law and commandments and\nMoses law, \"_their_ law,\" \"_your_ law.\" Let us now look at the argument\nof the Apostles. Paul preaching at Antioc taught the Brethren that by\nJesus Christ all who believed in him \"are justified from all things,\nfrom which ye could not be justified by the _Law of Moses_.\" Acts xiii:\n39.\n\nThe Pharisees said \"that it was needful to circumcise them and commend\nthem to keep the _Law of Moses_.\" xv: 5.\n\nAgain, when Paul had come to Jerusalem the second time, (fourteen years\nfrom the time he met the Apostles in conference where they established\nthe decrees for the churches. See Acts xx: 19; Gal. ii: 1,) the Apostles\nshewed him how many thousands of Jews there were which believed and were\nzealous of the _law_: \"And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest\n_all_ the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake _Moses_ and the\n_customs_.\" xxi: 20, 21. Any person who will carefully read the eight\nchapters here included, must be thoroughly convinced that the Apostle's\ntroubles were about the law of ceremonies written and given by Moses,\nand nothing to do with the ten commandments. For you see a little before\nhe comes to Jerusalem, he had been preaching at Corinth every\n[20]Sabbath for eighteen months. xxiii: 4, 11. And this, be it\nremembered, was more than twenty years after the Jewish Sabbaths and\nceremonies were nailed to the cross.--And you see that Paul was the man\nabove all the Apostles to be persecuted on account of the abolition of\nthe Jews' law of ceremonies, for he was the \"_great_ Apostle to the\nGentiles:\" and if the \"Sabbath of the Lord our God\" was to have been\nabolished when the Saviour died, Paul was the very man selected for that\npurpose. It is clear, therefore, that he did not abolish the seventh day\nSabbath among the Gentiles. This same Apostle tells the Romans \"that\nChrist is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that\nbelieveth.\" x: 4. Again, that \"sin shall not have dominion over you, for\nye are not under the _law_ but under grace.\" vi: 14. Once more: He says\nthe Gentiles having not the _law_, are a _law_ unto themselves. Why?\nBecause, he says in the next verse, it shows the _law_ written on their\nhearts. The law of ceremonies? No; that which was on tables of stone.\nii: 14-16. We might quote much more which looks like embracing the whole\nlaw. Let us now look at a few texts in the same letter, which will draw\na distinguishing line between the two codes of laws. Paul, in the vii\nch. 9-13v. brings to view the carnal commandment, and the one unto life,\nand sums up his argument in these words: \"Wherefore the _law_ is holy,\nand the commandment holy and just and good.\" In the 7v he quotes from\nthe decalogue. Again, he that loveth another hath fulfilled the _law_.\nHow? Why thou shalt not steal, nor commit adultery, nor bear false\nwitness, nor covet, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Therefore\n_love_ is the fulfilling of the law. Rom. xiii: 8, 10.--This then is\nwhat the Saviour taught the young man to do to secure \"eternal life.\"\nMatt. Once more, in concluding a long argument on the law in Rom. iii:\n31, he closes with this language: \"Do we then make void the law through\nfaith? God forbid ye, _we establish_ the _law_.\"--What _law_ is here\nestablished? not the law of rites and ceremonies. What then, for Paul\nmeans some _law_. It can be no other than what he calls the law of\n\"life,\" of \"love,\" the ten commandments. How could even that be\nestablished twenty-nine years after the crucifixion, if one of the\n_greatest_ commandments had been abolished out of the code, that is the\nSabbath.\n\nPaul's letter to the Corinthians teaches that \"circumcision is nothing,\nand uncircumcision is nothing but the _keeping_ [21]of the commandments\nof God.\" vii: 19. Again, in his epistle to the Galatians, his\nphraseology is somewhat changed, but the argument is to the same point,\nalthough some passages read as though every vestage of _law_ was swept\nby the board when Jesus hung upon the cross. For instance, such as the\nfollowing: \"But that no man is justified by the _law_ in the sight of\nGod it is evident, for the just shall live by faith, and the LAW is not\nof faith, but the man that doeth them shall live by them.\" \"Christ hath\nredeemed us from the curse of the _law_, being made a curse for us.\"\n\"But before faith came we were kept under the _law_, shut up unto the\nfaith which should afterwards be revealed.\" \"Wherefore the law was our\nschoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by\nfaith, but after that faith has come we are no longer under a\nschoolmaster.\" Gal. iii: 11-13, 23-25. Again: \"For as many as are of the\nworks of the _law_ are under the curse.\" 10v. Now are we to understand\nfrom these texts that whosoever continueth in the _law_ is cursed, and\nthat the law, _the whole law_, was abolished when Christ came as our\nschoolmaster, he being the \"end of the law?\" Rom. x: 4. If so, how is it\npossible for any man, even Paul himself, to be saved. But we do not\nbelieve that Paul taught these brethren any different doctrine than what\nhas already been shown in the Acts, Romans, and Corinthians, and also\nthe Eph., Phil., Col., and Heb. If he did not mean the law written by\nthe hand of Moses, distinguishing it from the _law_ of the ten\ncommandments, written by the finger of God on tables of stone, then pray\ntell me if you can, what he means (in the closing of this argument,) by\nsaying, \"For _all_ the LAW is FULFILLED in one word, even this: Thou\nshalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\" v: 14. Surely he is quoting the\nSaviour's words in Matt. xxii: 39, relative to the commandment of the\nLord our God. To his son Timothy he says: \"Now the end of the\ncommandment is charity,\" (love) meaning of course the _last_ part of the\nten commandments. In vi: 2, he says: \"Bear ye one anothers burdens and\nso fulfil the _law_ of Christ.\" Does this differ from the _law_ God?\nYes, a little, for it is the new commandment, (some say the eleventh.)\nSee John xiii: 34. \"A new commandment I give unto you, (what is it,\nLord?) that ye love one another.\" And also xx: 12. The other is to love\nour neighbor as ourself. John says: \"And this commandment have we from\nhim (Christ,) that he who loveth God loveth his brother [22]also.\" John\niv: 21, and ii: 8-11. In his letter to the Ephesians he says: \"Having\nabolished in his flesh the _enmity_ even the law of commandments\ncontained in ordinances.\" ii: 15. See the reverse. vi: 2. To the\nColossians he asks, \"Why as though living in the world, are ye subject\nto ordinances where all are to perish with their using?\" And says:\n\"Touch not, taste not, handle not.\" (Does Paul here teach us to forsake\nthe ordinances of God, instituted by the Saviour--Baptism and the Lord's\nSupper? Yes, just as clearly as he does to forsake the whole law.)\n\nWhen writing to the Hebrews more than thirty years after the\ncrucifixion, he calls these ordinances _carnal_, imposed on them (the\nJews) until Christ our High Priest should come. ix: 10, 11. He also\ncalls the law of commandments _carnal_, too, and says: \"For there is\nverily a disannulling of the commandments going before, for the law made\nnothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did.\" vii: 16,\n18-19. \"For when Moses had spoken _every precept_ to all the people\naccording to the _law_ he took the blood of calves and of goats, with\nwater, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the BOOK and all\nthe people.\" ix: 19. Now we see clearly that the book of the law of\nMoses from which Paul has been quoting through the whole before\nmentioned epistles, is as distinctly separate from the tables of stone\n(or fleshly table of the heart,) as they were when deposited in the Ark\nthirty-three hundred years ago. Therefore we think that here is clear\nproof that he has kept up the distinction between the \"handwriting of\nordinances\" (meaning Moses' own handwriting in his book,) and the \"ten\ncommandments written by the finger of God.\"\n\nLet us now turn to the Epistle of James, said to be written more than\ntwenty-five years after the law of ceremonies were nailed to the cross,\nand see if he does not teach us distinctly, that we are bound to keep\nthe commandments given on tables of stone. He says, \"the man that shall\nbe a DOER of the _perfect law_ of liberty shall be blessed in his deed.\"\ni: 25. \"If ye fulfill the royal _law_ according to the scripture, thou\nshalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.\" Why? Because the\nSaviour in quoting from the commandments, in answer to the Ruler, what\nhe should do to inherit eternal life, taught the same doctrine. Matt.\nxix: 19. Further: \"For whosoever shall keep the whole _law_ and yet\noffend in one point, shall be guilty of _all_.\" In the next verse he\nquotes from the [23]ten commandments again, namely, Adultery and\nMurder, (what the Saviour in the fifth chapter of Matt. calls the least,\nthat is the smallest commandment,) and says if we commit them we become\ntransgressors of the _law_. Of what _law_? Next verse says the _law_ of\n_liberty_ by which we are to be \"judged.\" ii: 8, 11.\n\nNow will it not be admitted by every reasonable person that James has\nincluded the whole of the ten commandments, by calling them the perfect\nlaw of liberty. 2d, \"The royal _law_ according to the scripture,\" and\n3d, \"the _law of liberty_ by which we are to be judged.\" (Royal relates\nto imperial and kingly.) Perfect means COMPLETE, _entire_, the WHOLE.\nThen I understand James thus: This _law_ emanated from the king, the\nSupreme Ruler of the universe, and to be perfect must be just what it\nwas when it came from his hand, and that no _change_ had, or could take\nplace, (and remember now, this is more than twenty-five years since the\nceremonies with the Jewish Sabbaths were nailed to the cross,) for the\nvery best of reasons, until the judgment, because he shows that we are\nto be judged by _that law_. Then I ask by what parity of reasoning any\none can make the law of the ten commandments perfect, while they at the\nsame time assert that the fourth one is abolished? and that on no better\nevidence than calling it the JEWISH Sabbath. Now let us look at the\nApostle John's testimony.\n\n\"And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments. He\nthat saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments is a LIAR, and\nthe truth is not in him.\" Now no man, more especially one who professes\nto abide by the whole truth, feels entirely easy if he is called a\n_liar_. Now John please explain yourself. Hear him: \"Brethren, I write\nno new commandment unto you but an _old_ commandment which ye had from\nthe beginning. The old commandment is the _word_ which ye have heard\nfrom the BEGINNING.\" What do you mean by _beginning_? Turn to my Gospel,\n1st ch. \"In the _beginning_ was the word,\"--\"the same was in the\n_beginning_ with God.\" 1, 2. See Gen. i ch.: \"In the _beginning_ God\ncreated the heavens and the earth.\" Then you are pointing us to the\nseventh day of creation, in which God instituted the seventh day Sabbath\nof rest, for the _old_ commandment in the _beginning_. ii: 3. Certainly\nthere is no other place to point to. Does not Jesus point us to the same\nplace for the _beginning_ when marriage was first instituted. Matt. xix:\n4. [24]In my second letter to the church, I have taught the same\ndoctrine: viz. \"This is the commandment that as ye have heard from the\n_beginning ye should walk in it_.\" (practice it.) ii: 5, 6. \"A _new_\ncommandment I write unto you.\" 7th v. This is the one that Jesus gave us\non that memorable night in which he was betrayed, after he had\ninstituted the sacrament and washed our feet. He said \"By this shall all\nmen know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another.\" xiii:\n34, 35. The first then teaches us, Love to God, 2d, to Love our neighbor\nas ourself; \"on these two commandments (says Jesus) hang all the law and\nthe prophets.\" Then we understand this is the essence of the ten\ncommandments, and if we do not keep the Sabbath we do not love God.\nJesus says, \"If ye love me ye will keep my commandments.\" We are\nrepeatedly told that the Sabbath was changed or forever abolished, at\nthe crucifiction of our Lord, and it is stated by the most competent\nauthorities that John wrote this epistle about sixty years afterwards,\nand that about six years after this our blessed Lord revealed to him the\nstate of the Church down to the judgment of the great day. In the xiv\nch. Rev. 6-11, he saw three angels following each other in succession:\nfirst one preaching the everlasting gospel (second advent doctrine); 2d,\nannouncing the fall of Babylon; 3d, calling God's people out of her by\nshowing the awful destruction that awaited all such as did not obey. He\nsees the separation and cries out, \"Here is the patients of the Saints,\nhere are they that keep the _commandments_ of God and the faith of\nJesus.\" And this picture was so deeply impressed on his mind, that when\nthe Saviour said to him \"Behold I come quickly and my reward is with\nme,\" he seemed to understand this, saying--\"Blessed are they that _do_\nhis commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, and may\nenter in through the gates into the city.\" xxii: 14. Now it seems to me\nthat the seventh day Sabbath is more clearly included in these\ncommandments, than thou shalt not steal, nor kill, nor commit adultery,\nfor it is the only one that was written at the creation or in the\n_beginning_. He allows no stopping place this side of the gates of the\ncity. Then, if we do not keep that day, John has made out his case, that\nwe are all _liars_. We say in every other case the type must be\ncontinued until it is superseded by the antitype, as in the case of the\npassover, until our Lord was crucified. So then, as Paul tells us,\n\"there remaineth a keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God,\" and\nthat we believe will be in the Milenium, [25]the seven thousandth year,\nso that the seventh day Sabbath and no other will answer for the type,\nand those who keep the first or the eighth day Sabbath cannot\nconsistently look for the antitype of rest or the great Sabbath, short\nof one thousand years in the future.\n\nAgain: Isaiah says: \"To the law and to the testimony if they speak not\naccording to this word, it is because there is no light in them.\" viii:\n20. Now if the Gentiles are under no law, as 'is asserted,' pray tell me\nwhat right, as Gentiles, have we to appeal to the law and testimony, or\nto this text.\n\nIn the xxiv. of Matt. our Saviour says to his disciples, in answer to\ntheir questions, When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign\nof thy coming, and the end of the world? \"When ye therefore shall see\nthe abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in\nthe holy place,\" &c. 15v. \"Pray ye that your flight be not in the\nwinter, neither on the Sabbath day.\" 20v. The first question is, at what\nage of the world is this, where our Lord recognizes the Sabbath? 1st. It\nis agreed on all hands that this time to which he here refers, never\ntranspired until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, about forty\nyears after his crucifiction. 2d. Some others say, down to the second\nAdvent! The first mentioned is safe ground and sufficient for our\npurpose; nor need we stop to inquire why our Lord gave these directions,\nit is forever settled that he directed the minds of his followers to\nTHE, not _a_ Sabbath. Keep it in remembrance, that he told the Pharisees\nthat he was Lord, not of _a_, but of THE Sabbath, meaning that one which\nof course had already been established. The 2d question is, did our Lord\never trifle with, or mislead his disciples? The response is No! Then it\nis clear that if he taught them to pray at all, it must be in faith, and\nhe of course would hear them and mediate with the Father to change the\nday of their flight. I ask what kind of a prayer and with what kind of\nfaith would his disciples have asked to have this day changed, if as we\nare told, it was abolished some forty years before, and they had,\ncontrary to the will of God, persisted in keeping up this seventh day\nSabbath. Any one who has confidence in God's word, knows that such a\nprayer never would be answered. What if you do say the Jews always kept\nthat Sabbath, and it was the same seventh day Sabbath which they kept\nwhen he was teaching them in their synagogues? I, say so too! (and that\nfact will be presented by and by, in its place.) This does not touch the\npoint. Jesus was here giving instructions to his [26]followers, both\nJew and Gentile, respecting _the_ Sabbath which they would have to do\nwith. It is immaterial what kind of sophistry is presented to overthrow\nthe point, nothing can touch it short of proving it a mistranslation.\nJesus did here recognize the perpetuity of the _seventh day Sabbath_.\nAnd John will continue to make all men liars that say they know him and\nrefuse the light presented and disregard this commandment. If God\ninstituted the Sabbath in Paradise and has not abolished it here, then\nmust it be _perpetual_? If Paul's argument in iii. Rom. that the law is\nestablished through faith, is correct then is it _perpetual_. If James'\nroyal _perfect law_ of liberty, which we are to be doers of, and judged\nby, means the commandments, then is the Sabbath _perpetual_. If the\nApostle John has made out a clear case, by citing us back to the\n_beginning_ of creation, and by _walking_ in and doing these\ncommandments, we shall have right to the tree of life and enter in by\nthe gates into the city; then it _must be perpetual_. If the earthly\nSabbath is typical of the heavenly, then must it be _perpetual_. If not\none jot or one tittle can ever pass from the law, then must it be\n_perpetual_. If the Saviour, in answer to the young man who asked him\nwhat he should do to inherit _eternal life_, gave a safe direction for\nGentiles to follow, viz: \"If thou wilt enter into _life_ keep the\ncommandments (and these included those commandments which his Father had\ngiven), then, without _contradiction_ the Sabbath is _perpetual_, and\nall the arguments which ever can be presented against the fourth\ncommandment being observed before God wrote it on tables of stone to\nprove that it is not binding on Gentiles, falls powerless before this\none sentence: _If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments._ I\nsay the proof is positive that the Sabbath was a constituent part of the\ncommandments, and Jesus says the Sabbath 'was made for man.' The Jews\nwere only a _fragment of creation_.\n\n\"The principle is settled in all governments that there are but two ways\nin which any law can cease to be binding upon the people. It may expire\nby its own limitations, or it may be repealed by the same authority\nwhich enacted it; and in the latter case the repealing act must be as\nexplicit as that by which the obligation was originally imposed.\" Now we\nhave it in proof that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, the\n_first_ of all laws without any limitation, and no enactment by God to\nabolish it, unless what we have already referred to can be considered\nproof. One more passage which I have not alluded to will show that it\nwas not [27]abolished at the crucifiction, for his disciples kept the\nSabbath while he was resting in his tomb. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. Let us\nnow pass to another part of the subject. The third question:\n\n\nWAS THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH EVER CHANGED? IF SO, WHEN, AND FOR WHAT\nREASON?\n\nHere we come to a question which has more or less engaged the attention\nof the whole christian world, and the greater portion of those who\nbelieve in a crucified Saviour say that this change took place, and is\ndated from his resurrection. Some say subsequently, while a minority\ninsist upon it that there is no proof for the change. Now to obtain the\ntruth and nothing but the truth on this important subject, I propose to\npresent, or quote from standard authors on both sides of the question,\nand try the whole by the standard of divine truth. 1st. Buck's\nTheological Dictionary, to which no doubt thousands of ministers and\nlaymen appeal to sustain their argument for the change, says: \"Under the\nchristian dispensation the Sabbath is _altered_ from the _seventh_ to\nthe _first day_ of the week.\" The arguments for the change, are these:\n1st. \"The _seventh_ day was observed by the Jewish church in memory of\nthe rest of God; so the _first_ day of the week has always been observed\nby the christian church in memory of _Christ's resurrection_. 2d. Christ\nmade repeated visits to his disciples on that day. 3d. It is called the\nLord's day. Rev. i: 10. 4th. On this day the Apostles were assembled,\nwhen the Holy Ghost came down so visibly upon them to qualify them for\nthe conversion of the world. 5th. On this day we find Paul at Troas when\nthe disciples came together to break bread. 6th. The directions the\nApostles gave to Christians plainly alludes to their assembling on that\nday. 7th. Pliny bears witness of the first day of the week being kept as\na festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ.\"\n\n\"Numerous have been the days appointed by man for religious services,\nbut these are not binding because of _human_ institution. Not so the\nSabbath. It is of _divine_ institution, so it is to be kept holy unto\nthe Lord.\"\n\nDoct. Dodridge, whose ability and piety has seldom or rarely been\ndisputed, comments on some of the above articles thus: (Commentary p.\n606.) \"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in\nstore, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I\ncome.\" 1 Cor. xvi: 2. \"Show that it was to be put into a [28]common\nstock. The argument drawn from hence for the religious observance of the\nfirst day of the week in these primitive churches of Corinth and Galacia\nis too _obvious_ to need any further illustration, and yet too important\nto be passed by in entire silence.\" Again, p. 904, \"I was in the spirit\non the Lord's day,\" &c. Rev. i: 10. \"It is so very unnatural and\ncontrary to the use of the word in all other authors to interpret this\nof the Jewish Sabbath, as Mr. Baxter justly argues at large, that I\ncannot but conclude with him and the generality of Christian writers on\nthis subject, that this text _strongly_ infers the extraordinary regard\npaid to the first day of the week in the Apostle's time as a day\nsolemnly consecrated to Christ in memory of his resurrection from the\ndead.\" There is much more, but these are his strong arguments. I shall\nquote some more from the Commentaries by and by. I wish to place by the\nside of these arguments one from the British Quarterly Theological\nReview and Ecclesiastical Recorder, of Jan. 1830, which I extract from\n'the _Institution of the Sabbath day_,' by Wm. Logan Fisher, of\nPhiladelphia, a book in which there is much valuable information on this\nsubject, though I disagree with the writer, because his whole labor is\nto abolish the Sabbath; yet he gives much light on this subject, from\nwhich I take the liberty to make some quotations.\n\nBut to the Quarterly Review of 1830: \"It is said that the observance of\nthe seventh day Sabbath is transferred in the Christian church to the\nfirst day of the week. We ask by what authority, and are very much\nmistaken if an examination of all the texts of the New Testament, in\nwhich the first day of the week or Lord's day is mentioned, does not\nprove that there is no divine or Apostolic precept enjoining its\nobservance, nor any certain evidence from scripture that it was, in\nfact, so observed in the times of the Apostles. Accordingly we search\nthe scriptures in vain, either for an Apostolic precept, appointing the\nfirst day of the week to be observed in the place of the Jewish Sabbath,\nor for any unequivocal proof that the first christians so observed\nit--there are only three or, at most four places of scripture, in which\nthe first day of the week is mentioned. The next passage is in Acts xx:\n7. 'Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to\nbreak bread, Paul preached unto them.' All that St. Luke here tells us\nplainly is, that on a particular occasion the christians of Troas met\ntogether on the first day of the week to celebrate the Eucharist and to\nhear Paul preach. This is the only place in [29]scripture, in which the\nfirst day of the week is in any way connected with any acts of public\nworship, and he who would certainly infer from this _solitary instance_\nthat the first day of every week was consecrated by the Apostles to\nreligious purposes, must be far gone in the art of drawing universal\nconclusion from particular premises.\"\n\nOn page 178, Mr. Fisher says, \"I have examined several different\ntranslations of the scriptures, both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint,\nwith notes and anotations more extensive than the texts; have traced as\nfar as my leisure would permit, various ecclesiastical histories, some\nof them voluminous and of ancient date; have paid considerable attention\nto the writings of the earliest authors in the christian era, and to\nrare works, old and of difficult access, which treat upon this subject;\nI have read with care many of the publications of sectarians to sustain\nthe institution; I have omitted nothing within my reach, and I have\nfound not one shred of argument, or authority of any kind, that may not\nbe deemed of partial and sectarian character, to support the institution\nof the first day of the week as a day of peculiar holiness. But, in the\nplace of argument, I have found opinions without number--volumes filled\nwith idle words that have no truth in them. In the want of texts of\nscripture, I have found perversions; in the want of truth, false\nstatements. I have seen it stated that Justin Marter in his apology,\nspeaks of Sunday as a holy day; that Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who\nlived in the fourth century, establishes the fact of the transfer of the\n_seventh_ to the first day, by Christ himself. These things are _not\ntrue_. These authors say no such thing. I have seen other early authors\nreferred to as establishing the same point, but they are equally false.\"\n\nHere then is the testimony of four authors, two for the change and two\nagainst it, from the old and new world. No truth seeking, unbiased mind\ncan hesitate for a moment on which side to decide, after comparing them\nwith the inspired word.\n\nDoctor JENKS of Boston, author of the Comprehensive Commentary,\n(purporting to comprehend _all_ other commentators on the bible,) after\nquoting author after author, on this subject, ventures forth with _his_\nunsupported opinion in these words: \"Here is a Christian Sabbath\nobserved by the disciples and _owned_ by _our Lord_. The visit Christ\nmade to his disciples was on the first day of the week, and the first\nday of the week is the only day of the week or month or year ever\nmentioned by numbers in all the New [30]Testament, and that is several\ntimes spoken of as a day _religiously_ observed.\" Where? Echo answers,\nwhere!\n\nHEMAN HUMPHREY, President of Amherst College, from whose book I have\nalready made some quotations, after devoting some thirty-four pages to\nthe establishment and perpetuation of the seventh day Sabbath, comes to\nhis fourth question, viz. 'Has the day been changed?' Singular as this\nquestion may appear by the side of what he had already written to\nestablish and perpetuate the seventh day Sabbath from the seventh day of\ncreation down to the resurrection of the just, but as every man feels\nthat it his privilege to justify and explain, when precept and practice\ndoes not agree--so is it with President Humphrey, he can now shape the\nscriptures to suit every one that has followed in the wake of Pope\nGregory for 1225 years. He says, \"The fourth commandment is so expressed\nas to admit of a change in the day,\"--thus striking vitally every\nargument he had before presented. Hear him--he says the seventh day is\nthe Sabbath; \"it was so at that time, (in the beginning) and for many\nages after, but it is not said, that it always _shall be_--it is the\n_Sabbath_ day which we are to remember; and so at the close, it is the\n_Sabbath_ which was hallowed and blessed and not the _seventh_ day. The\nSabbath then, the holy rest itself, is one thing. The day on which we\nare to rest is another.\" I ask, in the name of common sense, how we\nshould know how or when to keep the Sabbath if it did not matter which\nday. If the President could not see the sanctification of the seventh\nday in the decalogue what did he mean by quoting Gen. ii: 3, so often,\nwhere it says \"_God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it._\"\n\nAgain, he says \"Redemption is a greater work than creation, hence the\nchange.\" Fifthly, God early consecrated the Christian Sabbath by a most\nremarkable outpouring of his spirit at the day of Pentecost. And that\nJesus has left us his own example by not saying a syllable after his\nresurrection about keeping the _Jewish Sabbath_. He also quotes the four\npassages about Jesus and his disciples keeping the first day of the\nweek. Here, he says, the inference to our minds is _irresistible_--for\nkeeping the first day of the week instead of the _seventh_. And further\nsays, \"it might be proved by innumerable quotations from the writings of\nthe Apostolic Fathers,\" &c. All this may be very true in itself, but it\nall falls to the ground for the want of one single precept from the\nbible. If Redemption, because it was greater than Creation, and the\nremarkable display of God's power at the [31]Pentecost, and Christ\nnever saying any thing about the _Jewish Sabbath_ after his resurrection\nare such _strong_ proofs that the perpetual seventh day Sabbath was\nchanged to the first day at that time, and must be believed because\nlearned men say so, what shall we do with the sixth day, on which our\nblessed Saviour expired on the cross; darkness for three hours had\ncovered the earth, and the vail of the Temple was rent from top to the\nbottom, and there was such an earthquake throughout vast creation that\nwe have only to open our eyes and look at the rent rocks for a clear and\nperfect demonstration that this whole globe was shaken from centre to\ncircumference, and the graves of the dead were opened. Matt. xxvii: 50,\n53. You may answer me that Popery has honored that day by calling it\ngood Friday, and the next first day following Easter Sunday, &c., but\nafter all, nothing short of bible argument will satisfy the earnest\ninquirer after truth. The President had already shown that the _Jewish_\nSabbath was abolished at Christ's death. What reason then had he to\nbelieve that the Saviour would speak of it afterwards. So also the\nPentecost had been a type from the giving the law at Sinai to be kept\nannually for about 1500 years, consequently it would be solemnized on\nevery day of the week, at each revolving year, as is the case with the\n4th of July: three years ago it was on the fourth day and now it comes\non the seventh day of the week. Further, see Peter standing amidst the\namazed multitude, giving the scripture reason for this miraculous\ndisplay of God's power. He does not give the most distant hint that this\nwas, or was to be, the day of the week for worship, or the true Sabbath,\nneither do any of the Apostles then, or afterwards, for when they kept\nthis day the next year, it must have been the second day of the week. We\nmust have better evidence than what has been adduced, to believe this\nwas the Sabbath, for according to the type, seven Sabbaths were to be\ncomplete, (and there was no other way given them to come to the right\nday,) from the day they kept the first, or from the resurrection. Here\nthen is proof positive that the Sabbath in this year was the day before\nthe Pentecost. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. If President H. is right, then\nwas there two Sabbaths to be kept in succession in one week. Where is\nthe precept? No where! Well, says the inquirer, I want to see the bible\nproof for this '_Christian Sabbath observed by the disciples, and owned\nby our Lord_.' W. Jenks. Here it will be necessary for us to understand,\nfirst how God has computed time. In Gen. i. we read, \"And [32]God said\nlet there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day\nfrom the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days\nand years.\" 14 v. 16 v. says, \"the greater light to rule the day,\"--from\nsunrise to sunset. Now there are many modes invented for computing time.\nWe say our day begins at 12 o'clock at night; seamen begin theirs twelve\nhours sooner, at noon; the Jews commence their days at 6 o'clock in the\nevening, between the two extremes. Are we _all_ right? No! Who shall\nsettle this question? God! Very well: He called the light day, and the\ndarkness he called night, and the evening and the morning were the first\nday. Gen. i: 5. Then the twenty-four hour day commenced at 6 o'clock in\nthe evening. How is that, says one? Because you cannot regulate the day\nand night to have what the Saviour calls twelve hours in the day,\nwithout establishing the time from the centre of the earth, the equator,\nwhere, at the beginning of the sacred year, the sun rises and sets at 6\no'clock. At _this_ time, while the sun is at the summer solstice, the\ninhabitants of the north pole have no night, while at this same time at\nthe south it is about all night, therefore the inhabitants of the earth\nhave no other right time to commence their twenty-four hour day, than\nbeginning at 6 o'clock in the evening. God said to Moses '_from even,\nunto even, shall you celebrate your Sabbath_.' Then of course the next\nday must begin where the Sabbath ended. History shows that the Jews\nobeyed and commenced their days at 6 o'clock in the evening. Now then we\nwill try to investigate the main argument by which these authors, and\nthousands of others say the Sabbath was changed. The first is in John\nxx: 19, \"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week\nwhen the doors where shut where the disciples were assembled _for fear\nof the Jews_ (mark it) came Jesus and stood in their midst, and said\npeace be unto you.\" Here we understand this to be the same day of the\nresurrection. On that same day he travelled with the two disciples to\nEmans, sixty furlongs (7-1/2 miles), and they constrained him to abide\nwith them, for it was toward evening and the _day was far spent_. Luke\nxxiv: 29. After this the disciples travelled the 7-1/2 miles back to\nJerusalem and soon after they found the disciples, the Saviour, as above\nstated, was in their midst. Now it cannot be disputed but what this was\nthe evening after the resurrection, for Jesus rose in the morning, some\nten or eleven hours after the first day had commenced. Then the evening\nof the first day was passing away, and therefore the evening brought to\nview in [33]the text was the close of the first day or the commencing\nof the second. McKnight's translation says, \"in the evening of that\nday.\" Purver's translation says, \"the evening of that day on the first\nafter the Sabbath.\" Further, wherever the phrase first day of the week,\noccurs in the New Testament, the word day is in _italics_, showing that\nit is not the original; but supplied by translators. Again, it is\nasserted that Jesus met with his disciples the next first day. See 26v:\n\"And _after_ eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with\nthem, then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and\nsaid peace be unto you.\" Dr. Adam Clark in referring to this 26v, says:\n\"It seems likely that this was precisely on that day se'night on which\nChrist had appeared to them before; and from this we may learn that this\nwas the weekly meeting of the Apostles.\" Now it appears to me that a\nlittle child, with the simple rules of addition and subtraction, could\nhave refuted this man. I feel astonished that men who profess to be\nambassadors for God do not expose such downright perversion of\nscripture, but it may look clear to those who want to have it so. Not\nmany months since, in conversation with the Second Advent lecturer in\nNew Bedford, I brought up this subject. He told me I did not understand\nit. See here, says he. I can make it plain, counting his fingers thus:\nSunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday,\nSunday--does'nt that make eight days after? and because I would not\nconcede, he parted from me as one that was obstinate and self-willed.\nAfterwards musing on the subject, I said, this must be the way then to\nunderstand it: _Count Sunday Twice._ If any of them were to be paid for\neight days labor, they would detect the error in a moment if their\nemployer should attempt to put the first and last days together, and\noffer them pay but for seven. Eight days _after_ the evening of the\nfirst day would stand thus: The second day of the week would certainly\nbe the first of the eight. Then to count eight days of twenty-four hours\n_after_, we must begin at the close of the evening of the first, and\ncount to the close of the evening of the second day; to where the Jews\n(by God's command) commenced their third day. But suppose we calculate\nit by our mode of keeping time. Our Lord appears to his disciples the\nfirst time at the close of Sunday evening. Now count eight days _after_,\n(with your fingers or anything else,) and it will bring you to Monday\nevening. Now I ask if this looks like Sunday, the first day of the week?\n\n\n[34]Father Miller also gives his reasons for the change, in his lecture\non the great Sabbath: \"One is Christ's resurrection and his often\nmeeting with his disciples _afterwards_ on that day. This, with the\nexample of the Apostles, is strong evidence that the proper creation\nSabbath to man, came on the first day of the week.\" His proof is this:\n\"Adam must have rested on the first day of his life, and thus you will\nsee that to Adam it was the first day of the week, for it would not be\nreasonable to suppose that Adam began to reckon time before he was\ncreated.\" He certainly could not be able to work six days before the\nfirst Sabbath. And thus with the second Adam; the first day of the week\nhe arose and lived. And we find by the _bible_ and by history, that the\nfirst day of the week \"_was ever afterwards observed as a day of\nworship_.\" Now I say there is no more truth in these assertions, than\nthere is in those I have already quoted. There is not one passage in the\nbible to show that Christ met with his disciples on the first day of the\nweek after the day of his resurrection, nor that the first day of the\nweek was _ever afterwards_ observed as a day of worship; save only in\none instance, and that shall be noticed in its place. And it seems to me\nif Adam could not reckon time only from his creation then by the same\nrule no other man could reckon time before his birth, and by this\nshowing Christ could not reckon his time until after his resurrection.\nIt is painful to me to expose the errors of one whom I have so long\nvenerated, and still love for the flood of light he has given the world\nin respect to the Second Advent of our Saviour; but God's word must be\nvindicated if we have to cut off a right arm, \"there is nothing true but\ntruth!\" I pray God to forgive him in joining the great multitude of\nAdvent believers, to sound the retreat back beyond the _tarrying_ time,\njust when the virgins had gained a glorious victory over the world, the\nflesh, and the devil! Go back from this to the slumbering quarters now;\nnothing but treachery to our Master's cause ever dictated such a course!\nI never can be made to believe that our glorious Commander designed that\nwe should leave our sacrifices smoking on the altar of God, in the midst\nof the enemies' land, but rather that we should be pushing onward from\nvictory to victory, until we are established in the Capital of _His_\nkingdom. Would it have been expedient or a mark of courage in General\nTaylor, after he had conquered the Mexican army on the 9th May last, to\nhave retreated back to the capital of the U. States, to place himself\nand army on the _broad platform_ of liberty, and [35]commence to travel\nthe ground over again for the purpose of pursuing and overcoming his\nvanquished foe? No! Every person of common sense knows that such a\ncourse would have overwhelmed him and all his followers with unutterable\ndisgrace, no matter how unrighteous the contest. Not so with this, for\nour cause is one of the most glorious, tho' it be the most trying that\never the sun shone upon since God placed it in the heavens. Onward and\nvictory, then, are our watchwords, and no retreating back to, or beyond\nthe cry at _Midnight_! But to the subject. Did our Saviour ever meet\nwith his disciples on the first day of the week after the evening of the\nday of his resurrection? The xxi. ch. John says \"they went a fishing,\nand while there Jesus appeared unto them.\" In the 14th v. he says, \"This\nis now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples after\nthat he was risen from the dead.\" Now turn to 1 Cor. xv: 4-7: Paul's\ntestimony is, 'that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, after\nthat of above five hundred brethren at once, and then of James, then of\nall the Apostles.' These are all that are specified, up to his going\ninto heaven. Now pray tell me if you can, where these men got their\ninformation respecting the frequent meetings on the first day of the\nweek. The bible says no such thing. But let us pursue the subject and\nlook at the third text, \"Upon the first day of the week let every one of\nyou lay by him in _store_, as God has prospered him, that there be no\ngatherings when I come.\" Now please turn back to Dr. Dodridge's\nauthority, he says the argument is too obvious to need any illustration,\nthat the money was put into common stock, and that this was the\nreligious observance of the first day of the week. Now whoever will read\nthe first six verses of this chapter, and compare them with Rom. xv:\n26-33, will see that Paul's design was to collect some money for the\npoor saints at Jerusalem, and their laying it by them in store until he\ncame that way; for it plainly implies that they were at home, for no one\ncould understand that you had money lying by you in store, if it was in\ncommon stock or in other hands. Again, see Acts xviii: 4, 11. Paul\npreaching every Sabbath day, at this very time, for eighteen months, to\nthese very same Corinthians, bids them farewell, to go up to the feast\nat Jerusalem, 21 v. By reading to xxi. ch. 17 v. you have his history\nuntil he arrives there. Now I ask, if Dr. Dodridge's clear illustration\ncan or will be relied on, when Luke clearly teaches that Paul's _manner_\nwas, and that he did always preach to them on the Sabbath, which, of\ncourse, [36]was the Seventh day, and not the first day of the week.\nFourth text, John says: I was in the spirit on the Lord's day. Here Dr.\nD. concludes with the generality of christian writers on this subject\nthat this strongly infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day\nof the week, as solemnly consecrated to Christ, &c. If the scripture any\nwhere called this the Lord's day, there might be some reason to believe\ntheir statements, but the seventh day Sabbath is called the Lord's day.\nSee Exod. xx: 10.\n\nMr. Fisher, in speaking of the late Harrisburg convention of 1844-45,\nsays, \"The most spirited debate that occurred at the assembly was to fix\na proper name for the first day of the week, whether it should be called\n_Sabbath_, the _Christian_ Sabbath or _Lord's_ day. The reason for this\ndispute was, that there was no authority for calling the first day of\nthe week by either one of these names. To pretend that that command was\nfixed and unchangeable, and yet to alter it to please the fancy of man,\nis in itself ridiculous. It is hardly possible in the nature of man,\nthat a class of society should be receiving pay for their services and\nnot be influenced thereby:--in the nature of things they will avoid such\ndoctrines as are repugnant to them that give them bread.\"\n\nNow we come to the fifth and last, and only one spoken of in all the New\nTestament, for a meeting on the first day of the week. Luke says, \"Upon\nthe first day of the week when the disciples came together to break\nbread, Paul preached unto them, _ready to depart on the morrow_: and\ncontinued his speech until midnight.\" Acts xx: 7. Now by following the\nscripture mode of computing time, from 6 o'clock in the evening to 6\no'clock in the morning, as has been shown, Paul to commence on the\nbeginning of the first day would begin on what we call Saturday evening\nat 6 o'clock, and preach till midnight. After that he restores to life\nthe young man, then breaks bread and talked till the break of day, which\nwould be Sunday morning. Then he commenced his journey for Jerusalem and\ntravelled and sailed all day Sunday, the first day of the week, and two\nother days in succession. xx: 11-15. Now it seems to me, if Paul did\nteach or keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath or a holy day,\nhe violated the sanctity of it to all intents and purposes, without\ngiving one single reason for it; all the proof presented here is a night\nmeeting. Please see the quotation from the British Quarterly Review. But\nlet us look at it the way in which _we_ compute time: I think it will be\nfair to premise, that about midnight was the middle of [37]Paul's\nmeeting; at any rate there is but one midnight to a twenty-four hour\nday. We say that Sunday, the first day of the week, does not commence\nuntil 12 o'clock Saturday night. Then it is very clear, if he is\npreaching on the first day till midnight, according to our reckoning it\nmust be on Sunday night, and his celebrating the Lord's supper after\nmidnight would make it that he broke bread on _Monday, the second day_,\nand that the day time on Sunday is not included, unless he had continued\nhis speech through the day till midnight. Now the text says that on the\nfirst day of the week they came together to break bread. To _prove that\nthey did break bread on that day_, we must take the mode in which the\nJews computed time, and allow the first day of the week to begin at 6\no'clock on Saturday evening, and to follow Paul's example, pay no regard\nto the first day, after daylight, but to travel, &c. If _our_ mode of\ntime is taken, they broke bread on the second day, and that would\ndestroy the meaning of the text. Here then, in this text, is the _only_\nargument that can be adduced in the scriptures of divine truth, for a\n_change of the perpetual seventh day_ Sabbath of the Lord our God to the\nfirst day of the week.\n\nNow I'll venture the assertion, that there is no law or commandment\nrecorded in the bible, that God has held so sacred among men, as the\nkeeping of His Sabbath. Where then, I ask, is the living man that dare\nstand before God and declare that here is the change for the church of\nGod to keep the first instead of the seventh day of the week for the\nSabbath. If it could be proved that Paul preached here all of the first\nday, the only inference that could be drawn, would be, to break bread on\nthat day!\n\nThere is one more point worthy of our attention, that is, the teaching\nand example of Jesus. I have been told by one that is looked up to as a\nstrong believer in the second coming of the Lord this fall, that Jesus\nbroke the Sabbath. Jesus says, I have kept my Father's commandments. It\nis said that he 'broke the Sabbath,' because he allowed his disciples to\npluck the corn and eat it on that day, and the Pharisees condemned them.\nHe says, \"If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not\nsacrifice, ye would not have condemned the _guiltless_.\" Then they were\nnot _guilty_. See Deut. xxiii: 25. He immediately cites them to David\nand his men, shewing that it was lawful and right when hungry, even to\neat the shoe bread that belonged only to the priests, and told them that\nhe was Lord of the Sabbath day. Here he shows too, that he was with his\n[38]disciples passing to the synagogue to teach; they ask him if it was\nlawful to heal on the Sabbath day. He asks them if they had a sheep fall\ninto the ditch on the Sabbath, if they would not haul him out? How much\nbetter then is a man than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on\nthe Sabbath days; and immediately healed the man with a withered hand.\nMatt. xii: 1-13. On another Sabbath day, while he was teaching, he\nhealed a woman that had been bound of satan eighteen years, and when the\nruler of the synagogue began to find fault, he called him a hypocrite,\nand said \"doth not each one of you on the Sabbath day loose his ox or\nhis ass from the stall and lead him away to watering; and all his\nadversaries were _ashamed_.\" Luke xiii: 10-17. The xiv. chapter of Luke\nis quoted to prove that he broke the Sabbath because he went into the\nPharisees house with many others on the Sabbath day to eat bread. Here\nhe saw a man with the dropsy and he asked them if it was lawful to heal\non the Sabbath day. 'And they held their peace and he took him and\nhealed him,' and asked them 'which of them having an ox or an ass fall\ninto the pit, would not straitway pull him out on the Sabbath day; and\nthey could not answer him again.' 1-6 v. And 'he continued to teach\nthem, by showing them when they made a feast to call the poor, the\nmaimed, the lame, the blind, and then they should be blessed.' Read the\nchapter, and you will readily see that he took this occasion, as the\nmost befitting, to teach them by parables, what their duty was at\nweddings and feasts, in the same manner as he taught them in their\nsynagogues.\n\nThere is still another passage, and I believe the only one, to which\nreference has been made, (except where he opened the eyes of a man that\nwas born blind,) for proof that he broke the Sabbath. It is recorded in\nJohn v: 5-17. Here Jesus found a man that had been sick thirty-eight\nyears, by the pool of Bethesda, 'he saith unto him rise, take up thy bed\nand walk,--therefore did they persecute Jesus and sought to slay him,\nbecause he had done these things on the Sabbath day.' 16 v. 'But Jesus\nanswered them, my Father worketh hitherto and I work.' If they did not\nwork every hour and moment of time, it would be impossible for man to\nexist: Here undoubtedly he had reference to these and other acts of\nnecessity and mercy; but the great sin for which professors in this\nenlightened age charge the Saviour with in this transaction, is, in\ndirecting the man to take up his bed, contrary to law. It is clear the\npeople [39]were forbidden to carry burthens on the Sabbath day, as in\nJer. xvii: 21, 22, but by reading the 24th v. in connection with Neh.\nxiii: 15-22, we learn that this prohibition related to what was lawful\nfor them to do on the other six days of the week, viz. merchandise and\ntrading. See proof, Neh. x: 31: also unlawful, as in Amos viii: 5. We\nneed not, nor we cannot misunderstand the fourth commandment, taken in\nconnection with the other nine, they were simple and pure written by the\nfinger of God; but in the days of our Saviour it had become heavily\nladen with Jewish traditions, hence when Jesus appeals to them whether\nit is lawful to do good and to heal on the Sabbath days, their mouths\nare closed because they cannot contradict him from the law nor the\nprophets. The Saviour no where interferes with them in their most rigid\nobservance of the day; but when they find fault with him for performing\nhis miracles of mercy on that day, he tells them they have broken the\nlaw; and in another place, \"If a man on the Sabbath day receive\ncircumcision without breaking the law of Moses, are ye angry at me\nbecause I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?\" He then\nsays, \"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous\njudgment.\" vii: 23, 24. Did he break the Sabbath? Now the law requires\nthat the beasts shall rest; but what is the practice of many of those\nwho are the most strict in keeping Sunday for the Sabbath. Sick, or\nwell, ministers or laymen, do they not ride back and forth to meeting?\nAgain, is it right and lawful to carry forth our dead on the Sabbath? or\ncarry the communion service back and forth. The Apostle says, 'believe\nand be baptized.' Suppose this should be on the Sabbath and we were some\ndistance from the water, would any one interfere with us if we carried\nour change of apparel with us and back again, or have we in so doing\ntransgressed the law; if we have, it is high time we made a full stop.\nJesus undoubtedly had good reasons for directing the sick man to take up\nhis bed and walk, but I cannot learn that he justified any one else in\ncarrying their bed on the Sabbath, unless in a case of necessity and\nmercy, such as he cited them to, as watering their cattle, and pulling\nthem out of the ditch, and eating when hungry, and being healed when\nsick. Be it also remembered that when the Sanhedrim tried him they did\nnot condemn him, as in the other cases cited; so in this, they failed\nfor want of scripture testimony. He was the Lord of the Sabbath, and the\nlaw of ceremonies were now about [40]to cease forever, the ten\ncommandments with the keeping of the Sabbath therefore were to be\nstripped of these ceremonies and all of their traditions, and left as\npure to be written on the hearts of the Gentiles as when first written\non tables of stone, therefore Jesus taught that it was right to do good\non the Sabbath day, and whoever follows his example and teaching will\nkeep the seventh day Sabbath holy and acceptable to God. They will also\njudge righteous judgement, and not according to appearance.\n\nThere is but one Christian Sabbath named, or established in the bible,\nand that individual, whoever he is, that undertakes to abolish or change\nit, is the _real Sabbath breaker_. Remember that the keeping the\ncommandments is the only safe guide through the gates into the city.\n\nMy friends and neighbors, and especially my family, know that I have for\nmore than twenty years, strictly endeavored to keep the first day of the\nweek for the Sabbath, and I can say that I did it in all good conscience\nbefore God, on the ocean, and in foreign countries as well as my own,\nuntil about sixteen months since I read an article published in the Hope\nof Israel, by a worthy brother, T. M. Preble, of Nashua, which when I\nread and compared with the bible, convinced me that there never had been\nany change. Therefore the seventh day was the Sabbath, and God required\nme as well as him to keep it holy. Many things now troubled my mind as\nto how I could make this great change, family, friends, and brethren\nand, but this one passage of Scripture was, and always will be as clear\nas a sunbeam. \"_What is that to thee: follow thou me._\" In a few days my\nmind was made up to begin to keep the fourth commandment, and I bless\nGod for the clear light he has shed upon my mind in answer to prayer and\na thorough examination of the scriptures on this great subject. Contrary\nviews did, after a little, shake my position some, but I feel now that\nthere is no argument nor sophistry that can becloud my mind again this\nside of the gates of the Holy City. Brother Marsh, who no doubt thinks,\nand perhaps thousands besides, that his paper is what it purports to be,\nTHE VOICE OF TRUTH, takes the ground with the infidel that there is no\nSabbath. Brother S. S. Snow, of New York, late editor of the Jubilee\nStandard, publishes to the world that he is the Elijah, preceding the\nadvent of our Saviour, restoring all things: (the seventh day Sabbath\nmust be one of the all things,) and yet he takes the same ground with\nBr. Marsh, that the Sabbath [41]is forever abolished. As the seventh\nday Sabbath is a real prophecy, a picture (and not a shadow like the\nJewish Sabbaths,) of the thing typified which is to come, I cannot see\nhow those who believe in the change or abolition of the type, can have\nany confidence to look to God for the great antetype, the Sabbath of\nrest, to come to them.\n\nBrother J. B. Cook has written a short piece in his excellent paper, the\nADVENT TESTIMONY. It was pointed and good, but too short; and as brother\nPreble's Tract now before me, did not embrace the arguments which have\nbeen presented since he published it, it appeared to me that something\nwas called for in this time of falling back from this great subject. I\ntherefore present this book, hoping at least, that it will help to\nstrengthen and save all honest souls seeking after truth.\n\nA WORD RESPECTING THE HISTORY. At the close of the first century a\ncontroversy arose, whether both days should be kept or only one, which\ncontinued until the reign of Constantine the Great. By his laws, made in\nA. D. 321, it was decreed for the future that Sunday should be kept a\nday of rest in all the cities and towns; but he allowed the country\npeople to follow husbandry. History further informs us that Constantine\nmurdered his two sisters husbands and son, and his own familiar friend,\nthat same year, and the year before boiled his wife in a cauldron of\noil.--The controversy still continued down to A. D. 603, when Pope\nGregory passed a law abolishing the seventh day Sabbath, and\nestablishing the first day of the week. See Baronius Councils, 603.\nBarnfield's Eng. page 116, states that the Parliament of England met on\nSundays till the time of Richard II. The first law of England made for\nkeeping of Sunday, was in the time of Edward IV. about 1470. As these\ntwo books are not within my reach, I have extracted from T. M. Preble's\ntract on the Sabbath. Mr. Fisher says, it was Dr. Bound one of the rigid\npuritans, who applied the name _Sabbath_ to the first day of the week,\nabout the year 1795. \"The word Sunday is not found in the bible,\" it\nderived its name from the heathen nations of the North, because the day\nwas dedicated to the sun. Neither is the Sabbath applied to the first\nday any more than it is to the sixth day of the week. While Daniel\nbeheld the little horn, (popery) he said, among other things, he would\n_think_ to change times and laws. Now this could not mean of men,\nbecause it ever has been the prerogative of absolute rulers like\nhimself, to change [42]manmade laws. Then to make the prophecy\nharmonize with the scripture, he must have meant times and laws\nestablished by God, because he might think and pass decrees as he has\ndone, but he, nor all the universe could ever change God's times and\nlaws. Jesus says that \"times and seasons were in the power of the\nfather.\" The Sabbath is the most important law which God ever\ninstituted. \"How long refuse ye to keep my commandments, and my laws,\nsee for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath.\" Exod. xvi: 28, 29.\nThen it's clear from the history, that this is in part what Daniel\nmeant. Now the second advent believers have professed all confidence in\nhis visions: why then doubt this. Whoever feels disposed to defend and\nsustain the decrees of that \"blasphemous\" power, and especially Pope\nGregory and the great Constantine, the murderer, shown to be the _moral_\nreformer in this work of changing the Sabbath, are welcome to their\nprinciples and feelings. I detest these acts, in common with all others\nwhich have emanated from these ten and one horned powers. The\nRevelations show us clearly that they were originated by the devil. If\nyou say this history is not true then you are bound to refute it. If you\ncannot, you are as much in duty bound to believe it as any other\nhistory, even, that George Washington died in 1799! If the bible\nargument, and testimony from history are to be relied on as evidence,\nthen it is as clear as a sunbeam that the seventh day Sabbath is a\nperpetual sign, and is as binding upon man as it ever was. But we are\ntold we must keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath as an\nordinance to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. I for one had rather\nbelieve Paul. See Rom. vi: 3-5; Gal. iii: 27; Col. ii: 12.\n\nA word more respecting time. See 31st page. Here I have shown that the\nsun in the centre, regulates all time for the earth--fifty-two weeks to\nthe year, one hundred and sixty-eight hours to the week, the seventh of\nwhich is twenty-four hours. Jesus says there are but twelve hours in the\nday, (from sunrise to sunset.) Then twelve hours night to make a\ntwenty-four hour day, you see, must always begin at a certain period of\ntime. No matter then whether the sun sets with us at eight in summer or\n4 o'clk in winter. Now by this, and this is the scripture rule, days and\nweeks can, and most probably are, kept at the North and South polar\nregions. What an absurdity to believe that God does exonerate our\nfathers and brothers from [43]keeping his Sabbath while they are in\nthese polar regions, fishing for seals and whales, should it be with\nthem either all day or all night. If they have lost their reckoning of\ndays and weeks, because there was, or was not any sun six months of the\ntime, how could they learn what day of the week it was when they see the\nsun setting at 6 o'clock on the equator, if bound home from the South?\nBy referring to Luke, xxiii ch. 55, 56, and xxiv: 1, we see that the\npeople in Palestine had kept the days and weeks right from the creation;\nsince which time, astronomers teach us that not even fifteen minutes\nhave been lost. God does not require us to be any more exact in keeping\ntime, than what we may or have learned from the above rules, but I am\ntold there is a difference in time of twenty-four hours to the mariner\nthat circumnavigates the globe. That, being true, is known to them, but\nit alters no time on the earth or sea.\n\nBut, says one, I should like to keep the Sabbath in _time_, just as\nJesus did. Then you must live in Palestine, where their day begins seven\nhours earlier than ours; and yet it is at 6 o'clock in the evening the\nsame period, though not the same by the sun, in which we begin our day.\nLet me illustrate: our earth, something in the form of an orange, is\nwhirling over every twenty-four hours. It measures three hundred and\nsixty degrees, or about twenty-one thousand six hundred miles round, in\nthe manner you would pass a string round an orange. Now divide this\nthree hundred and sixty degrees by the twenty-four hour day, and the\nresult is fifteen degrees, or nine hundred miles. Then every fifteen\ndegrees we travel or sail eastward, the sun rises and sets one hour\nearlier in the period of the twenty-four hours: therefore those who live\nin Palestine, one hundred and seven degrees east of us, begins and\ncloses the day seven hours earlier, so in proportion all the way round\nthe globe, the sun always stationary! Then the Sabbath begins precisely\nat 6 o'clock on Friday evening, every where on this globe, and ends at\nthe same period on what we call Saturday evening. God says 'every thing\non its day,' 'from even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath;' 'the\nevening and the morning was the first day.' He is an exact time keeper!\nI say then, in the name of all that is holy, heavenly and true, and as\nimmortality is above all price, let us see to it that we are found\nfearing God and keeping his COMMANDMENTS, for this, we are taught, 'is\nthe whole duty of man.' The proof is positive that the seventh day\nSabbath is included in the commandments.\n\n[44]Bro. Marsh says, \"Keeping the Sabbath is embraced in this covenant.\nDeut. v: 1-6, made with the children of Israel at Horeb. It was not made\nwith their Fathers (the Patriarchs) but with us, even us, who are all of\nUS HERE ALIVE THIS DAY. v. 3. This testimony first _negative_, he made\nit not with our Fathers, and then _positive_ with _us_, is conclusive.\nNot a single proof can be presented from either the old or new\ntestament, that it was instituted for any other people or nation.\" Now\nit is clear and positive that if the Sabbath is not binding on any other\npeople than the Jews, by the same rule not one of the commandments is\nbinding on any other people, who dare take such infidel ground? Was not\nthe second covenant written on the hearts of the Gentile, even the law\nof Commandments? which Paul says 'is Holy, just and good.' Thirty years\nafter the crucifixion he directs the Ephesians to the keeping the fifth\ncommandment, that they may live long on the _earth_ not the land of\nCanaan. vi: 2, 3. Did not God say that Abraham kept his commandments,\nstatutes, and laws? This embraced the Sabbath for circumcision, and the\nSabbath were then the only laws, or statutes, or commandments written.\nThe fourth commandment was given two thousand years before Abraham was\nborn! Is not the stranger and all within their gates included in the\ncovenant to keep the Sabbath? See Exod. xx: 10. And did not God require\nthem to keep THE Sabbath before he made this covenant with them in\nHoreb? See Exod. xvi: 27-30. Does not Isaiah say that God will bless the\n_man_, and the _son_ of _man_, and the _sons_ of the _stranger_, that\nkeep THE Sabbath? These certainly mean the Gentiles. lvi: 2-3, 6-7.\nAlso, in the lviii. ch. 13, 14, the promise is to all that keep the\nSabbath. To what people did _the_ Sabbath belong at the destruction of\nJerusalem, nearly forty years after the crucifixion? Matt. xxiv: 20. The\nGentiles certainly were embraced in the covenant by this time! Why was\nit Paul's manner always to preach on the seventh day Sabbath to Jews and\nGentiles?\n\nBy what authority do you call the seventh day Sabbath, the Jewish\nSabbath? The bible says it is the Sabbath of the _Lord our God_! And\nJesus said that he was the 'Lord of the Sabbath day.' He moreover told\nthe Jews that the Sabbath was made for MAN! Where do you draw the\ndistinguishing line, to show which is and which is not MAN between the\n_natural seed of Abraham_ and the Gentiles? \"Is he the God of the Jews\nonly? Is he not also of the [45]Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also!\"\nThen Paul says 'there is no difference,' and that 'there is no respect\nof persons with God.' Is it not clear, then, that the Sabbath was made\nfor Adam and his posterity, the whole family of _man_? How very fearful\nyou are that God's people should keep the bible Sabbath! You say, 'let\nus be cautious, lest we disinherit ourselves by seeking the inheritance\nunder the wrong covenant.' Your meaning is, not to seek to keep the\nSabbath covenant, but the one made to Abraham. If you can tell us what\nprecept there is in the Abrahamic covenant that we must now keep to be\n_saved_, that is not embraced in the one given at Mount Sinai, then we\nwill endeavor to keep that too, with the Sabbath of the Lord our God. If\nthe Sabbath, as you say, is abolished, why do you, JOSEPH MARSH,\ncontinue to call the first day of the week the Sabbath. See V. T., 15th\nJuly. If you profess to utter the VOICE OF TRUTH from the bible, do be\nconsistent, and also willing that _other papers_, besides yours and the\nAdvent Herald, should give the present truth to the flock of God. I say\nlet it go with lightning speed, every way, as does the political news by\nthe electric telegraph. If the whole law and the prophets hang on the\ncommandments, and by keeping them we enter into life, how will you, or\nI, enter in if we do not 'keep the commandments.' See Exod. xvi: 28-30.\nJesus says, \"therefore whosoever shall break one of these least\ncommandments and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the\nkingdom,\" &c. \"Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole\nduty of man.\" Amen!\n\nIn the xxxi. ch. of Exod., God says, \"Wherefore the children of ISRAEL\nshall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their\ngenerations for a _perpetual_ covenant; it is a _sign_ between me and\nthe children of ISRAEL _forever_.\" 16, 17 v. _Who are the true\nIsraelites?_ Answer, God's people. Hear Paul: \"Is he the God of the Jews\nonly? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; from\nuncircumcision through _faith_.\" Rom. iii: 29, 30. God gave his\nre-enacted commandment or covenant to the natural Jew in B. C. 1491.\nThey broke this covenant, as he told Moses they would, for which God\npartially destroyed and dispersed them; God then brought in a new\ncovenant which continued the sign of the Sabbath, which was confirmed by\nJesus and his Apostle about 1525 years from the first. See Heb. viii: 8,\n10, 13; Rom. ii: 13. Their breaking the first covenant never could\n[46]destroy the commandments of God. Therefore this new, or second\ncovenant, made with the house of ISRAEL, Heb. viii: 10 v. (not the\nnatural Jew only,) is indelibly written upon the heart. Now every child\ntakes the name of his parents. Let us see what the angel Gabriel says to\nMary concerning her son: \"The Lord God will give him the throne of David\n_his_ Father, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever.\" Luke\ni: 31, 33.\n\nNow the prophecy: \"There shall come a star out of _Jacob_ and a sceptre\nshall rise out of _Israel_.\" Num. Now 1735 years before Jesus was born,\nGod changed Jacob's name to _Israel_, because he prevailed with him.\nThis then is the family name for all who overcome, or prevail. God gave\nthis name to his spiritual child, namely, _Israel_. Then Jesus will\n'reign over the house of _Israel_ forever.' This must include all that\nare saved in the everlasting kingdom. Further, Joseph was the natural\nson of Jacob or _Israel_. In his prophetic view and dying testimony to\nhis children, he says, Joseph is a fruitful bough, from _thence is the\nshepherd_ the stone of _Israel_. Gen. xlix: 22-34. Then this Shepherd\n(Jesus) is a descendant, and is of the house of _Israel_. Does he not\nsay that he is the Shepherd of the Sheep,--what, of the Jews only? No,\nbut also of the Gentile, 'for the promise is not through the law (of\nceremonies) but thro' the righteousness of _faith_.' Rom. iv: 13. Micah\nsays, 'They shall smite the Judge of _Israel_, that IS to BE the RULER\nin ISRAEL. v: 1, 2. Now Jesus never was a _Judge_ nor _Ruler_ in\n_Israel_. This, then, is a prophecy in the future, that he will judge,\nand be the Ruler over the whole house of _Israel_. All the family, both\nnatural Jew and Gentile, will assume the family name, the _whole Israel_\nof God. The angel Gabriel's message, then, is clear; David is the Father\nof Jesus, according to the flesh, and Jacob, or rather Israel his\nFather, and Jesus reigns over the house of Israel forever. Paul says,\n'He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he is a Jew which is one\ninwardly.' Rom. ii. 'There is no difference between the Jew and the\nGreek, (or Gentile) for they are not all _Israel_ which are of _Israel_,\nneither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children.'\nWhy? Because the children of the promise, of Isaac (is the true seed.)\nix. and x. ch. To the Gallatinns he says, 'Now to Abraham (the\nGrandfather of Israel) and his seed were the promises made; not to many,\nbut as of one and to thy seed, which is CHRIST--then says, there is\nneither Jew nor Greek--but one in Christ Jesus, and if [47]ye be Christ\nthen are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.' iii.\n'And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and\nmercy, and upon the ISRAEL of God.' vi. This, then, is the name of the\nwhole family in heaven; Christ is God's only Son and lawful heir; none\nbut the true seed can be joint heirs with Christ in the covenant made\nwith Abraham. Ezekiel's prophecy in xxxvii. chapter, God says 'he will\nbring up out of their _graves_ the WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAEL,' 'and I'll put\nmy spirit in you and ye shall _live_.' 12-14. If God here means any\nother than the spiritual _Israel_, then Universalism is true--for the\n_whole_ house of natural Israel did not die in faith; if the wicked Jews\nare to be raised and live before God, then will _all_ the wicked! For\nGod is no respecter of persons: 'And the heathen shall know that I the\nLord do sanctify _Israel_ when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of\nthem forever more.' 28 v. Here, then, we prove, that the dead and living\nsaints are the whole _Israel_ of God, and the Covenant and Sign is\nbinding on them into the gates of the holy city. Rev. xx: 14.\n\n\n\n\n[48]RECAPITULATION\n\n\nPage 3. _When was the Sabbath instituted?_ Here we have endeavored to\nshow when, and how it continued until its re-enactment on Mount Sinai.\n\nPage 9. _Has the Sabbath been abolished since the seventh day of\ncreation? If so, when, and where is the proof?_ Here we believe we have\nadduced incontestible proof from the scriptures; from the two separate\ncodes of laws given, viz: the first on tables of stone, called by God\nprophets, Jesus, and his Apostle. 3. The commandments of God. 2d code,\nthe Book of Moses, as written from the mouth of God, the book of\nceremonies, combining ecclesiastical and civil law, which Paul shows was\nnailed to the cross with all _their Sabbaths_ as _carnal commandments_,\nbecause their feasts commenced and ended with a Sabbath. See Lev. xxiii.\n\nPlease read from 16th page onward, how Jesus and the Apostle make the\ndistinction.\n\nPage 27. _Was the seventh day Sabbath ever changed? If so, when, and for\nwhat reason?_ Here we find, by examining the proofs set forth by those\nwho favor and insist upon the change, that there is not one passage of\nscripture in the bible to sustain it, but to the contrary, that Jesus\nkept it and gave directions about it at the destruction of Jerusalem.\nPaul also, and other Apostles taught how we were to keep the\ncommandments.\n\n     Page 42. 4th, The History which is uncontroverted.\n              5th, The time when the Sabbath commences.\n              6th, Who are true Israel.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes\n\n\nPage numbers from the original have been retained and enclosed in []\nsquare brackets.  Page 2 was blank in the original.\n\nThis is an old text. As such, spelling is often inconsistent. Spelling\nhas been left as in the original with one exception. The following\ntypographical error has been corrected:\n\n     page 30: so is[original has ts] it with President Humphrey\n\nThe following puntuation corrections have been made to the text.\n\n     page 1: but the keeping the commandments of God.\"[ending\n     quotation mark missing in scan]\n\n     page 4: my _commandments_, my _statutes_ and my\n     _laws_.\"[ending quotation mark missing in scan]\n\n     page 6: children of Israel _forever_.\"[ending quotation mark\n     missing in scan]\n\n     page 10: [quotation mark missing in original]\"For it seemed\n     good\n\n     page 11: school of Tyranus.[original has extraneous quotation\n     mark]\n\n     page 14: third part of a shekel\"[quotation mark missing in\n     original] (to pay for) \"the burnt _offerings_\n\n     page 16: children of Israel in Mount Sinai;\"[quotation mark\n     missing in original]\n\n     page 20: not under the _law_ but under grace.[period missing\n     in original]\"\n\n     page 21: the commandment is charity,\"[quotation mark missing\n     in original]\n\n     page 22: \"Touch not, taste not, handle not.[original has\n     comma]\"\n\n     page 22: a better hope did.\"[quotation mark missing in\n     original]\n\n     page 30: argument he had before presented.[period missing in\n     original]\n\n     page 30: \"[quotation mark missing in original]it was so at\n     that time\n\n     page 30: \"[quotation mark missing in original]it might be\n     proved\n\n     page 34: before he was created.\"[quotation mark missing in\n     original]\n\n     page 38: Luke xiii: 10-17.[original has comma]\n\n     page 41: the ADVENT TESTIMONY.[original has comma]\n\n     page 42: [original has extraneous quotation mark]Jesus says\n     there are but twelve hours\n\n     page 44: [original has extraneous quotation mark]This\n     testimony first _negative_\n\n     page 45: under the wrong covenant.'[quotation mark missing in\n     original]\n\n     page 46: nor _Ruler_ in _Israel_.[period missing in original]\n\n     page 46: ix.[original has comma] and x. ch.\n\n     page 46: Rom. ii.[original has Rom,ii.]","title":"The Seventh Day Sabbath, a Perpetual Sign, from the Beginning to the Entering into the Gates of the Holy City, According to the Commandment","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":21589}