{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_27266/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_27266","id":"gutenberg_27266","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27266","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sabbath","Seventh-Day Adventists -- Doctrines"],"text":"Produced by Heiko Evermann, Lisa Reigel, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 THE\n\n                         SEVENTH DAY SABBATH\n\n\n                                  A\n\n                            PERPETUAL SIGN\n\n             FROM THE BEGINNING, TO THE ENTERING INTO THE\n                        GATES OF THE HOLY CITY\n\n                    ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT.\n\n\n                           BY 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\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\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\n                [SECOND EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED]\n\n                             NEW BEDFORD:\n                      PRESS OF BENJAMIN LINDSEY\n                                 1847\n\n\n\n\n[ii]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 not\ndo 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, among\nthe ALL things that are to be restored before the second advent of Jesus\nChrist, seeing that the Imperial and Papal power of Rome, since the days\nof the Apostles, have changed the seventh day Sabbath to the first day\nof 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. It is still clearer in Luke x. 25,\n28. \"What is written in the law? how readest thou?\" Here he gives the\nSavior's exposition in xxii. Matt. as above. Jesus says, \"Thou hast\nanswered right, this do and live.\" See also Matt. v: 17, 19, 21, 27, 33.\nPAUL comments thus. \"The law is holy, and the commandments holy, just\nand good.\" \"Circumcission and uncircumcission is nothing but the keeping\nthe commandments of God.\" \"All the law is fulfilled in one word: thou\nshalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\" JOHN says, \"the old commandment is\nthe WORD from the beginning.\"--2, 7.--Gen. ii: 3. \"He carries us from\nthence into the gates of the city.\" Rev. xxii: 14. Here he has\nparticular reference to the Sabbath. JAMES calls it the PERFECT, royal\nlaw of liberty, which we are to be doers of, and be judged by. Take out\nthe fourth commandment and the law is imperfect, and we shall fail in\none point.\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\nFAIRHAVEN, AUGUST, 1846.\n\nJOSEPH BATES.\n\n\n\n\n[iii]PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.\n\nTO THE LITTLE FLOCK.\n\n\nMy reasons for issuing a second edition of this book are, First, the\nincreasing demand for them, from different quarters. Second, it affords\nme an opportunity of spreading additional light from the Word on this\nimportant subject of present truth. Much more is said about it than any\ndoctrine in the bible, beginning in Genesis, and continuing down to the\nclosing up of the last message which God ever gave to man, proving\nclearly that the doing of these commandments saves the soul; showing it\nmore clearly than a strict adherence to the Constitution of these United\nStates proves the man a sound patriot. Therefore in this sense they are\nstrictly the constitution of the bible, the everlasting covenant between\nGod and man, and can never be changed or altered while man is stamped\nwith the image of God. Why then has the church lost sight of them? or\nrather the Covenant in them of the 7th day Sabbath? See history 43d\npage, and Dan. vii. 25. Well then how does it come to be understood at\nthis point of time? Answer.--The angel Gabriel told Daniel that\nknowledge should increase in the time of the end. This of course\nincluded the scriptures, particularly since the proclamation of the\neverlasting Gospel in Rev. xiv: 6, 13. It is well known how this\nknowledge has increased since 1840. These ten Commandments being the\nfoundation of the scriptures. (See Matt. xxii.) God, in a peculiar\nmanner, to instruct his honest, confiding children, shows them\nspiritually under the sounding of the seventh Angel, the ark of his\ntestament after the temple of God was opened in heaven. xi: 19. These\nare the ten commandments. Here then I understand is where the spirit\nmade an indelible impression to search the scriptures for the TESTIMONY\nof God. It was done, and published to the world by many, that the\nprofessed church had been walking in open violation of the fourth\ncommandment since the days of the Apostles.--Every one that has read the\nhistory of this TESTIMONY of God in the ark, must see the mighty power\nthat accompanied it through Israel and Philistine, one of the greatest\nwonders that ever existed [iv]in this world, a pattern only of what was\nseen in the opening of the Temple in heaven. In the xiv: 12, John sees\nthem obeying its dictates. In the xv ch. he describes the division as in\nthe xiv ch. they were rejoicing over the victory of the beast, (got out\nof the churches,) standing on or by the sure word of prophecy, (some say\nimmortality.) The 4th v. says, \"for all nations SHALL come (in the\nfuture) and worship before thee.\" \"After that I looked and behold the\nTemple of the Tabernacle of the TESTIMONY in heaven was open,\" 5th v.\n(that is after their songs of rejoicing.) The Temple which contained the\nTabernacle, the ark of the testimony, or ten commandments was open. Now\nthis Temple without doubt is the new Jerusalem. Who cannot see that this\nTemple has been opened for some purpose, but not to be entered by man\nuntil the seven last plagues are fulfilled. Here is a space of time in\nwhich the commandments will be fully kept. I do not say that this view\nof the Ark in Rev. is positive, but I think the inference is strong. I\ncannot see what else it refers to.\n\nOn pages 15, 16, I have added about 24 lines in further explanation of\nColl. ii: 14, 17. On 16th page, I have also added about as much more to\nillustrate and distinguish the Sabbath feasts of the Jewish nation. On\nthe nineteenth page I have given about forty lines on the 2d Cor. iii,\nwhich I think must settle these points fully.\n\nThe last fourteen pages are principally devoted to the covenants and\nwhat they are intended for. The two covenants made with man in this\nstate of mortality, is first by God delivered to Moses. The second or\nnew, by Jesus Christ and his disciples. Paul in speaking of them to the\nGal. iv: 24, says these are THE TWO COVENANTS. All the others belong to\nthe Saints after the second advent.\n\nIf any of the brethren feel it a duty to help pay for the paper and\nprinting of this edition the way is open, otherwise it will be done by a\nfew individuals here, as was the first edition. This work is sent forth\ngratuitously, with a fervent prayer that these present precious truths\nmay be set home on the soul preparatory to the coming judgment.\n\nSince issuing the first edition in August last, we have publicly called\non all the advent lecturers and believers to show us if we were wrong on\nthe Lord's Sabbath. Once more we now challenge the Christian world to\nshow us if they can from the Bible, where we have taken a wrong view of\nthe seventh day Sabbath.\n\nFairhaven, Jan. 1847.\n\nJ. B.\n\n\n\n\n[5]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 [6]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 all,\ntwo thousand years before Abraham who is claimed as the father of the\nJews was born. John says, the old commandment was from the beginning--1;\nii: 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 accidential? 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; \"fulfil her _week_ and we will give\nthee this also; and Jacob did so and fulfilled her _week_.\" Now the word\n_week_ is every where used in Scripture as we use it; it never means\nmore nor less than _seven_ days (except as symbols of years) and one of\nthem was in all other cases the Sabbath. But now suppose there had been\nan entire silence on the subject of the Sabbath for this twenty-five\nhundred years, would that be sufficient evidence that there was none. If\nso, we have the same evidence that there was no Sabbath from the reign\nof Joshua till the reign of David, four hundred and six years, as no\nmention is made of it in the history of that period. But who can be\npersuaded that Samuel and the pious Judges of Israel did not regard the\nSabbath. What does God say of Abraham? that he \"obeyed my voice, and\nkept my charge, my _commandments_, my _statutes_ and my _laws_.\" (See\nwhat he calls them in Exo. xvi: 27, 30.) This, of course, includes the\nwhole. Then Abraham reverenced God's Sabbath. Once more, there is no\nmention of the circumcision from the days of Joshua till the days of\nJeremiah, a period of more than eight hundred years. Will it be believed\nthat Samuel and David, and all those pious worthies with the whole\nJewish nation, neglected that essential seal of the covenant for eight\nhundred years? It cannot be admitted for a moment. How [7]then can any\none suppose from the alleged silence of the sacred history that Adam,\nEnoch, 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 [8]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 called 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 to paradise. \"_For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the\nsea, and all that in them is; and rested on the_ SEVENTH; _wherefore the\nLord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it_.\" \"Wherefore the children\nof Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the _Sabbath_ throughout\ntheir generations for a _perpetual covenant_; it is a SIGN between me\nand the children of Israel _forever_.\" (Why is it Lord?) \"_For in six\ndays the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the_ SEVENTH _day he rested\nand was refreshed_.\" Exo. xx and xxxi.--Which day now will you choose?\nO, says the reader, the seventh if I knew which of the days it was. If\nyou don't know, why are you so sure that the _first_ day is right? O,\n[9]because the history of the world has settled that and this is the\nmost we can know. Very well then, does not the _seventh_ come the day\nbefore the eighth? If we have not got the days of the week right now, it\nis not likely that we ever shall. God does not require of us any more\nthan what we know; by that we shall be judged. Luke xxii: 55, 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 afterwards? 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 re-enacted 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 \"Sabbath,\" and refers us right back to\nthe creation for [10]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 on 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 yes. Well, then, I ask you to show how he could\nhave [11]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 the things which Jesus \"took out\nof the way, nailing it to [12]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; Hear him explain. \"Destroy not him with thy\n_meat_ for whom Christ died. For the kingdom of God is not meat and\ndrink.\" 15, 17 v, also 20, 23. Giving them again in substance the\ndecrees which had been given by the Apostles in their first conference,\nin A. D. 51; held at Jerusalem. See Acts xv: 19. James proposes their\nletter to the Gentiles should be \"that they abstain from pollution of\nIdols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood;\"\nto which the conference all agreed. Now please read their unanimous\n_decrees_ (xvi: 4,) from twenty-three to thirty verses. \"For it seemed\ngood to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than\nthese necessary things.\" \"That ye abstain from meats offered to Idols,\nand from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from\nwhich if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well.\" Reading along to the 13th\nof the next chapter, we find Paul establishing the Churches with these\ndecrees; (see 4, 5,) and at Philippi he holds his meeting, (not in the\nJews Synagogue) but at the river's side, on the _Sabbath_ day. A little\nfrom this it is said that Paul is in Thesalonica preaching on the\nSabbath days. Luke says this was his _manner_. What was it? Why, to\npreach on the Sabbath days (not 1st days.) Observe here were three\nSabbaths in succession. xvii: 2. A little while from this Paul locates\nhimself in Corinth, and there preaches to the Jews and Greeks (or\nGentiles) a year and six months _every Sabbath_. Now this must have\nbeen seventy-eight in succession. xviii: 4, 11. Does this look like\nabolishing the Sabbath day? Has anything been said about the 1st day\nyet? No, we shall speak of that 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\nSab[13]bath 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 [14]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_\nuntil 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, 33, 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, calls 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 [15]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 give 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. 39th v. And Moses _declared_ unto the children of Israel\nthe FEASTS of the Lord.\" 44th v. 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 your dwellings.\" Now Moses has here declared\nfrom the mouth of the Lord, that these are ALL the feast of the Lord,\n(there is no more nor less) and every thing is to be upon _his day_, and\nhe has clearly and definitely separated his Sabbath from the other four.\nBut let us look at the text again. Coll. ii; 14-16. See 17 v.\n[16]\"which are a _shadow_ of things to come.\" What did the apostle say\nwere _shadows_? Why, meat, drink, holy day, new moon, sabbath days. 16th\nv. Heb. ix: 10. What does he mean by shadow? See Heb. x: 1, 2. Just what\nI have stated on page 14. Now here we have one _clear_, positive point.\nIf the seventh day Sabbath is included in the 17th verse, then it must\nbe a _shadow_; if it is not a _shadow_, then Paul has no reference to\nit, and it stands forever! Moses says the ten commandments were written\nby the finger of God on tables of stone; whatever God has done with his\nown hand is stamped with immortality, and is as enduring as the sun,\nmoon and stars. Psl. viii: 3. But if the 4th commandment, the Sabbath of\nthe Lord is a _shadow_ then all the other nine commandments _must_ be.\nLet us look at what are called by our Lord the least commandments, the\n6th and 7th. \"Thou shalt not kill.\"--\"Thou shalt not commit adultry.\"\nMath. v: 19, 21, 27. Are these _shadows_? Is there an individual with\ncommon sense in the world that dare risk his reputation in such kind of\nlogic? Then it is as clear as a sun beam that all the others are\ntangible substances, and will continue in full force while immortality\nendures; especially the 4th commandment, the Sabbath. See Isa. 66: 23,\nHeb. iv: 9, Rev. 22: 14. And in the 28th and 29th chapters of Numbers\nthe sacrifices and offerings for each of these days are made so plain,\nbeginning with the Sabbath, 9th v. that we have only to read the\nfollowing to understand. 26. xxix: 1. First day, seventh month, (new\nmoon;) 7th v., 10th day Sabbath; 12th v., 15th day Sabbath, and 35th v.,\n23d day Sabbath. I will endeavor to present it in a clearer point of\nview:\n\n     Feast by fire connected with the Lord's and the Jewish\n     Sabbaths.\n\n     The Daily or continual [always] 2 lambs morning and evening.\n\n     3 quarts of flour for a meat offering, 2-1/2 pints of oil, 5\n     pints of wine--xxviii: 3-7.\n\n     THE SABBATH DAY. 2 lambs, and six quarts of flour with oil.\n\nHere follow the Jewish feasts with their Sabbaths:\n\n     1st.--7th week Sabbath, 2 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs, 1 goat, 24\n     quarts of flour--xxviii: 16, 17.\n\n     2d.--7th month Sabbath, 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, 1 kid, 36\n     quarts of flour--xxix: 1-5.\n\n     3d.--10th of 7th month Sabbath, 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, 2\n     kids, 36 quarts of flour--7-11.\n\n     4th.--15th of 7th month Sabbath, 13 bullocks, 2 rams, 14\n     lambs, 2 kids, 4-1/2 bushels of flour--12-16.\n\n     5th.--8th day Sabbath, 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, 1 goat, 36\n     quarts of flour--35-39.\n\n[17]\"And Moses told the children of Israel according to all that the\nLord commanded Moses.\" Here is the 8th day Sabbath, which makes 5 Jewish\nSabbaths, every one of them differing from the other and the Lord's\nSabbath, no more connected with them than in the xxiii of Levit. just\nnamed. Here then is an unanswerable argument for a separation of the\nJewish from the Lord's Sabbath, and shows conclusively what Paul calls\n\"shadows\" in ii Col: 17, and Hosea \"her Sabbaths.\" And in the days of\nNehemiah when Ezra had read the law to the people, viii (more than one\nthousand years after they were promulgated,) they bound themselves under\nan oath \"to walk in God's law which was given _by the hand of Moses_,\nthe servant of God.\" \"And to observe and _do all the commandments_ of\nthe Lord, our Lord.\" x: 29. And that there might be no misunderstanding\nabout the kind of Sabbaths, they say, \"If the people bring ware or any\nvictuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on\nthe Sabbath or on the holy day,\" (31 v.) but they would \"charge\nthemselves yearly with a third part of a shekel\" (to pay for) \"the burnt\n_offerings_ of the _Sabbaths_, of the _new moons_, for the _set\nfeasts_,\" &c. (33 v.) for the house of God, including what has already\nbeen 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, and the other temporary, to\nbe abolished when peace was proclaimed between this country and Mexico.\nThe time _comes_, the temporary laws are [18]abolished: but strange to\nhear, a large portion of the people are now insisting upon it that\nbecause peace is proclaimed that both these codes of laws are forever\nabolished; while another class are _strenuously_ insisting that it is\nonly the _fourth_ law in the perpetual code that's now abolished, with\nthe temporary and all the rest is still binding. Opposed to all these is\na third class, headed by the ministers and scribes of the nation, who\nare writing and preaching from Maine to Florida, insisting upon it\nwithout fear of contradiction, that when peace was proclaimed this\nfourth law in the perpetual code was to change its date to another day,\ngradually, (while some of them say immediately) and thenceforward become\nperpetual, and the other code abolished; and yet not one of these is\nable to show from the proceedings of Congress that the least alteration\nhad ever been made in the perpetual code. Thus, to me, the case stands\nclear that neither of the laws or ten commandments in the first code,\never has or ever can be annulled or changed while mortality is stamped\non man, for the very reason that God's moral law has no limitation.\nJesus then brought in a new covenant, which continued the Sabbath by\nwriting his law upon their hearts. Paul says, \"written not with ink, but\nwith the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy\ntables of the heart.\" 2 Cor. iii: 3. And when writing to the Romans he\nshows _how_ the Gentiles are a law unto themselves. He says, they \"shew\nthe work 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.\" xlii: 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 [19]them. If we do not keep the day God has\nsanctified, then we break not the least, but one of the greatest of his\ncommandments. Before we leave this part of our subject let us examine 2\nCor. iii: 7, 9, 11, 15. I have been told that these verses clearly prove\nthe abolition of the 10 commandments. It is admitted by all our\nopponents, that the change which they so much insist upon, respecting\nthe commandments, took place at the crucifixion of our Lord. It is clear\nfrom ii Col: 14 that the hand-writing of ordinances (the law of Moses)\nwas then taken out of our way, and all that was contrary to us, but the\n10 commandments were never contrary to us, especially the 4th, the\nSabbath, for \"it was made for man.\" The 2d or Gospel Covenant Paul tells\nthe Hebs. is written upon our hearts. viii: 10. This is the same ten\ncommandments; then instead of being taken away or abolished they are\nstill nearer to us. See also 3d v of 2d Cor: iii. If Paul was laboring\nhere to show the abolition of the ten commandments in A. D. 60, (look at\nthe top of your bible for the date) pray tell me if you can what he\nmeant by writing to the Romans the very same year and telling them that\n\"the _law was holy, and the commandments holy, just and good_.\" That he\nmeant no other than the _Law_ and _Commandments_ in the decalogue, see\nxiii: 8, 9. About four years after this he is exhorting the Ephesians to\nthe keeping the 5th commandment. He says it is the \"first commandment\nwith promise.\" vi: 2. The same year that he writes the Romans he dates\nhis 1st Epistle to the Cor. in ch. vii: 19, and says circumcision is\nnothing and uncircumcision is nothing, (what _is_, Paul?) but the\n_keeping the commandments of God_. Now all this was certainly more than\ntwenty-five years after the crucifixion. Is not the proof then positive\nand forever established that Paul's preaching is right to the point in\nestablishing the commandments of God instead of abolishing them? If I\nhave not made it plain here, I would just say once more, that the\nApostle's argument where he refers to the abolition of the law in Rom.,\nCor., Gall., see v: 14, Eph. and Heb. he always means the carnal\ncommandments and laws of Moses, and not the commandments of God, as he\nhas shown. See Acts xxi: 20, 21. Here is circumcision, and the customs,\nthe _law_ of Moses, and not one breath about the Sabbath. But if you\nwill trace back to the xviii: 4, 11, you will see that instead of\nabolishing THE Sabbath, Paul had just come from Corinth, where he had\nbeen preaching for 78 Sabbaths in succession. O Lord help thy people\n[20]to see THESE truths and keep thy law! Still, there are many other\ntexts relating to the law, presented by the opposite view, to show that\nthe law respecting the Sabbath is abolished. Let us look at some of\nthem. But it will be necessary in the first place, to make a clear\ndistinction between what is 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\ncommandments--xxxiv: 28. And Moses puts them, \"into the ark\"--xl: 20.\n_Now for the second code of laws._ See Deut. xxxl: 9, 10; and xxiv: 26.\n\"And when Moses had [21]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-four verses 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, were binding before the law was given,\n(meaning that one of course at Mount Sinai) and are binding _now_; it is\nimmutable and eternal! They are 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 coeval and\ncoextensive with sin.--Again he says, \"We readily admit, that if what is\ncalled the decalogue or ten commandments be binding on us, _we ought_ to\nobserve 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:\n4. Again, \"the law and the prophets were until John; since that time the\nkingdom 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 this was and always would be the\nholy day for worship. Mark says when the Sabbath (the Seventh day, for\nthere was no other,) was come, he began to teach in the Synagogue, vi:\n[22]2. Luke says, \"as his _custom_ was, he went into the Synagogue and\ntaught on the Sabbath day.\" iv: 16, 31. Will it be said of him as it is\nof Paul on like occasions, some thirty years afterwards that he\nuniformly held his meetings on the Sabbath because he had no where else\nto preach, or that this day was the only one in the week in which the\npeople would come out to hear him? Every bible reader knows better;\nwitness the five thousand and the seven thousand, and the multitude that\nthronged him in the streets, in the cities and towns where they listened\nto him; besides, he was now establishing a new dispensation, while\ntheirs was passing away. Then he did not follow any of their customs or\nrites or ceremonies which he had come to abolish.\n\nI have already quoted Matt. 5: 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 v: 19, 21, 27, 33. Again, he is tauntingly asked \"which is the\ngreat commandment in the law: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the\nLord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy\nmind. This is the _first_ and great commandment. And the second is like\nunto 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 refer 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 it is! Then how absurd to believe that\nJesus, just at the close of his ministry, should teach that the way, the\nonly way, to enter into life, was to keep the commandments, [23]one of\nwhich 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 Antioch taught the brethren that by\nJesus Christ all who believe in him \"are justified from all things from\nwhich ye could not be justified by the _Law of Moses_.\" Acts xiii: 39.\n\nThe Pharisee 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 Sabbath\nfor eighteen months. xviii: 4, 11. And this, be it remembered, was more\nthan twenty years after the Jewish Sabbaths and ceremonies were nailed\nto the cross.--And [24]you see that Paul was the man above all the\nApostles to be persecuted on account of the abolition of the Jews' law\nof ceremonies, for he was the \"_great_ apostle to the Gentiles:\" and if\nthe \"Sabbath of the Lord our God\" was to have been abolished when the\nSaviour died, Paul was the very man selected for that purpose. It is\nclear, therefore, that he did not abolish the seventh day Sabbath among\nthe Gentiles. This same Apostle tells the Romans \"that Christ is the end\nof the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.\" x: 4. Again,\nthat \"sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the\n_law_ but under grace.\" vi: 14. Once more: He says the Gentiles having\nnot the _law_, are a _law_ unto themselves.--Why? Because, he says in\nthe next verse, it shews the _law_ written on their hearts. The law of\nceremonies? No that which was on tables of stone. ii: 14-16. We might\nquote much more which looks like embracing the whole law. Let us now\nlook at a few texts in the same letter, which will draw a distinguishing\nline between the two codes of laws. Paul, in the vii ch. 9-13v, brings\nto view the carnal commandment, and the one unto life, and sums up his\nargument in these words: \"Wherefore the _law_ is holy, and the\ncommandment holy and just and good.\" In the 7v he quotes from the\ndecalogue. Again, he that loveth another hath fulfilled the _law_. How?\nWhy thou shalt not steal, nor commit adultery, nor bear false witness,\nnor covet, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Therefore _love_ is\nthe fulfilling of the law. Rom. xiii: 8, 10.--This then is what the\nSaviour taught the young man to do--to secure \"eternal life.\" Matt. Once\nmore, in concluding a long argument on the law in Rom. iii: 31 he closes\nwith this language: \"Do we then make void the law through faith? God\nforbid ye, _we establish the law_.\"--What _law_ is here established? Not\nthe law of rites and ceremonies. What then, for Paul means some law. It\ncan be no other than what he calls the law of \"life,\" of \"love,\" the ten\ncommandments. How could even that be established twenty-nine years after\nthe crucifixion if one of the _greatest_ commandments had been abolished\nout of the code, that is the Sabbath.\n\nPaul's letter to the Corinthians teaches that \"circumcision is nothing,\nand uncircumcision is nothing, but the _keeping_ of the commandments of\nGod.\" vii: 19. Again, in his epistle to the Galatians, his phraseology\nis somewhat changed, but the argument is to the same point, although\n[25]some passages read as though every vestage of _law_ was swept by the\nboard 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: 11-23, 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 Matthew 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_ of 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 xv: 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 also.\" John iv:\n21, 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 [26]ordinances.\" ii: 15. See the reverse in vi: 2 v. To\nthe Collossians he asks, \"Why as though living in the world, are ye\nsubject to ordinances which all are to perish with their using?\" And\nsays: \"Touch not, taste not, handle not.\" (Does Paul here teach us to\nforsake the ordinances of God, instituted by the Saviour--Baptism and\nthe Lord's Supper? Yes, just as clearly as he does to forsake the whole\nlaw.)\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 verily\na 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 writen 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 was 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 ten commandments again, namely, Adultery and Murder\n(what the Saviour in the fifth chapter of Matt. calls the [27]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_ emenated 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 we are to be\njudged by _that law_. Then I ask by what parity of reasoning any one can\nmake the law of the ten commandments perfect, while they at the same\ntime 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 that 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 to the same\nplace for the _beginning_ when marriage was first instituted. Matt. xix:\n4. In my second letter to the church, I have taught the same doctrines:\nviz. \"This is the commandment that as ye [28]have heard from the\n_beginnings ye should walk in it_.\" (practice it.) ii: 5, 6. \"A _new_\ncommandment I write unto you.\" ii: 8 v. This is the one that Jesus gave\nus on 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 keep my commandments.\" We are repeatedly told\nthat the Sabbath was changed or forever abolished, at the crucifixion of\nour Lord; and it is stated by the most competent authorities that John\nwrote this epistle about sixty years afterwards, and that about six\nyears after this our blessed Lord revealed to him the state of the\nChurch down to the judgment of the great day. In the xiv ch. Rev. 6-11,\nhe saw three angels following each other in succession: first one\npreaching 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 patience of the Saints,\nhere are they that keep the _commandments_ of God and the faith of\nJesus.\" And this picture was so deeply impressed upon his mind, that\nwhen the Savior 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.\" Now it seems to me that the\nseventh day Sabbath is more clearly included in these commandments, than\nthou shalt not steal, nor kill, nor commit adultery, for it is the only\none that was written at the creation or in the _beginning_. He allows no\nstopping place this side of the gates of the city. Then, if we do not\nkeep that day, John has made out his case, that we are all _liars_. We\nsay in every other case the type must be continued until it is\nsuperseded by the antetype: as in the case of the passover, until our\nLord was crucified. So then, as Paul tells us, \"there remaineth a\nkeeping of the Sabbath to the people of God;\" and that we believe will\nbe in the Millenium, the seven thousandth year, so that the seventh\n[29]day Sabbath and no other will answer for the type, and those who\nkeep the first or the eighth day Sabbath cannot consistently look for\nthe antetype of rest or the great Sabbath, short of one thousand years\nin future.\n\nAgain: Isaiah says: \"To the law and to the testimony if they speak not\naccording to his 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, the 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 the\nabomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the\nholy place,\" &c. 15v. \"Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,\nneither on the Sabbath day.\" 20v. The first question is, at what age of\nthe world is this, where our Lord recognizes the Sabbath. 1st. It is\nagreed on all hands that this time to which he here refers, never\ntranspired until the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, about 40\nyears after his crucifixion. 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 the 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 that 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 instruction to his [30]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\nit must be _perpetual_. If Paul's argument in iii. Rom. that the law is\nestablished through faith, is correct, then it is _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 commandments,\nwe shall have right to the tree of life and enter in by the gates into\nthe city; then it must be _perpetual_. If the earthly Sabbath is typical\nof the heavenly, then must it be _perpetual_. If not one jot or one\ntittle can ever pass from the law, then must it be _perpetual_. If the\nSaviour, in answer to the young man who asked him what he should do to\ninherit _eternal life_, gave a safe direction for Gentiles to follow,\nviz: \"If thou wilt enter into _life_ keep the commandments\" (and these\nincluded those commandments which his Father had given,) then, without\n_contradiction_ the Sabbath is _perpetual_, and all the arguments which\never can be presented against the fourth commandment being observed\nbefore God wrote it on tables of stone to prove that it is not binding\non Gentiles, fall powerless before this one sentence: _If thou wilt\nenter into life, keep the Commandments._ I say the proof is positive\nthat the Sabbath was a constituent part of the commandments, and Jesus\nsays the Sabbath was made for man. The Jews were only a _fragment of\ncreation_.\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\n[31]it was not abolished at the crucifixion, 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 upon them to qualify them for the\nconversion of the world. 5th. On this day we find Paul at Troas when the\ndisciples came together to break bread. 6th. The directions the Apostles\ngave to Christians plainly alludes to their assembling on that day. 7th.\nPliny bears witness of the first day of the week being kept as a\nfestival 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 onto\nthe Lord.\"\n\nDoct. Dodridge, whose ability and piety have 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.\" I Cor. xvi: 2. \"Show that it was to be put into a [32]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 the memory of his resurrection from\nthe dead.\" There is much more, but these are his strong arguments. I\nshall quote some more from the Commentaries by and by. I wish to place\nby the side of these arguments one from the British Quarterly\nTheological Review and Ecclesiastical Recorder, of Jan. 1830, which I\nextract from 'the _Institution of the Sabbath day_,' by Wm. Logan\nFisher, of Philadelphia, a book in which there is much valuable\ninformation on this subject, though I disagree with the writer, because\nhis whole labor is to abolish the Sabbath; yet he gives much light on\nthis subject, from which I take the liberty to make some quotations. But\nto the Quarterly Review of 1830:\n\n     \"It is said that the observance of the seventh day Sabbath is\n     transferred in the Christian Church to the first day of the\n     week. We ask by what authority, and are very much mistaken if\n     an examination of all the texts of the New Testament, in which\n     the first day of the week or Lord's day is mentioned, does not\n     prove that there is no divine or Apostolic precept enjoining\n     its observance, nor any certain evidence from scripture that\n     it was, in fact, so observed in the times of the Apostles.\n     Accordingly we search the scriptures in vain, either for an\n     Apostolic precept, appointing the first day of the week to be\n     observed in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, or for any\n     unequivocal proof that the first christians so observed\n     it--there are only three or, at most four passages of\n     scripture, in which the first day of the week is mentioned.\n     The next passage is Acts xx: 7. 'Upon the first day of the\n     week when the disciples some together to break bread, Paul\n     preached unto them.' All that St. Luke here tells us plainly\n     is, that on a particular occasion the christians of Troas met\n     together on the first day of the week to celebrate the\n     Eucharist and to hear Paul preach. This is the only place in\n     scripture in which the first day of the week is in any way\n     connected with any acts of public worship, and he who would\n     certainly infer from this SOLITARY INSTANCE that the first day\n     of every week was consecrated by the Apostles to religious\n     purposes, must be far gone in the art of drawing universal\n     conclusion from particular premises.\"\n\nOn page 178, Mr. Fisher says:\n\n     [33]\"I have examined several different translations of the\n     scriptures, both from the Hebrew and Septuagint, with notes\n     and annotations more extensive than the texts; have traced as\n     far as my leisure would permit, various ecclesiastical\n     histories, some of them voluminous and of ancient date; have\n     paid considerable attention to the writings of the earliest\n     authors in the Christian era, and to rare works, old and of\n     difficult access, which treat upon this subject; I have read\n     with care many of the publications of sectarians to sustain\n     the institution; I have omitted nothing within my reach, and I\n     have found not one shred of argument, or authority of any\n     kind, that may not be deemed of partial and sectarian\n     character, to support the institution of the first day of the\n     week, as a day of peculiar holiness. But, in place of\n     argument, I have found opinions without number--volumes filled\n     with idle words that have no truth in them. In the want of\n     texts of Scripture, I have found perversions; in the want of\n     truth, false statements. I have seen it stated that Justin\n     Marter in his Apology speaks of Sunday as a holy day; that\n     Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who lived in the fourth century,\n     establishes the fact of the transfer of the SEVENTH to the\n     first day, by Christ himself. These things are NOT TRUE. These\n     authors say no such thing. I have seen other early authors\n     referred to as establishing the same point, but they are\n     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, unbiassed 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 made\nto his disciples was on the first day of the week, and the first day of\nthe week is the only day of the week or month or year ever mentioned by\nnumbers in all the New Testament, and that is several times spoken of as\na day _religiously_ observed.\" Where? Echo answers, where!\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 is his privilege to justify and explain, when precept and\npractice do not agree--so is it with President Humphrey, he can [34]now\nshape the scriptures to suit every one that has followed in the wake of\nPope Gregory for 1225 years. He says, \"The fourth commandment is so\nexpressed as to admit of a change in the day,\"--thus striking vitally\nevery argument he had before presented. Hear him--he says the seventh\nday is the Sabbath; \"it was so at that time (in the beginning) and for\nmany ages 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 was 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 mind 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 Pentecost, and Christ never\nsaying any thing about the _Jewish Sabbath_ after his resurrection are\nsuch _strong_ proofs that the perpetual seventh day Sabbath was changed\nto the first day at that time, and must be believed because learned men\nsay so, what shall we do with the sixth day, on which our blessed\nSaviour expired on the cross; darkness for three hours had covered the\nearth, and the vail of the Temple was rent from top to bottom, and there\nwas such an earthquake throughout vast creation that we have only to\nopen our eyes and look at the rent rocks for a clear and perfect\ndemonstration that this whole globe was shaken from centre to\ncircumference, [35]and the graves of the dead were opened. Matt xxvii:\n50, 53. 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 God said let\nthere be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from\nthe night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and\nyears.\" 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 [36]morning were the\nfirst day. Gen. i: 5. Then the twenty-four hour day commenced at 6\no'clock in the evening. How is that, says one? Because you cannot\nregulate the day and night to have what the Saviour calls twelve hours\nin a day, without establishing the time from the centre of the earth,\nthe equator, where, at the beginning of the sacred year, the sun rises\nand sets at 6 o'clock. At _this_ time, while the sun is at the summer\nsolstice, the inhabitants at the north pole have no night, while at this\nsame time at the south it is about all night, therefore the inhabitants\nof the earth have no other right time to commence their twenty-four hour\nday, than beginning at 6 o'clock in the evening. God said to Moses\n\"_from even to even, shall you celebrate your Sabbath_.\" Then of course\nthe next day must begin where the Sabbath ended. History shows that the\nJews obeyed and commenced their days at 6 o'clock in the evening. Now\nthen we will try to investigate the main argument by which these\nauthors, and thousands of others say the Sabbath was changed. The first\nis in John xx: 19, \"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of\nthe week when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled\n_for fear of the Jews_ (mark it) came Jesus and stood in their midst,\nand said peace be unto you.\" Here we understand this to be the same day\nof the resurrection. On that 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 towards evening and the _day was far spent_. Luke\nxxiv: 29. After this the disciples travelled 7-1/2 miles back to\nJerusalem, and soon after they found the disciples, the Saviour, as\nabove stated, was in their midst. Now it cannot be disputed but what\nthis was the evening after the resurrection, for Jesus rose in the\nmorning, some ten or eleven hours after the first day had commenced.\nThen the evening of the first day was passing away, and therefore the\nevening brought to view in the text was the close of the first day or\nthe commencing of the second. McKnight's translation says, \"in the\nevening of that day.\" Purver's translation says, \"the evening of that\nday on the first after the Sabbath.\" Further, wherever the phrase first\nday of the week, occurs in the New Testament, the word day is in\n_italics_, showing that it is not the original, but supplied by\ntranslators. Again, it is asserted that Jesus met with his disciples the\nnext first day. See 26 v: \"And _after_ eight days again his disciples\nwere within, and Thomas with them, then came Jesus, the doors being\nshut, and stood in the midst, and said peace be unto you.\" [37]Dr. Adam\nClark in referring to this 26v, says: \"It seems likely that this was\nprecisely on that day se'night on which Christ had appeared to them\nbefore; and from this we may learn that this was the weekly meeting of\nthe Apostles.\" Now it appears to me that a little child, with the simple\nrules of addition and subtraction, could have refuted this man. I feel\nastonished that men who profess to be ambassadors for God do not expose\nsuch downright perversions of scripture, but it may look clear to those\nwho want to have it so. Not many months since, in conversation with the\nSecond Advent lecturer in New Bedford, I brought up this subject. He\ntold me I did not understand it. See here, says he, I can make it plain,\ncounting his fingers thus: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,\nFriday, Saturday, Sunday--does'nt that make eight days after? and\nbecause I would not concede, he parted from me as one that was obstinate\nand self-willed. Afterwards musing on the subject, I said, this must be\nthe way then to understand it: _Count Sunday Twice_. If any of them were\nto be paid for eight days labor, they would detect the error in a moment\nif their employer should attempt to put the first and last days\ntogether, and offer them pay but for seven. Eight days _after_ the\nevening of the _first_ day would stand thus: The second day of the week\nwould certainly be the first of the eight. Then to count eight days of\ntwenty-four hours _after_, we must begin at the close of the evening of\nthe first, and count to the close of the evening of the second day; to\nwhere the Jews (by God's command) commenced their third day. But suppose\nwe calculate it by our mode of keeping time. Our Lord appears to his\ndisciples the first time at the close of Sunday evening. Now count eight\ndays _after_, (with your fingers or anything else,) and it will bring\nyou to Monday evening. Now I ask if this looks like Sunday, the first\nday of the week?\n\nFather Miller also gives his reasons for the change, in his lecture on\nthe great Sabbath: \"One is Christ's resurrection and his often meeting\nwith his disciples _afterwards_ on that day. This, with the example of\nthe Apostles, is strong evidence that the proper creation Sabbath to\nman, came on the first day of the week.\" His proof is this: \"Adam must\nhave rested on the first day of his life, and thus you will see that to\nAdam it was the first day of the week, for it would not be reasonable to\nsuppose that Adam began to reckon time before he was created.\" He\ncertainly could not be able to work six days before the first Sabbath.\nAnd thus [38]with the second Adam; the first day of the week he arose\nand lived. And we find by the _bible_ and by history, that the first day\nof the week \"_was ever afterwards observed as a day of worship_.\" Now I\nsay there is no more truth in these assertions, than there is in those I\nhave already quoted. There is not one passage in the bible to show that\nChrist met with his disciples on the first day of the week after the day\nof his resurrection, nor that the first day of the week was _ever\nafterwards_ observed as a day of worship; save only in one instance, and\nthat shall be noticed in its place. And it seems to me if Adam could not\nreckon time only from his creation then by the same rule no other man\ncould reckon time before his birth, and by this showing Christ could not\nreckon his time until after his resurrection. It is painful to me to\nexpose the errors of one whom I have so long venerated, and still love\nfor the flood of light he has given the world in respect to the Second\nAdvent of our Saviour; but God's word must be vindicated if we have to\ncut off a right arm, \"there is nothing true but truth!\" I pray God to\nforgive him in joining the great multitude of Advent believers, to sound\nthe retreat back beyond the _tarrying_ time, just when the virgins had\ngained a glorious victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil! Go\nback from this to the slumbering quarters now; nothing but treachery to\nour Master's cause ever dictated such a course! I never can be made to\nbelieve that our glorious Commander designed that we should leave our\nsacrifices smoking on the altar of God, in the midst of the enemies'\nland, but rather that we should be pushing onward from victory to\nvictory, until we are established in the Capital of _His_ kingdom. Would\nit have been expedient or a mark of courage in General Taylor, after he\nhad conquered the Mexican army on the 9th May last, to have retreated\nback to the capital of the U. States, to place himself and army on the\n_broad platform_ of liberty, and commence to travel the ground over\nagain for the purposes of pursuing and overcoming his vanquished foe?\nNo! Every person of common sense knows that such a course would have\noverwhelmed him and all his followers with unutterable disgrace, no\nmatter how unrighteous the contest. Not so with this, for our cause is\none of the most glorious, tho it be the most trying that the sun ever\nshown upon since God placed it in the heavens. Onward and victory, then,\nare our watchwords, and no retreating back to, or beyond the cry at\n_Midnight_! But to the subject. Did our Saviour ever meet with his\ndisciples on the first day of the week after the [39]evening of the day\nof his resurrection? The xxi. ch. John says \"they went a fishing, and\nwhile there Jesus appeared unto them.\" In the 14th v. he says, \"This is\nnow the third time that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after that\nhe 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 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, was the Seventh day, and not the first day of the week. Fourth\ntext, John says: I was in the spirit on the Lord's day. Here Dr. D.\nconcludes with the generality of christian writers on this subject that\nthis strongly infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day of\nthe week, as solemnly consecrated in 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 [40]at the assembly was\nto fix a proper name for the first day of the week, whether it should be\ncalled _Sabbath_, the _Christian Sabbath_ or _Lord's_ day. The reason\nfor this dispute was, that there was no authority for calling the first\nday of the week by either one of these names. To pretend that that\ncommand was fixed and unchangeable, and yet to alter it to please the\nfancy of man, is in itself ridiculous. It is hardly possible in the\nnature of man, that a class of society should be receiving pay for their\nservices and not be influenced thereby;--in the nature of things they\nwill avoid such doctrines as are repugnant to them that give them\nbread.\"\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 he\nviolated the sanctity of it to all intents and purposes, without giving\none 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 Paul's meeting;\nat any rate there is but one midnight to a twenty-four hour day. _We_\nsay that Sunday, the first day of the week, does not commence until 12\no'clock Saturday night. Then it is very clear, if he is preaching on the\nfirst day till midnight, according to our reckoning it must be on Sunday\nnight, and his celebrating the Lord's supper after midnight would make\nit that he broke bread on _Monday, the second day_, and that the day\ntime on Sunday is not included, unless he had continued his speech\nthrough the day till midnight. Now the text says that on the first day\nof the week they came together to break bread. To _prove that [41]they\ndid break bread on that day_, we must take the mode in which the Jews\ncomputed time, and allow the first day of the week to begin at 6 o'clock\non Saturday evening, and to follow Paul's example, pay no regard to the\nfirst day, after daylight, but to travel, &c. If _our_ mode of time is\ntaken, they broke bread on the second day, and that would destroy the\nmeaning of the text. Here then, in this text, is the _only_ argument\nthat can be adduced in the scriptures of divine truth, for a _change of\nthe perpetual seventh day_ Sabbath of the Lord our God to the first day\nof 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\ndisciples passing to the synagogue to teach; they ask him if it is\nlawful to teach on the Sabbath day. He asks them if they had a sheep\nfall into the ditch on the Sabbath, if they would not haul him out? How\nmuch better then is a man than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do\nwell on the Sabbath days; and immediately healed the man with the\nwithered hand. Matt. xii: 1-13. On another Sabbath day, while he was\nteaching, he healed a woman that had been bound of satan eighteen years;\nand when the ruler of the synagogue began to find fault, he called him a\nhypocrite, and said \"doth not each one of you on the Sabbath [42]day\nloose his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering;\nand all his adversaries were _ashamed_.\" Luke xiii: 10-17. The xiv.\nchapter of Luke is quoted to prove that he broke the Sabbath because he\nwent into the Pharisee's house with many others on the Sabbath day to\neat bread. Here he saw a man with the dropsy and he asked them if it was\nlawful to heal on the Sabbath day. 'And they held their peace, and he\ntook him and healed him,' and asked them 'which of them having an ox or\nan ass fall into the pit, would not straightway pull him out on the\nSabbath day; and they could not answer him again.' 1-6 v. And 'he\ncontinued to teach them, by showing them when they made a feast to call\nthe poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and then they should be\nblessed.' Read the chapter, and you will readily see that he took this\noccasion, as the most befitting, to teach them by parables, what their\nduty was at weddings and feasts, in the same manner as he taught them in\ntheir synagogues.\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.' 16v. '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 were forbidden to carry burthens on the Sabbath day, as in Jer.\nxvii: 21, 22, but by reading the 24th v. in connection with Neh. xiii:\n15-22, we learn that this prohibition related to what was lawful for\nthem 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 [43]lawful to do good and to heal on the Sabbath days, their\nmouths are closed because they cannot contradict him from the law nor\nthe prophets. The Saviour no where interferes with them in their most\nrigid observance of the day; but when they find fault with him for\nperforming his miracles of mercy on that day, he tells them they have\nbroken the law; and in another place, \"If a man on the Sabbath day\nreceive circumcision without breaking the law of Moses, are ye angry at\nme because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?\" He\nthen says, \"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 to cease forever, the ten commandments\nwith the keeping of the Sabbath therefore were to be stripped of these\nceremonies and all of their traditions, and left as pure to be written\non the hearts of the Gentiles as when first written on tables of stone,\ntherefore Jesus taught that it was right to do good on the Sabbath day,\nand whoever follows his example and teaching will keep the seventh day\nSabbath holy and acceptable to God. They will also judge righteous\njudgment, 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 [44]undertakes to abolish or\nchange it, 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;\nbut this one passage of scripture was, and always will be as clear as a\nsunbeam. \"_What is that to thee: follow thou me._\" In a few days my mind\nwas made up to begin to keep the fourth commandment, and I bless God for\nthe clear light he has shed upon my mind in answer to prayer and a\nthorough 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 is forever abolished. As the seventh day\nSabbath is a real prophecy, a picture (and not a shadow like the Jewish\nSabbaths,) of the thing typified which is to come, I cannot see how\nthose who believe in the change or abolition of the type, can have any\nconfidence to look to God for the great antetype, the Sabbath of rest,\nto 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 [45]to me that\nsomething was called for in this time of falling back from this great\nsubject. I therefore present this book, hoping at least, that it will\nhelp to strengthen 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 has ever been the prerogative of absolute rulers like\nhimself, to change manmade laws, nor the law of Moses, for that had been\nabolished 570 years before the Pope finally changed the Sabbath to the\n1st day of the week. Then to make the prophecy harmonize with the\nscripture, he must have meant times and laws established by God, because\nhe might think and pass decrees as he has done, but he, nor all the\nuniverse could ever change God's times and laws. Jesus says that \"times\nand seasons were in the power of the father.\" The Sabbath is the most\nimportant law which God ever instituted. \"How long refuse ye to keep my\ncommandments, and my laws, see for that the Lord hath given you [46]the\nSabbath.\" Exod. xvi: 28, 29. Then it's clear from the history, that this\nis in part what Daniel meant. Now the second advent believers have\nprofessed all confidence in his visions; why then doubt this. Whoever\nfeels disposed to defend and sustain the decrees of that \"blasphemous\"\ndower, and especially Pope Gregory and the great Constantine, the\nmurderer, shown to be the _moral_ reformer in this work of changing the\nSabbath, are welcome to their principles and feelings. I detest these\nacts, in common with all others which have emanated from these ten and\none horned powers. The Revelations show us clearly that they were\noriginated by the devil. If you say this history is not true then you\nare bound to refute it. If you cannot, you are as much in duty bound to\nbelieve it as any other history, even, that George Washington died in\n1799! If the bible argument, and testimony from history are to be relied\non as evidence, then it is as clear as a sunbeam that the seventh day\nSabbath is a perpetual sign, and is as binding upon man as it ever was.\nBut we are told we must keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath\nas an ordinance to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. I for one had\nrather believe 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 keeping his Sabbath while they are in these\npolar regions, fishing for seals and whales, should it be with them\neither all day or all night. If they have lost their reckoning of days\nand weeks, because there was, or was not any sun six months of the time,\nhow could they learn what day of the week it was when they see the sun\nsetting at 6 o'clock on the equator, if bound home from the South? By\nreferring to Luke, xxiii ch. 55, 56, and xxiv: 1, we see that the people\nin Palestine had kept the days and weeks right from [47]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\nBro. 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 testament\nthat it was instituted for any other people or nation.\" Now it is clear\nand positive [48]that if the Sabbath is not binding on any other people\nthan the Jews, by the same rule not one of the commandments is binding\non any other people, who dare take such infidel ground? Was not the\nsecond covenant written on the hearts of the Gentile, even the law of\nCommandments? 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 Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also!\" Then\nPaul says 'there is no difference,' and that 'there is no respect of\npersons with God.' Is it not clear, then, that the Sabbath was made for\nAdam and his posterity, the whole family of _man_? How very fearful you\nare that God's people should keep the bible Sabbath! You say, 'let us be\ncautious, lest we disinherit ourselves by seeking the inheritance under\nthe wrong covenant.' Your meaning is, not to seek to keep the Sabbath\ncovenant, but the one made to Abraham. [49]If you can tell us what\nprecept there is in the Abrahamic covenant that we must now keep to be\nsaved, 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\n\nGOD HAS MADE THREE EVERLASTING COVENANTS WITH MAN.\n\nThe first one is the Covenant of Inheritance \"confirmed unto Jacob for a\nlaw and unto Israel for an _everlasting_ Inheritance.\" See Psl. cv:\n8-11. Acts vii: 3-6. Eph. i: 14.\n\nSecond is an \"_everlasting Covenant of Redemption_.\" See Isa. lxi: 8, 9.\n\"I have made a Covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my\nservant, thy seed will I establish forever.\" Psl. lxxxix: 2-5. See also\n34-37 vs. \"My Covenant will I not _break_, nor alter the thing that is\ngone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not\nlie unto David, his seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun\nbefore me--It shall be established forever as the moon and as a faithful\nwitness in heaven.\" Isa. says it is sure, lv: 3; liv: 13, 14. Ezekiel\ncalls it a Covenant of peace. xxxiv: 25. In xxxvii ch. 25 and 26 v. he\nshows clearly that David is Christ, and this \"Covenant of peace is an\neverlasting Covenant with his Israel, and will be _known_ when his\nsanctuary is in the midst of them forever more.\" 28 v. The very same is\nbrought to view by Paul. Rom. xi: 26, 27.\n\n_These two everlasting Covenants_ are conditional, and in the future.\nThe living saints of God inherit them by keeping [50]the 'commandments\nof God and testimony of Jesus', which can be nothing more nor less than\nwhat Jer. and Paul calls the 'new or second covenant.' Jer. xxxi: 31-33;\nHeb. viii: 6-10; by us the Gospel Covenant, confirmed by Christ and his\nApostles 1800 years ago. Dan. ix: 27; Acts x: 36-40; Heb. ii: 3, 4. The\nold or first Covenant was delivered to Moses at Mount Sinai 3337 years\nago, and is about 1537 years older than the _new_, or _second_, or what\nwe call the Gospel Covenant. Paul to the Heb. ix: 1, says, 'This first\nCovenant had ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary,'\nmeaning the Old Tabernacle with all its appendages, (see 23 v.,) and was\ndedicated with the blood of bulls and goats. 18, 19 v. (Macknight's\ntrans.). See also Exo. xxiv: 8; Lev. xvi: 15. This same Covenant was the\nten commandments 'written on tables of stone by the finger of God.' Exo.\nxxxiv: 27, 28; Deut. ix: 9-11. Paul calls it the Ark of the Covenant.\nHeb. ix: 4. Moses built a Tabernacle for it. Exo. xl: 3, 21. David had\nit in his heart to build a house for it. 1 Chr. xxviii: 2. Solomon built\n_the_ house (the Temple) and put the Ark into it. 2 Ch. vi: 11. These\nten commandments then, was the first _Covenant_. The Tabernacle and all\nits furniture was appended to it, and was called the Sanctuary, the\nbuilding that contained it. This Covenant was broken by the Jews, with\nwhom it was first made. Deut. xxxi: 15, 20; Jer. xxxi: 32; Ezek. xvi: 5,\n9; and xvii: 19; Isa. xxxiii: 8. Now how evident it is that the Jewish\nnation did not destroy nor abolish this Covenant by breaking it. As well\nmay it be said that the man who violates the law of his country has\nabolished or destroyed the whole law. No, no! men can no more destroy\nthe law God has made than they can put out the light of the sun. They\ncan destroy themselves, but God's work can they never. Hear God speak\nand may his word annihilate every thought to the contrary: \"The Lord thy\nGod he is the faithful God, which keepeth _Covenant_ and mercy with them\nthat love him and _keep his commandments_ to a thousand _generations_.\"\nIs not this as much as 63,000 years in the future? Will he break it,\nthen think ye? No, you know it means forever! Deut. vii: 9. Do you still\ndoubt. Let him speak once more. \"_My Covenant will I not BREAK nor\nALTER_ [look at this, you that say God has _altered_ this Covenant so as\nto change this Sabbath from the 7th to the 1st day of the week.] _the\nthing that has gone out of my mouth._\" Psl. lxxxix: 34. Then it is\nimmutable! unchangeable! immortal! as well may man undertake to\nannihilate the sun. [51]Jesus then, as I have shown, came to establish\nthe new _Covenant_, and as I have before stated, he stripped off all\nthese appendages, the _law of ceremonies_, the _hand writing_ of\n_ordinances_, the _carnal commandments_ (Paul,) from the first\n_Covenant_, the ten commandments, leaving them pure as when they first\ncame from his Father's hand, and nailed as Paul shows to the Col. all\nthese ceremonies to his cross, at the same hour he sealed the new\n_Covenant_ with his blood, called the _everlasting Covenant_. Heb. xiii:\n20.\n\nPaul in the viii. ch. on this Covenant, extracts from Jer. xxxi: 31-34,\nwhich shows us clearly what he means (see 8-12v,) and says in the 7 v.,\nif the first one had been faultless then no place could be found for the\nsecond. 6 v. says this covenant is established on better promises\nbecause Jesus is the mediator of it. xii: 24. In x: 15, 16, he quotes\nfrom the viii. ch. to show that the Holy Ghost is also a witness. See\nhow, in ii. Rom. 13-16, \"when the Gentiles which have not the _law_,\n(that is the ten commandments on tables of stone) DO the things\ncontained in the _law_ (the ten commandments) they show the work of the\n_law_ (the ten commandments) written on their hearts, their thoughts in\nthe mean while accusing, or else excusing, (when, Paul?) in the day when\nGod shall judge the secrets of men by my gospel.\" Then it must be now.\nOh no, says the reader, Paul means at the day of judgment.--I am glad\nyou admit that condemnation overtakes the transgressors of the law\nwritten on our hearts somewhere. For proof that he means the\ncommandments read 21, 22 v.; you will of course understand that it is\nnot the law of ceremonies, for these had been abolished more than 25\nyears before. See chronology A. D. 60. Now see Heb. viii: 10 again. \"I\nwill put my _laws_ into their minds and write them in their hearts.\"\nThis is the very same, the commandment, the _covenant_, for there is no\nother _law_ called God's _law_ that we can refer to in the bible but\nthis. In Jer. xxxii: 40, the everlasting covenant which Paul quotes in\nxiii Heb. is the same promise as in Jer. xxxi.\n\nNow in Ezek. xvi: 8. This is the first covenant to Moses; that it is\nbroken see 59 v. 60-62, shows the second covenant as in Jer., read the\nhistory in the chapter.\n\nIn ch. xx: 37, where the promise is, \"I will bring you into the bond (or\ndelivering, see margin,) of the covenant.\" At first view it would appear\nas though here was another implied, but I think the preceding verses,\nparticularly the 12th and 20th, show it to be the covenant in which the\n[52]Sabbath is included, or it may be the everlasting covenant of\nredemption, given to Jesus just previous to the resurrection. Paul\nclearly shows that there are but two covenants under the law in his\nallegory to the Galatians iv: 21-27, and these two must of necessity, as\nI have shown embrace the ten commandments. Now has this new covenant\nbeen broken by man as was the first? Hear Isaiah: \"Behold the Lord\nmaketh the earth empty, the inhabitants of the earth burned, and but few\nleft.\" Why? \"Because they have broken the everlasting covenant.\" See\nxxiii: 5. Read the whole chapter. Paul says that the professed church in\nthe last days will be covenant breakers. 2 Tim. iii: 2-5. (Macknight's\ntranslation.) This must of course be violating, especially, the fourth\ncommandment, the Lord's Sabbath. It would be the height of absurdity to\nattempt to apply it to the first day of the week, because this is\nincluded in the six working days, which God never sanctified nor set\napart for an holy day.\n\nNow what is to be appended to this everlasting covenant (called new not\nin respect of its date: it being made from everlasting, and will\ncontinue forever,) to ensure us an entrance into the gates of the holy\ncity. Answer. The _testimony of Jesus_. Rev. xii: 17. \"That old dragon\nthe devil is pursuing the remnant (the last end) of God's children,\nwhich keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus\nChrist.\" In the xiv: 12, John says the faith of Jesus, (same meaning.)\nNow what is this faith or \"testimony of Jesus?\" John shows that he was\nbanished to Patmos for the \"word of God and the _testimony_ of Jesus\nChrist.\" Rev. 1, 9, he says he \"bore record of the _testimony_ of\nJesus,\" \"and what he saw.\" 2 v. Just what Jesus had directed his\ndisciples to do. See Math. xxviii: 19, 20. \"Teach all nations to observe\nall things whatsoever I have commanded you.\" This then is what makes the\ncovenant new, appending to it the teaching or testimony of Jesus, after\nthe ceremonial law had been \"nailed to the cross.\" Here it is perfectly\nclear that the everlasting _covenant_ the ten commandments have\nundergone no change whatever. Indeed it is impossible that the law of\nGod could be changed; do you say it is possible I may be mistaken? Then\nI will appeal to Jesus. He says \"it is easier for heaven and earth to\npass than _one_ tittle of the _law_ to fail.\" You say this is no proof,\nfor the law of God is the word taught in the old and new testaments. See\nhere then, in Matt. v: 17, 18. Is not this the same _law_ as in Luke 16:\n17? Yes. [53]Very well then, see next verse, here he unhesitatingly\ncalls them the commandments; for proof that he means the ten\ncommandments, read 21st verse, \"shall not kill,\" now 27th \"nor commit\nadultery,\" then 33d, \"nor take God's name in vain.\" His exposition of\nthem as a whole is certainly as clear as this in Matt. xxii: 35-40,\nreduced to two precepts, love God, and love your neighbor, on these two\nhang all the law (ceremonial) and the prophets. Dont you see then that\nif this _law_ is taken away, changed or abolished, that the prophets\nmust fall with it, as certainly as a building would if the foundation\nwas swept away?--The argument is clear that the prophecies cannot be\nsustained without the _law_. Again, see Luke x: 25-28. The lawyer says,\n\"Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life?\" Jesus \"said unto him\nwhat is written in the LAW? how readest thou?\" He begins and quotes the\ntwo precepts (the essence of the ten commandments) given by the Saviour\nin Matt. xxii. Jesus says \"thou hast answered RIGHT, this do and _thou\nshalt live_.\" Is this a safe rule for us? Yes, if you can believe the\nSaviour. I ask if it could be so if any of the _law_ should fail? No,\nthat would undermine the foundation. Then I have not appealed to Jesus\nin vain. If all of this does not convince you, just hear the Prophets.\n\"The good man's delight is in the _law_ of the Lord, and in his _law_\ndoth he meditate day and night.\" Psl. i: 1, 2. \"The _law_ of the Lord is\n_perfect_, converting the soul.\" xix. \"The _law_ of thy mouth is better\nunto me than thousands of gold and silver.\" xix: 72. \"Great peace have\nthey that love _thy_ law, and nothing shall offend them.\" 165. Does the\nchanging of the law by the little horn bring peace? \"He that turneth\naway his ear from hearing the _law_, even his prayer shall be an\nabomination.\" Prov, 28: 9. Read this passage again. You that say the\nLord is not so particular about his _law_, whether we keep this day or\nthat for a holy day. He says \"every thing upon his day.\" \"Seal the _law_\namong my disciples.\" Isa. viii: 16. What for? \"It will be binding on\nthem in the new heavens and the new earth.\" 66: 22, 23, \"To the _law_\nand the testimony.\" 20. What can you prove by it if it is changed or\nabolished? \"He will magnify the _law_ and make it honorable.\" 42: 21.\nHow could he do that if he was going to change or destroy it. \"The\npeople in whose heart is my _law_, fear ye not the reproach of men.\" 51:\n7. \"After those days saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their inward\nparts, and write it in their hearts.\" Jer. 31: [54]33. Then we are\ncertainly bound to obey them. \"Her Priests have violated my _law_--and\nhave put no difference between the holy and profane--and have hid their\neyes from my SABBATHS, and I am profaned among them.\" Ezek. xxii: 26. It\nis just so; we believe it, Lord. It is even among them that say they are\nlooking for Jesus daily.\n\nHear the Apostles. \"We establish the _law_.\" Rom. iii: 31. \"The _law is\nholy, just and good_.\" What do you mean Paul? The professed Christian\nworld dont believe your testimony: they are teaching that certain part\nof this _law_ was changed or abolished 25 years before you made this\nassertion. See chronology. \"Love is the fulfilling of the _law_.\" xiii:\n10. See Matt. vii: 12, and Gal. v: 14. James says it is a \"_perfect\nRoyal law of liberty_.\" See page 26, ch. 1: 25, and ii: 8, 9, 10, 12,\nand iv: 2. This testimony is also rejected as an absurdity, being no\nbetter than Paul's, 25 years out of date, for they will have it that the\n4th commandment, the Sabbath, was changed at the Resurrection.\n\n_The commandments of God_ mean the same as the law.--\"All his\ncommandments are sure, they are established _forever and ever_.\" Who\nthen can change the Sabbath? \"A good understanding have all they that do\nhis commandments.\" \"Blessed is the man that delighteth greatly in his\ncommandments.\" Psl. cxi: and cxii. \"O let me not wander from thy\ncommandments.\" xix: 10, and 35. \"I will delight myself in thy\ncommandments which I have loved.\" 47. \"Thy commandment is exceeding\nbroad.\" 96. \"All thy commandments are truth.\" 151. Can it be proved that\nGod ever altered or changed the truth? Yes, if it can be proved that he\nchanged the Sabbath. \"O that thou hadst harkened to my commandments,\nthen had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves\nof the sea.\" Isa. 48: 18. See Jesus' exposition and reference to the\ncommandments Matt. v: 19, xv: 3-6. We are told by those who can hardly\nbear a contradiction, that the 5th commandment means Jesus for father,\nand New Jerusalem for mother. Jesus shows it is our natural parents, and\nso does Paul to the Eph. vi: 1-3. See also Matt. xix: 17-19, and xxii:\n35-40. Mark xii: 29-31, John xiii: 34, xiv: 31, and xv: 12. The last\nthree quotations relate to his own commandment. See John's testimony on\nthis point. 1st John ii: 4, 7, iii: 21, 24. Rev. xii: 17, and xiv: 12.\nNow let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, \"fear God and keep\nhis commandments; for this is the _whole_ duty of man,\" \"Blessed are\nthey that do his [55]commandments, that they may have right to the tree\nof life and may enter in through the gates into the city.\" Rev. xxii:\n14, Ecc. xii: 13. Do you ask for the foundation for this mass of\nevidence? When Israel violated the holy Sabbath of rest given in the\nbeginning, Gen. ii: 2, 3, 1 John ii: 7, the Lord said unto Moses, how\nlong refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? What are they, Lord?\nAnswer, the seventh day Sabbath. See Exo. xvi: 27-30. Now if we trace\nthe bible through in relation to the Sabbath we shall learn that the\nLord's threatenings, judgments, and promises, are more than ten fold in\ncomparison with the other nine commandments. What is the reason of this?\nAnswer, the keeping of GOD'S SABBATH HOLY SANCTIFIES AND SAVES THE SOUL!\nbut the keeping of one, or all the other nine without it will not.\n\nNow, dear reader, if you are still undecided about the keeping of God's\nSabbath, let me persuade you to read these two pages over again, and\nsettle in your mind what you will do with this mass of testimony,\ndirectly from God; his Prophets; Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Dare you\nsay you are now 'living by every word of God,' and yet reject all this,\nwith what other testimony is here presented to prove the keeping of the\nseventh day Sabbath? Dare you run such a risk because the great mass of\nprofessed believers in Christendom are doing so? Do you think you can be\nsaved by such a _faith_ and _practice_? Your ministering spirit (if you\nyet have one,) says no, no! utterly impossible! Then receive the truth\nin the love of it. Do you perceive that the seventh day Sabbath is God's\nfirst _law_ for man? Gen. ii: 2, 3, and the very last promise he ever\nmade to man of a future inheritance is based on the 'doing of these\ncommandments.' It would not help your case at all if you could make out\nfive thousand, instead of ten, commandments; for you would still have to\ninclude the ten to get them all.\n\nWhat a beautiful delineation the cxix Psalm is, of this wonderful\nprototype delivered by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. The _Commandments_\nare rehearsed twenty-two times. The _Law_ twenty-three. The _Testimony_\ntwenty-three. The _Statutes_ twenty-one. The _Precepts_ twenty-two. The\n_Judgments_ twenty-two. The _Word_ thirty-eight. All referring to the\nArk of the Covenant of God. See how perfectly David and Nehemiah links\nthem together with the Sabbath in the xix Psl: 7-9; Neh. ix: 13, 14.\n'The [56]_Commandments_, _Law_, _Testimony_ and _Judgments_, are true\nand righteous all together.' Proof--_Commandments_ and _Laws_, Exo. xvi:\n28-30; _Testimony_, Exo. xxv: 16; Isa. viii: 20; _Word_, Exo. xxxiv: 27;\nMark vii: 10, 13; _Statutes_ and _Judgments_, Deut. vi: 17, 20; x: 13;\nLev. xviii: 5; _Precepts_, Neh. ix: 13, 14; Dan. ix: 5.\n\nWho believes that the person that refrains from worshiping 'idols or\nimages,' will be saved for that? or because he honors his father or\nmother? or because he is no murderer? or does not commit adultery, or\nsteal, or bear false witness, or covet, or not swear? Thousands on\nthousands have conformed to some and even all the nine, that made no\npretensions to religion. We must keep the whole if we would be saved;\nneither can we be saved by keeping the Sabbath alone. James says 'If we\nfail in one we are guilty of the whole.' God says 'verily my Sabbaths ye\nshall keep--that ye may know that I the Lord do SANCTIFY you.' Exo.\nxxxi: 13. Now I ask if there is any wise men among us that can tell us\nhow the soul is sanctified unless he keeps the Sabbath HOLY. Ezekiel\nsays the Sabbath was given that we might know that the Lord SANCTIFIES.\nxx. Says the reader, what do you think about those that have died in\nfaith, keeping the first day Sabbath? Just as I do of those that never\nheard the everlasting gospel at the hour of his judgment. Look at the\nstate of the world _now_, since they have rejected this message, the\nanswer is plain then that condemnation comes, when light or present\ntruth is presented and rejected. We may think our plea of ignorance may\nexcuse us now. But just think of that awful hour, that gathering storm\nthat is now clothing the moral world with darkness that may be felt. The\nsure and certain precursor of that tremendous \"rush\" when God roars out\nof Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem, preparatory to the sign of\nthe Son of man in heaven and the trump of the archangel and a great\nsound, with so much power that earth and sea will reel, and rock, and\nrend; and cast forth the righteous dead, and the living saints changed;\nall going up together to meet their glorified Lord. No plea of ignorance\nwill then answer our purpose: thoughts then rushing through our minds\nwith more than lightning speed, will touch every point as on the\nmagnetic telegraph, and show us where and when we rejected the present\ntruth. Good God help the honest ones to see it now, for then it\ncertainly will be forever too late. That God's holy Sabbath is a present\ntruth I have not a shadow [57]of a doubt; that it is stamped with\nimmortality and will be present truth forever and ever, no mortal can\ndispute:--It was established in Paradise without limitation. Gen. ii: 2,\n3. God says \"my _covenant will I not_ BREAK _nor_ ALTER.\" Jesus has\nshown that not one tittle of this covenant can be _altered_, and told\nhis children (not the Jews only) how they should pray about the Sabbath\n36 years after his death. A little farther in the distance stands John\nthe last of the disciples pointing us to Paradise for the commandments.\nAfter wading through a few years tribulation, in vision he sees the new\nJerusalem, the Mother of us all, the Paradise restored, and cries out\n\"blessed are they that DO (that practice) his commandments, they are\ngoing into the city.\" There they will keep the Sabbath without\nopposition, as at the beginning. Isa. 66: 23, Heb. iv: 9. This looks\njust like God's work. Man has undertaken to \"_break_ and _alter_\" this\n_law_ by changing the Sabbath. It would be much easier for him to bail\nthe ocean dry, and carry the water to Jupiter by the spoonful; and sweep\nthe thick clouds from the heavens in a thunder storm with the wing of a\nraven. Who then can alter this covenant? Echo answers, who can alter\nthis covenant?\n\nNow who cannot see clearly that the main pillar and foundation of this\n_Everlasting covenant_ is the ten _commandments_, the _law_ of God, the\nconstitution of the Bible: for every nation, kindred, tongue, and\npeople, given first in Paradise, re-enacted with the nine additional\n_commandments_, written on tables of stone by the finger of God on mount\nSinai, giving it the form of a statute, then delivered to Moses, broken\nby the Jewish, just as men break any law without destroying it. The same\nten commandments and laws, called by Paul the _new_ or _second_ and\n_everlasting covenant_, confirmed by Jesus, and sealed with his own\nblood eighteen hundred years ago, written in our minds and our hearts\nfrom one generation to another to the present time, always understood\nwhen developed in the believer's _practising_ and _doing_ them, with the\npromise annexed that such obedience will be rewarded by an entrance into\nthe holy city. Rev. xxii: 14.\n\nNow in this covenant or ten commandments God has given us a perpetual\ncovenant, a sign forever, and this is the seventh day Sabbath. See Exo.\n31: 16. This may bear some comparison with the visions of Ezekiel and\nJohn. \"Their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.\" \"I\nwill give him a white stone, and in [58]the stone a new name.\" So with\nthe Sabbath it is the main and essential thing. It is clearly that if we\nkeep this holy as God has shown us, then we shall be SANCTIFIED. So we\nsee a holy sanctified soul cannot violate the commandments. But if we\nreject the light and still persist in saying we will keep one of the\nworking days holy which God never _sanctified_ nor set apart for us,\n\"how does the love of God dwell in that soul?\" \"If ye love me keep my\ncommandments.\" Now the history of God's people for the last seven years,\nor more, is described by John in Rev. xiv: 6-13. An angel preaching the\neverlasting gospel at the hour of God's judgment. This without any doubt\nrepresents all those who were preaching the second Advent doctrine since\n1840. During this proclamation, there followed another angel, saying\n\"Babylon is fallen, is fallen.\" This angel was some of the same Advent\nlecturers, (for invisible angels dont preach to men.) And the third\nangel follows them, showing the curse that befell all such as \"worship\nthe beast or his image, or _receive his mark_,\" that is, if they go back\nagain. The same angel or voice that is brought to view in ch. 18: 4, you\nsee he follows the one that announces the fall of Babylon, and cries,\ncome out of her my people: this was a little before and during a cry at\nMidnight in the fall of 1844. And God's people did respond to that call\nand come out, does any one ask where from? Answer, the professed\nchurches and no where else. These churches then are Babylon! Now when\nthis cry ended, John describes another very different company, in their\npatience, (or trying time,) keeping the commandments of God and the\nfaith or testimony of Jesus; who are they? Why, the very same that came\nout of Babylon. Well, were they not all good christians that obeyed and\ncame out of Babylon? They will be if they belong to this last company\nand pass through the trial. But did they not keep the commandments of\nGod before this company was developed? Yes all but the 4th commandment.\nTherefore as I have shown, John gave us no credit for keeping the first\nfor the seventh day Sabbath, neither could it be called keeping the\ncommandments, for if we did it ever so ignorantly, even, we still\nviolated the very essential _law_ in the commandments, and all that John\ncould say therefore was, that them which had the mark of the beast kept\nsome of the commandments. James says \"if we fail in one we are guilty of\nthe whole.\" Now that such a people can be found on the earth as\n[59]described in the 12 v. and have been uniting in companies for the\nlast two years, on the commandments of God and faith or testimony of\nJesus, is indisputable and clear. I say here then is demonstrated proof\nthat Babylon has fallen, and whoever undertakes to prove the contrary\nmust annihilate this people, or \"pervert the scriptures.\" John further\nshows that this is a remnant (which of course means the last end) made\nwar with, (his meaning is clear,) for \"keeping the commandments of God\nand the testimony of Jesus Christ.\" xii: 17. Here another question\narises, why this people should be persecuted for keeping the\ncommandments, &c., when all, even them which have the mark of the beast,\nprofess to keep them. I suppose all that enrages the Devil and his army\nis this; that this remnant are actually _practising_ what they believe\nis the testimony of God and the testimony of Jesus, selling what they\nhave, giving alms, laying up their treasure in heaven, casting\nthemselves entirely loose from this wicked world; doing as their master\ntold them to do, \"washing one another's feet,\" and as the apostles have\ntaught, 'greet all the brethren with an holy kiss,' 'salute every saint\nin christ Jesus.' Living 'by every word which proceedeth out of the\nmouth of God,' practice keeping the Sabbath holy, just as God has told\nthem in the commandments. But says the reader, there are tens of\nthousands that are looking for Jesus, that dont believe the above\ndoctrines, what will become of them? Consult John, he knows better than\nwe do; he has only described two companies. See xiv: 9-11, 12. One is\nkeeping the commandments and faith of Jesus. The other has the mark of\nthe beast. How? See page 45. Is it not clear that the first day of the\nweek for the Sabbath or holy day is a mark of the beast. It surely will\nbe admitted that the Devil was and is the father of all the wicked deeds\nof Imperial and papal Rome. It is clear then from this history that\nSunday, or first day, is his Sabbath throughout christendom. And that he\nhas succeeded among other civilized nations to sanctify and set apart\nfor holy days every working day which God gave us, that _he_ did not\nsanctify. See page 8th. He will be very careful therefore not to make\n_war_ on any but those who keep God's Sabbath holy. Contrast this with\npage 30. John shows that these will all be judged according to their\nworks, or as their work shall be. But them that do (that practice) his\ncommandments may enter in through the gates into the city. But do not\nsome of the rest go in? He does not say they do. He [60]says his reward\nis with him to give to every man according as his work shall be. Well,\nwho are left out? See 15 v. \"And whosoever loveth and maketh a _lie_.\"\nNow see 4 of John ii. \"He that saith I know him and keepeth not his\ncommandments is a _liar_.\" But does not the vii Rev. describe a great\nmultitude saved after the 144,000? Yes, but I conclude that these were\nraised from the dead. The original design of sending out this work was\nto show that these commandments, the keeping of the Lord's Sabbath,\nwould save the _living_ saints only at the coming of Jesus. Now that the\nkeeping of the seventh day Sabbath has been made void by the working of\nsatan, and is to be restored as one of the _all_ things spoken of by all\nthe holy prophets since the world began, before Jesus can come, is\nevident. See Acts iii: 20, 21. \"And they that shall be of THEE shall\n_build the old waste places--thou shalt raise up the foundation of many\ngenerations_, and thou shalt be called the REPAIRER _of the breach, the_\nRESTORER _of paths to dwell in_.\" Isa. 58: 12. The two following verses\nshow that keeping or restoring the Sabbath is the special work. Jesus\nsays, \"they shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven, that _do_\nand _teach_ the commandments.\" That there will yet be a mighty struggle\nabout the restoring and keeping the seventh day Sabbath, that will test\nevery living soul that enters the gates of the city, cannot be disputed.\nIt is evident the Devil is making war on all such. See Rev. xii: 17.\n\"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.\" Amen.\n\n\n\n\nWHO ARE THE TRUE ISRAEL?\n\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 he\npartially destroyed and dispersed them; God then brought in a new\ncovenant which continued the sign of the Sabbath, which was\n[61]confirmed by Jesus and his Apostle about 1525 years from the first.\nSee Heb. viii: 8, 10, 13; Rom. ii: 15. Their breaking the first covenant\nnever could destroy the commandments of God. Therefore this new or\nsecond covenant, made with the house of ISRAEL, Heb. viii: 10, (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 through the righteousness of _faith_,\" Rom. iv: 13.\nMicah says, \"they shall smite the Judge of _Israel_, that _is to be the\nruler in 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 Greek,\n(or Gentile) for they are not all _Israel_ that are of _Israel_, neither\nbecause they are the seed of Abraham are they all children.\" Why?\nBecause the children of the promise, of Isaac (is the true seed.) chs.\nix and x. To the Gallatians he says, \"Now to Abraham (the Grandfather of\nIsrael) and his seed were the [62]promises made: not to many, but as of\none and to thy seed which is CHRIST--then says, then says, there is\nneither Jew nor Greek--but one in Christ Jesus, and if ye be Christ then\nare ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.\" iii. \"And as\nmany as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and\nupon the ISRAEL of God.\" vi. This, then, is the name of the whole family\nin heaven; Christ is God's only son and lawful heir, none but the true\nseed can be joint heirs with Christ in the covenant made with Abraham.\nEzekiel's prophecy in xxxvii. ch., God says \"he will bring up out of\ntheir _graves_ the _whole house of Israel_.\" \"and I will put my spirit\nin you and ye shall _live_.\" 11-14. If God here means any other than the\nspiritual _Israel_, then Universalism is true--for the _whole_ house of\nnatural Israel did not die in faith; if the wicked Jews are to be raised\nand live before God, then will _all_ the wicked! For God is no respecter\nof persons: \"And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify\n_Israel_ when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them forevermore.\"\n28 v. Here, then, we prove that the dead and living saints are the whole\n_Israel_ of God, and the Covenant and Sign is binding on them into the\ngates of the holy city. Rev. xx: 14.\n\n\n\n\nTWO QUESTIONS FOR SHEPHERDS AND PRINCIPALS OF THE FLOCK, ANY WHERE AND\nEVERY WHERE.\n\n\nWhen and where has God abolished his _commandments_ and laws? namely the\nseventh day Sabbath as recorded in Exo. xvi: 28-30. When, and where did\nGod ever sanctify the _first_, or any other day but the seventh to be\nkept for a holy day of rest? Will God ever justify any living soul for\nattempting to keep one of the six working days holy?\n\n\n\n\n[63]RECAPITULATION\n\n\n1. Page 5. _When was the Sabbath instituted?_ Here we have endeavored to\nshow when, and how it continued until its re-enactment on Mount Sinai.\n\n2. Page 11. _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_,\n(the law of ceremonies,) because their feasts commenced and ended with a\nSabbath. See Lev xxiii.\n\nPlease read from 20th page onward, how Jesus and the Apostle make the\ndistinction.\n\n3. Page 31. _Was the seventh day Sabbath ever changed? If so, when, and\nfor what reason?_ Here we find, by examining the proofs set forth by\nthose who favor and insist upon the change, that there is not one\npassage of scripture in the bible to sustain it, but to the contrary,\nthat Jesus kept it and gave directions about it at the destruction of\nJerusalem. Paul also, and other Apostles taught how we were to keep the\ncommandments.\n\n4. Page 45. The History which is uncontroverted.\n\n5. The time when the Sabbath commences. See pages 35 and 36, not 31, as\non page 46. The sun in the centre of the globe, at the commencement of\nthe sacred year (March or April) is the great regulator or time-keeper\nfor every living soul on this planet. Gen. 1: 14, Exo. xii: 2.\n\n6. Page 49 begins with the _covenants_. Here by tracing them through the\nbible we find them founded on the ten commandments. The Sabbath of the\nLord our God, the connecting link, or covenant within the covenant; the\nfirst _law_ ever given, annexed to the last promise ever made, which if\nobeyed will save them that are alive when Jesus comes ... Sabbath HOLY.\n\n... principals of the flock.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes\n\n\nPage numbers from the original have been retained and enclosed in []\nsquare brackets.\n\nWords in italics in the original are surrounded by _underscores_.\n\nEllipses on page 63 represent text missing in the original. When a copy\nof the book with the missing text intact is found, this file will be\nupdated.\n\nThis is an old text. As such, spelling is often inconsistent. Spelling\nhas been left as in the original with the exception of typographical\nerrors. The following typographical errors have been corrected:\n\n     Page iii: proving clearly that the doing of[of missing in\n     original] these commandments\n\n     Page 6: two thousand years before{original has befere} Abraham\n\n     Page 8: adopted peculiar{original has pecular} days to suit\n     themselves\n\n     Page 12: xviii:[original has xvii] 4, 11.\n\n     Page 18: (when will{original has wlil} this be Paul)\n\n     Page 19: also 3d v{original has 3dv} of 2d Cor: iii\n\n     Page 22: follow any of their{original has heir} customs\n\n     Page 23: without the least intimation{original has ntimation}\n     from him\n\n     Page 26: the man that{original has tha} shall\n\n     Page 27: taught the same doctrines{original has doctrince}\n\n     Page 28: We are repeatedly{original has re- on one line and\n     repeatedly on the next} told\n\n     Page 28: 2d{original has 3d}, announcing the fall of Babylon\n\n     Page 28: And this{original has this this} picture\n\n     Page 32: the christians of Troas{original has Traos}\n\n     Page 33: ever mentioned by numbers{original has uumbers}\n\n     Page 36: at the summer solstice{original has solistice}\n\n     Page 50: Lev. xvi{original has vvi}: 15.\n\n     Page 52: broken the everlasting{original has everlastidg}\n     covenant\n\n     Page 59: keeping the commandments{original has commandmentr}\n\n     Page 60: covenant which continued{original has eontinued}\n\n     Page 62: Christ{original has Cbrist} is God's only son\n\n     Page 62: 11-14.{original has 17-14}\n\nThe following punctuation corrections have been made to the text.\n\n     Page i: from the _beginning_.\"{period and quotation mark\n     missing in original}\n\n     Page iv: as was the first edition.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 6: claimed as the father of the Jews{original has\n     extraneous parenthesis}\n\n     Page 6: _statutes_ and my _laws_.\"{quotation mark missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 8: children of Israel _forever_.\"{quotation mark missing\n     in original}\n\n     Page 14: \"Well,\"{quotation mark missing in original} says one,\n\n     Page 16: Psl.{period missing in original} viii: 3.\n\n     Page 16: Heb. iv: 9,{comma missing in original} Rev. 22: 14\n\n     Page 17: third part of a shekel\"{quotation mark missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 19: for 78 Sabbaths in succession.{period missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 20: children of Israel in Mount Sinai\"{quotation mark\n     missing in original}\n\n     Page 22: I have already quoted Matt. 5: 17,{comma is missing\n     in original} 18\n\n     Page 22: tauntingly asked \"{original has single quote}which is\n     the\n\n     Page 23: John xv:{original has comma} 10\n\n     Page 24: \"_great_ apostle to the Gentiles:\"{quotation mark is\n     missing in original}\n\n     Page 24: \"{quotation mark is missing in original}circumcision\n     is nothing\n\n     Page 25: Gal.{period is missing in original} iii: 11-23,\n     23-25.\n\n     Page 26: perish with their using?\"{quotation mark is missing\n     in original}\n\n     Page 26: handwriting in his book,{original has period}\n\n     Page 26: i:{original has semi-colon} 25.\n\n     Page 33: Justin Marter in his Apology{original has extraneous\n     period}\n\n     Page 34: \"{quotation mark missing in original}it was so at\n     that time\n\n     Page 35: from sunrise to sunset.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 36: Gen.{period missing in original} i: 5.\n\n     Page 37: time before he was created.\"{quotation mark missing\n     in original}\n\n     Page 39: xxi.{original has comma} ch. John\n\n     Page 43: judge righteous judgment.\"{original has single quote}\n\n     Page 46: {original has extraneous quotation mark}Jesus says\n     there are but twelve\n\n     Page 47: {original has extraneous single quote}This testimony\n     first\n\n     Page 48: See Exod. xvi: 27-30.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 48: the wrong covenant.'{quotation mark missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 49: Eph.{period missing in original} i: 14.\n\n     Page 49: brought to view by Paul.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 49: Rom. xi: 26, 27.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 50: testimony of Jesus'{quotation mark missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 51: in the viii. ch.{period missing in original} on this\n     Covenant\n\n     Page 51: quotes from the viii. ch.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 51: In ch.{period missing in original} xx: 37\n\n     Page 51: of the covenant.\"{period and quotation mark missing\n     in original}\n\n     Page 53: they that love _thy_{original has extraneous comma}\n     law\n\n     Page 53: shall be an abomination.\"{quotation mark missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 53: Isa.{original has comma} viii: 16.\n\n     Page 53: 66:{original has comma} 22, 23\n\n     Page 54: profaned among them.\"{quotation mark missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 54: Rom. iii: 31.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 54: \"{quotation mark missing in original}_perfect Royal\n     law of liberty_.\"\n\n     Page 54: waves of the sea.\"{quotation mark missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 55: Gen.{original has comma} ii: 2, 3\n\n     Page 57: into the city.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 57: in the middle of a wheel.{period missing in original}\n\n     Page 60: _of paths to dwell in_.\"{quotation mark missing in\n     original}\n\n     Page 60: children of Israel _forever_.\"{quotation mark missing\n     in original}\n\n     Page 61: righteousness of _faith_,\"{quotation mark missing in\n     original}","title":"The Seventh Day Sabbath, a Perpetual Sign: 1847 edition","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":29296}