(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The obligation of the Sabbath: a discussion between Rev. J. Newton Brown, and Wm. B. Taylor"

O PRINCETON, N. J. <J^ 



Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa, 



BV 110 .B73 1853 
Brown, J. Newton 1803-1868. 
The obligation of the 
Sabbath 



THE 



OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH 



THE 



OBLIGATION' OF THE SABBATH; 



A DISCUSSION 



EEY. J. NEWTON BROWN 



WM. B. TAYLOR 



" If it be a question of words, and names, and of your Law, look ye to it ! 

And Gallio eared for none of those things." Acts xvni. 15, 17. 

" The.se were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word 
with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether tho«e things 
were so." Acts xvn. 11. 

" Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians v. 21. 

"One man esteemeth one day above another; — another esteometh every day alike. 
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans xiv. 5. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
A. HART, LATE CAREY AND HART. 

1853. 



Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by 

A. HART, 

in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States in 
and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



nilLADELTillA : 
T. K. AND P. O. COLLIN"*, TKIXTKUS. 



" Holy Scripture containeih all things necessary to salvation: so 
that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is 
not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article 
of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." — 
Thirty-Nike Articles, Art. vi. 

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his 
own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down, 
or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture ; unto which nothing at 
any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, 
or traditions of men." — Presbyterian and Baptist "Confessions of 
Faith," Chap, i. sec. 6, 



1* 




DISCUSSION. 



PAGE 

The Six PRorosiTioxs x 

Mr. Brown's First Reply 13 

Mr. Taylor's First Reply 20 

Mr. Brown's Second Reply 44 

Mr. Taylor's Second Reply 86 

Mr. Brown's Third Reply 160 

Mr. Taylor's Third Reply 195 



INTRODUCTION 



The Six following Propositions — designed to cover the 
entire ground of Christian Anti-sabbatarianism — were pub- 
lished by W. B. T. through one of the secular papers of 
Philadelphia ; and, in an introductory paragraph condemning 
the prevalent disposition to "judge one man's liberty of an- 
other man's conscience," were ^^confidently announced as inca- 
pahle of refutation, and challeTiging dispiite." 

This challenge was accepted by J. N. B. in a short Reply 
published in the "Christian Chronicle;"* whose columns 
very liberally were thrown open to the free discussion of the 
important question — The Obligation oftJie Fourth Command- 
ment, or the Sci'iptural Authority of the Sabbath: — a discussion 
which few will deny to be "seasonable — practical — and in its 
relations to the Law and the Gospel — fundamental and all- 
pervading." 

* A weekly religious newspaper of Philadelphia, devoted to the 
interests of the Baptist Churches. 



INTRODUCTION. 



THE SIX PPtOPOSITIONS. 



There is one, and only one weekly Sabbath, enjoined, de- 
scribed, or in the remotest manner alluded to, in the whole 
Bible, whether Hebrew or Christian, — the Saturday Sabbath. 
''The seventh day is the Sabbath." No other day is so desig- 
nated; no other day can be the Bible Sabbath {Exod. xx. 11). 

II. 

This Sabbath was strictly a ceremonial and Jewish institu- 
tion {Levit. xxiii.; Deut. v. 15). An especial ''sign'' between 
Grod and the "children of Israel'^ (^Exod. xxxi. 13, 17; Ezek. 
XX. 12). 

III. 

As confirmatory of this, Jesus studiously and repeatedly 
violated the Sabbath; (compare 3IatL xii. 1, 2, with Exod. 
xvi. 28, 29, and Numh. xv. 32, 36 ; also, John v. 8, 9, 10, 
with Jerem. xvii. 22 ;) and justified this violation by the direct 
assertion of his right, and (by necessary implication) of his 
intent to abolish it. "The Sabbath was made for man, and 
not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord 
even of the Sabbath !" (^Marh ii. 27, 28.) 

IV. 

"While the Sabbath was thus openly and constantly broken 
by Jesus and his apostles, they never, on the other hand, eu- 
joined, or even encouraged its observance in any manner what- 
ever, either by example, by precept, or by slightest intimation ; 
nor can a single passage be found among all the New Testa- 
ment writers, condemning the neglect of this law, or reproving 
the "Sabbath-breaker.'' 



INTRODUCTION. 



On the contrary, tlie Sabbath law was wholly and unequi- 
vocally abrogated for the Grentile world, by the first great 
council of the catholic church, held at Jerusalem under the 
immediate direction of "the apostles and elders;" which coun- 
cil decreed that "the keeping of the Law" was an unnecessary 
thing, and a burden not to be laid upon those who were not 
Jews. (Acts XV. 24, 28, 29.) 

VI. 

Hence the subsequent Epistles, with one voice, regard the 
sanctification of the Sabbath as a provisional type, fulfilled 
and superseded by the gospel dispensation ; the " rest which 
remaineth to the people of God" being not that of "the 
seventh day," (nor that which "Joshua had given" in Canaan,) 
but that into which they "who have believed do enter," when 
they "have ceased from their own worlcs." (Ueh. iv. 3, 4, 8, 
9, 10.) "For by the works of the Law, shall no flesh be 
justified." (Gal ii. 16; Rom. iii. 28; ix. 32, &c.) 

They uniformly speak of the Christian being "delivered 
from the Law," the Decalogue included (Rom. vii. 6, 7); 
which Decalogue, though " written and engraven in stones," 
was thus entirely "done away." (2 Corinth, iii. 7.) 

In the most explicit and impervertible terms, they aflSrm 
that " the Sabbath-days" were the mere " shadow of things 
to come" (Coloss. ii. 16); an obsolete "ordinance" which had 
been "blotted out" by the new covenant; and they strongly 
condemn their "observance" {Gal. iv. 10), as among the 
"beggarly elements" of Jewish bondage. 

Thus they decide obedience to the Fourth Commandment, 
and the "estimation" of its Sabbath, to be a "weakness in the 
faith" (Rom. xiv. 1, 5), even while placing it on the broad 
ground of the liberty of private judgment, and the right of 
each to act in conformity with his own persuasions. 

W. B. T. 




THE OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



[FROM THE "CHRISTIAN CHRONICLE/ 



REPLY TO"W. B.T." 

Messrs. Editors: — 

I REGRET sincerely that I have not the leisure to meet 
the request of your correspondent, and examine the "Six 
Anti-sabbatarian Propositions'^ of "W. B. T/' as fully as I 
could wish ; nevertheless, the practical moment and gravity of 
the occasion, the publicity and plausibility of the attack upon 
the obligation of the Sabbath, and the triumphant tone of the 
assailant, impel me to offer a few remarks. 

The writer says, " the six following propositions may be 
confidently announced as incapable of refutation, and challenf^- 
ing dispute:" — 

First. — "There is one, and only one weekly Sabbath, en- 
joined, described, or in the remotest manner alluded to, in the 
whole Bible, whether Hebrew or Christian — the Saturday 
Sabbath. 'The seventh day is the Sabbath.' No other day is 
so designated; no other day can be the Bible Sabbath. — 
{^Exod. XX. 11.)" 

Now I venture to affirm that, in this First Proposition, "W. 

"^ The Discussion lias been revised, and somewhat amplified — 
chiefly by the addition of illustrative notes. The " Third Reply" of 
W. B. T. has been entirely added. 
2 



14 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Saturday not enjoined in the Decalogue. All the Commandments moral. 

B. T.'' assumes what can neither he granted nor proved ; 
namely, that the Sabbath (or religious rest), enjoined in the 
Decalogue, is the Saturday Sabbath. The Decalogue knows 
nothing of Saturday. It makes no designation of the day. 
It fixes only the proportion of time, every seventh day for 
devotional rest, but leaves the date of the reckoning, and of 
course the day itself, to be determined by positive law, or some 
other means. For the Jews this had been previously deter- 
mined by the miracle of the Manna. {Exod. xvi.) 

In Eden, the first Sabbath kept by man was the first day 
after his own creation, a devotional rest with his Creator, to 
prepare him for his six days' toil. The very revolution of the 
earth on its axis forbids all mankind to observe precisely the 
same moments. From the Decalogue alone, I repeat it, no 
man could determine when the week should begin or end ) it 
requires only a certain definite proportion of our days to be 
observed religiously, and that proportion fixed by the Divine 
example at the creation of the world. This idea of a Satur- 
day Sabbath, being enjoined in the Decalogue, and the only 
one so enjoined, is a pure fancy of W. B. T. So serious a 
blunder at the beginning should abate a little his tone of con- 
fidence. 

Second. — "This Sabbath was strictly a ceremonial and 
Jewish institution. {Levit. xxiii. ; Deut. v. 15.) An especial 
*sign' between God and the ^children of Israel.' — {Exod. 
xxxi. 13, 17; Ezeh. xx. 12.)'' 

This Proposition, so far from being proved by the texts re- 
ferred to, seems to me a glaring falsehood. Every other com- 
mand in the Decalogue is acknowledged to be of a moral na- 
ture. How happens it that the fourth should be an exception ? 
It is not an exception. So far from being "strictly ceremo- 
nial," it is eminently moral. Like Marriage, it is founded in 
the very constitution of man as a social being. He is no more 
bound as a religious being to worship his Creator, than he is 
bound as a social being to worship him in communities ; and 



MR. brown's first REPLY. 15 

The Sabbath established at the creation. A calumnious accusation. 

for this, regular times must be observed by common consent. 
But common consent cannot be expected without divine au- 
thority. For a iceeMy Sabbath, rather than one oftener or 
more seldom, is not of itself obvious, and every tenth day, or 
every fifth, or any other proportion, might have its advocates ; 
just as in the case of Marriage there are found men to advocate 
Polygamy, or Divorce at pleasure. Hence it pleased God to de- 
termine the Law, both of Marriage and of the Sabbath, at the 
beginning of the world. {Gen. i. and ii.) And yet this writer 
tells us that the Sabbath is " strictly a Jewish institution V^ An 
institution "made for man,^^ established at the beginning of the 
world, and founded on reasons of universal and perpetual force, 
a strictly Jewish institution! An institution "strictly Jew- 
ish," though instituted by God two thousand years at least 
before a Jew was born ! The idea is preposterous. The pas- 
sages of Scripture referred to teach no such palpable contradic- 
tion. That God gave this institution to the Jews, as He gave 
the rest of the Decalogue, and that its strict observance by 
them as a nation would be "a sign'' of His covenant with 
them, proves nothing of the kind. This Second Proposition, 
then, if the Scriptures are to decide, is palpably false. 

Third. — "As confirmatory of this, Jesus studiously and 
repeatedly violated the Sabbath (compare Matt. xii. 1, 2, 
with Exod. xvi. 28, 29, and Numh. xv. 32, 36; also John 
V. 8, 9, 10, with Jerem. xvii. 22); and justified this violation 
by the direct assertion of his right, and (by necessary implica- 
tion) of his intent to abolish it. ' The Sabbath was made for 
man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore, the Son of Man 
is Lord even of the Sabbath V—{Mark ii. 27, 28.)" 

If this Proposition had been drawn up by a Jew, '^icith ma- 
lice prepense" against our Lord, it would have less surprised me 
than it does from a professed Christian. This is the first time I 
remember to have ever seen "Him who knew no sin" charged 
with a "studied and repeated violation" of the Law of God. 
For, whether the Sabbath be of universal obligation or not, it 
was certainly binding on the Jews, of whom our Lord was one 



16 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Christ an observer of the law. 

according to the flesh; for he was "made of a woman, made 
under the law/' says the Apostle ; and if he did thus violate 
it, he was guilty of sin, and not of a sin only, but of a 
crime which, by the civil code of Moses, was punishable with 
death ! Can any man in his sober senses believe such a pro- 
position ? Nor will it avail to say, with W. B. T., that Jesus 
justified this violation by an assertion of his right and intent 
to abolish it. Even if this were true (which I do not admit), 
that does not relieve the case; for certainly it was then in force 
(as this writer's language implies), and every Jew, including 
Jesus himself, was then bound by it. The truth is, our Lord 
vindicates himself on very different grounds from the charge 
of breaking the Sabbath. He reasons with his calumniators 
on grounds admitted by themselves ; that his works were works 
of necessity, mercy, and piety, as much and more so than their 
own constant practice of offering sacrifice, &c., on the Sabbath, 
and, therefore, such as were lawful to he done on the Sabbath. 
And when he rises to the tone of Majesty, and claims to be 
himself "Lord of the Sabbath," he is careful to put his claim 
on the broad ground that "the Sabbath was made for man," 
that is, not for the benefit of that peculiar nation, but for the 
good of the whole human race. This Third Proposition, then, 
is not merely false, but calumnious, and can only be excused 
on the ground of radical mistake. 

Fourth. — "While the Sabbath was thus openly and con- 
stantly broken by Jesus and his apostles, they never, on the 
other hand, enjoined, or even encouraged its observance in any 
manner whatever, either by example, by precept, or by the 
slightest intimation ; nor can a single passage be found among 
all the New Testament writers, condemning a neglect of this 
law, or reproving the ' Sabbath-breaker.' " 

This Proposition has more show of truth than any of the 
preceding, and so far as it is true shall be respected, though 
it opens by reaffirming a falsehood already disproved. It is 
true that they (Jesus and his Apostles) never in express terms 
e7iJoin the observance of the Sabbath. Neither do they enjoin 



MR. brown's first REPLY. 17 

Sabbath-observance encouraged, if not expressly enjoined. 

in express terms many other acknowledged duties, as for in- 
stance family prayer, or the public worship of God. But it 
is not true that they did not encourage its observance, either 
by example or other intimation of its binding force. For their 
uniform example, as we have seen, was a constant encourage- 
ment of its observance up to the day of our Lord's death ; 
and if, after his resurrection, we find them (as we do) meet- 
ing for Christian worship on ^^the first day of the week,'' and 
observing that as 'Hhe Lord's day," it only proves, not that 
the Sabbath (that is, the day of religious rest) is abolished, 
but that it is now transferred, by the authority of "the Lord 
of the Sabbath," to another day of the seven, in honor of a 
work far more glorious than the creation (^Isai. Ixv. 17, 18), 
which was declared on that day to be finished by his resurrec- 
tion from the dead. This change also was foretold in the 
118th Psalm. When " the stone which the builders rejected 
was made the head of the corner," the Church was taught to 
say, " This is the day which the Lord hath made ; we will re- 
joice, and be glad in it." 

And, although it is true that we nowhere find them in terms 
" reproving the Sabbath-breaker," yet we do find them con- 
demning "the ungodly and profane," with evident allusion 
to the profanation of the Sabbath, as well as of the Divine 
name. (See 1 Tim. i. 8 — 10.) No man can read that passage 
carefully without perceiving that Paul, in his classification of 
sinners, has his eye upon the order of the Decalogue. And in 
the existing state of society and of knowledge that was enough. 
(See Matt v. 17—19.) 

Fifth. — "On the contrary, the Sabbath law was wholly 
and unequivocally abrogated for the Gentile world by the first 
great council of the Catholic Church, held at Jerusalem, under 
the immediate direction of ' the apostles and elders :' which 
council decreed that 'the keeping of the Law' was an unneces- 
sary thing, and a burden not to be laid upon those who were 
not Jews.— (^c^s xv. 24, 28, 29.)" 

2* 



18 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The ceremmiial Law alone repealed. 

This Proposition is a pure assumption, without a shadow of 
proof. I meet it with an unequivocal denial. The key to the 
whole fallacy is in the wrong sense given by W. B. T. to the 
term '^Law.^' In this case, as the whole context shows, it is 
to he restricted to the Jewish ceremonial law. It does not 
therefore affect the original law of the Sabbath. 

Sixth. — '^ Hence the subsequent Epistles, with one voice, 
regard the sanctification of the Sabbath as a provisional type, 
fulfilled and superseded by the gospel dispensation : the ' rest 
which remaineth to the people of God' being not that of ' the 
seventh day,' nor that which ^ Joshua had given' in Canaan, 
but that into which they ' who have believed do enter,' when 
they ' have ceased from their own worhs.^ — {Heb. iv. 3, 4, 8, 
9, 10.) ' For by the works of the law, shall no flesh be justi- 
fied.'— (6^a?. ii. 16; Rom. iii. 28; ix. 32, &c.)" 

If the writer had limited himself to saying that ^^ he who 
ceases from his own works (for justification) does enter 
into rest," by faith in the Redeemer, and looks forward with 
joyful hope to a purer "rest, which remaineth to the people 
of Grod," I could cordially agree with him. But his Pro- 
position goes much further, and affirms that the Sabbath 
was merely " a provisional type, fulfilled and superseded by 
the Grospel dispensation." This I deny, and challenge him to 
the proof. It certainly is not found in the Epistle to the He- 
brews. 

When the Scriptures speak of the Christian as " delivered 
from the law, the Decalogue included," they refer to it as a 
conditional covenant of life, not as a rule of moral obligation. 
This momentous distinction, absolutely fundamental to a right 
understanding of the New Testament, W. B. T. overlooks in a 
way which leads to the most frightful Antinomian conse- 
quences. I have only time here to indicate this, not to de- 
scribe them. The passages quoted from Colossians and Grala- 
tians refer not to the Sabbath of Genesis, and of the Deca- 
logue, but only to the ceremonial fasts and festivals of the Jews ; 
which in the plural are often styled "Sabbaths," or days of rest. 



inR. brown's first reply. ^^ 19 



stated times of public worship necessary. 



This is clear from the context. The same remark applies to 
Rom. xiv. 

For, if Paul's language in that chapter be taken without any 
limitation, as affirming that every day is to be esteemed alike 
by enlightened Christians (as W. B. T. supposes), it goes 
beyond the Apostle's aim (which is the removal of Jewish 
prejudices), and strikes equally against the Christians' " Lord's 
Day," as against the Sabbath of the Decalogue. And where, 
then, let me ask, is there any law, or institution for public 
worship, in the New Testament ? According to W. B. T., 
there is none. The Sabbath is blotted out; the division of time 
into weeks is abolished ; men may pursue their worldly labors 
without cessation ; Christian worship may be maintained, inter- 
rupted, or abandoned at pleasure ; and the religion of Christ, 
which was above all others intended to unite, fraternize, and 
spiritualize the human race, leaves them worse than Judaism, 
or even Paganism, without any law or provision whatever for 
the accomplishment of its magnificent design. A universal 
religion like Christianity may and indeed must dispense with 
one local centre of worship, like Jerusalem {John iv. 21 — 24), 
but it cannot therefore dispense with stated times, sacred to 
social repose, instruction* and devotion. 

With the writer's arguments I have now done. I agree 
with him that every man should have liberty of conscience. 
Conscience is a very sacred thing. But if it is not true to 
the Law of God, it is no better than a false chronometer. 

J. N. B. 



THE ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



REPLY TO ^'J. N. B." 



PART I. 

** Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made ua 
free." — Galatians v. 1. 



Messrs. Editors : — 

By your favor, I would occupy a small space in your 
paper, with a few remarks upon " the Obligation of the Sab- 
bath," in reply to the able article of your correspondent '"'' J. 
N. B.," which appeared in a late number of the Christian 
Chronicle; and which reviewed, in order, the "Six Proposi- 
tions" on which Christian Anti-sabbatarianism may be sup- 
posed to rely. 

I. To the First Proposition, that the Bible knows but one 
weekly Sabbath — " the seventh day" of the fourth command- 
ment, J. N. B. replies (without "venturing" an unqualified 
negation), "The Decalogue knows nothing of Saturday. 
It makes no designation of the day. It fixes only the pro- 
portion of time, every seventh day for devotional rest, but 
leaves the date of the reckoning, and of course the day 
itself, to be determined by positive law, or some .other 
means." I must here thank my friend for his admission that 
the particular day of the commandment belongs to " positive 
law," and therefore not to natural or moral law : it will help 
to elucidate the Second Proposition. There is one erroneous 
assertion in the above, however, which demands correction. It 
is not true that the Sabbath law " fixes onli/ the proportion of 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 21 

A particular day enjoined by the law. The Manna— an authority. 

time" for rest. In every variety, and on every occasion of its 
enunciation, the law pertinaciously requires a particular day 
for its observance ; and by whatever means '^ the date of the 
reckoning/' and the identity of this period may be discovered, 
it is obvious that, if once ascertained, it becomes the exclusive 
object of the law's consideration, and engrosses its entire au- 
thority. It is not true that any or " every seventh day for 
devotional rest" will meet its requirements. Wherever the 
Sabbath is enjoined, with a remarkable reiteration it uniformly 
and expressly limits it to " the seventh day." The command 
leaves no crevice for evasion. 

But " the Decalogue knows nothing of Saturday !" — that is, 
not that " Saturday" was unknown in ancient Hebrew — being 
plain modern Saxon — but the law does not define its terms, 
and tell which is " the seventh day." " From the Decalogue 
alone, I repeat it, no man could determine when the week 
should begin or end." Most profound and undisputed truth ! 
And the law does not define (which is far more practicable) 
the very important word "work." "From the Decalogue 
alone, no man could" possibly know what the word signified. 
And in point of fact, the first recorded case of conviction, 
under the sabbath law, exhibits a difficulty of construction 
upon this very word. (Numb. xv. 34.) But it has never 
yet been heard of, even among " the lawyers," that a doubt 
could be raised as to its enacted day. Every child that could 
count its fingers knew perfectly which was " the seventh day ;" 
— ^just as perfectly, and just in the same manner, as he knew 
how many constituted 'Seven,'^ — by unquestioned accep- 
tation. An authority for " the date of the reckoning, and of 
course for the day itself," will be found in Fxod. xvi. 27. 
That the received computation is identical with the ancient — 
that Saturday is " the Sabbath enjoined in the Decalogue" — is 
as certain as human knowledge can be, even concerning the 
Bible itself. No historical monument is more reliable than 
the Israelite's traditionary Sabbath. On one point at least, 



22 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

No Sabbath in Genesis. Its first enactment, in Exodus. 

Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans, are happily agreed, and 
that is " when the week should begin and end." J. N. B. 
will permit me to remind him that, if Sunday is really the day 
on which Jesus rose from the dead, we have the testimony of 
all the evangelists that it is '' the first day of the week," and 
not " the seventh day." 

"In Eden," says your correspondent, "the first Sabbath 
kept by man was the first day after his own creation !" It is 
much to be regretted that he has felt at liberty to make so im- 
portant an addition to the testimony of Scripture. Certainly 
no such account is to be found in the Bible, nor anything 
similar to it. In Exod. xvi. 25, J. N. B. will find a narrative 
of " the first Sabbath kept by man." In vain shall we search 
for even a hint that, during the twenty-five hundred years pre- 
vious, man ever did keep, or ever was required to keep, a Sab- 
bath. But we are told that Adam rested " the first day after 
his own creation !" — in the name of wonder — from what? To 
assume that the declaration in Gen. ii. 3, "God blessed the 
seventh day and sanctified it," means that man " sanctified 
it," requires rather too great an exercise of " fancy" for a 
sober logician.* I dislike retort, but I cannot help reminding 
my friend J. N. B. that " so serious a blunder at the beginning 
should abate a little his tone of confidence." 

The First Proposition, then, that there is but one Bible 
Sabbath, stands wholly unimpaired. No one can assail it by 
" venturing to affirm." Nothing will answer but a chapter 
and verse, pointing out a " Sabbath" other than that of the 
fourth commandment — " the seventh day." Such an appeal 
has not as yet been even attempted. 

II. The Second Proposition, that the Sabbath was strictly a 
ceremonial and Jewish institution, seems to your correspondent 

* " The words are a narrative of what God did himself; but do not 
contain a precept of what Adam should do." Dr. Gill. (Bodi/ of 
Divinity, vol. iii. book iii. chap. 8.) 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 23 

The Sabbath not moral, since it has been changed. 

" a glaring falsehood. Every other command in the Decalogue 
is acknowledged to be of a moral nature. How happens it 
that the fourth should be an exception?'' Let us examine: 
the particular clay rexjuired by this command, ^^ the seventh day/' 
is also an integral portion of the Decalogue. Is it therefore 
'^ acknowledged to be of a moral nature?'' If so, why has it 
been changed ? Why does my friend J. N. B. entirely neglect 
it for another day not " in the Decalogue !" Can moral laws 
thus change ? The answer has been already furnished by the 
previous assertion of my friend, that the particular day belongs 
to "positive law/' so that, by his own showing, 2k part of the 
Decalogue is not " of a moral nature," since a particular day 
certainly is contained therein. He even extends his admission 
further, and very correctly states that a "weekly Sabbath, 
rather than one oftener, or more seldom, is not of itself obvious, 
and every tenth day, or every fifth, or any other proportion, 
might have its advocates." Now this vague, problematical 
interval of time, " not of itself obvious," must either be ac- 
cepted as part of the moral law, or I hand back to my friend 
the question, ''how happens it that it should be an excep- 
tion?" 

But the institution was " ^ made for man,' established at the 
beginning of the world, and founded on reasons of universal 
and perpetual force." Indeed! what are these perpetual 
reasons? Grod "rested the seventh day,"jwherefore thoushalt 
keep the Jirst! Do no work on Sunday, " because that in it" 
God did not rest " from all his work !" " Thou wast a servant 
in the land of Egypt," and " there/ore'' must the day be kept ! 
How comes it that all these " reasons of universal and per- 
petual force" have been so stultified? That the institution 
was " established at the beginning of the world," J. N. B. 
has neither proved nor attempted to prove. Till he does, I 
simply " venture" to deny it. " An institution ' strictly Jew- 
ish,' instituted by God two thousand years, at least, before a 
Jew was born. The idea is preposterous !" Very true. And 



24 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Sabbath a " sign ;" and thus peculiar to Israel. 

throughout Genesis, we shall not find one syllable concerning 
a " Sabbath-day/' 

The passages in Exod. xxxi. 13, 17, and Ezeh. xx. 12, 
characterizing the Sabbath as an especial " sign" between God 
and the children of Israel, " prove nothing'' (says your corre- 
spondent), as to its " strictly Jewish" character. " Now it 
does not seem easy," as Paley has well observed (ilfor. Philos. 
B. V. chap. Y), " to understand how the Sabbath could be a 
sign between God and the people of Israel, unless the observ- 
ance of it was peculiar to that people, and designed to be so." 

Bishop Warburton admirably argues that ^' nothing but 
a rite, by institution of a positive law, could serve for a * sign' 
or token of a covenant, between God and a particular selected 
people ) for, besides its use for a remembrance of the covenant, 
it was to serve as a ' partition wall' to separate them from other 
nations. But a natural duty has no capacity of being thus 
employed; because a practice observed by all nations would 
obliterate every trace of a ^ sign' or token of a covenant made 
with o?ie." {Bivine Legation, B. iv. sec. 6, note ^^rrrr.") 

That the Sabbath law is not a moral one is apparent from 
the fact that it actually was " peculiar to the Jew." Through- 
out all historyj we discover no trace of a Sabbath among the 
nations of antiquity. This is incompatible with the notion of 
its being a natural duty. Again, a ^^ moral" law, being 
founded on the natural and universal relations existing between 
man and his Creator, and between man and man, must be as 
immutable as those relations. Now the Sabbath has been 
changed in its period, changed in the reasons for its observance, 
changed in the character of its requirements, and changed in 
its sanction. How can that which has been so completely 
superseded now be or ever have been a moral law ? 

But, in addition to all this overwhelming evidence, we are 
not without the direct and explicit testimony of the Scriptures 
upon this point. " The Sabbath-days," says Paul, in Col. ii. 
16, 17, ^^ are a shadow of good things to come." This, apart 



MR. TAYLOR'S FIRST REPLY. 25 

The Sabbath a "shadow." An occa5ion of reciprocal surprise. 

from all the previous considerations, would itself be conclusive. 
No one will pretend that a shadow or type can be other than 
ritual. It will not do to " venture to affirm'^ that this does 
" not refer to the Sabbath of the Decalogue." The assumption 
is " without a shadow of proof. I meet it with an unequivocal 
denial.'' The language of the text is comprehensive and un- 
qualified. The weekly Sabbaths are certainly at least as much 
included in the phrase " Sabbath-days" as any other '^ ceremo- 
nial fasts and festivals of the Jews." — '^ This is clear from the 
context," and confirmed by the uniform tenor of the other 
Epistles. He who asserts a limitation of its application must 
clearly prove it. In no single instance, is the word so limited 
in the whole New Testament. Now, is it credible that the 
Apostle should discard " Sabbath-days," without any excep- 
tion, and yet use the word in an unfamiliar sense, and intend 
his readers still to be bound by " an holy day ?" " The idea 
is preposterous." We are therefore justified in the confident 
announcement that the Sabbath ii^as a ^^ strictly Jewish and 
ceremonial institution." 

III. The Third Proposition, that Jesus studiously and re- 
peatedly violated the Sabbath, J. N. B., by a circuitous inti- 
mation, charges '^ with malice prepense :" but when he boldly 
avows that, " if he did thus violate it, he was guilty of sin [!], 
and not of a sin only, but of a crime, which by the civil code of 
Moses was punishable with death !" and that, as the law " was 
then in force, every Jew, including Jesus himself, was then bound 
by it !" I must confess an astonishment at least equal to his 
own ; and so we stand, " well met" in mutual amaze ! I am 
compelled to say with him, that from a Jew "it would have 
less surprised me than it does from a professed Christian." I 
hope, however, to be able to relieve him from his surprise, 
much more completely than I can expect to be relieved myself. 

If Jesus has been '^ charged with a ' repeated violation' of 
the law of God," there is one circumstance, at least, that ap- 
3 



26 - ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Application of the word " work." An explicit command violated. 

pears to give some color of justice to the charge. We find 
that the word '^work'^ was used, in the fourth commandment, 
with a remarkable latitude of application. The lighting of a 
fire, the gathering of grain or food, the picking of sticks, un- 
necessary walking, even the carrying of the slightest burden, 
all fell within the legal construction of the prohibition. Thus 
in Jer. xvii. 21 : " Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden 
on the Sabbath clay.'' Now in the very face of this express 
interdict, when Jesus had, on the Sabbath day, restored the 
impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, he " saith unto him, 
arise, take up thy hed and walk.'' (John v. 8.) Considering 
how entirely superfluous this command was, either to the 
miracle, or to its manifestation (the '^arising" and "walking" 
being everything, the ''carrying" nothing), it is impossible 
not to regard this — as his contemporaries regarded it — as a 
glaring and '' studious violation" of the Jewish law. He 
could scarcely have exhibited to his startled countrymen a 
more striking practical affirmation that their venerated Sab- 
bath was but ''a shadow of things to come" (Col. ii. 17), 
having in itself no moral sanctity. I think it would puzzle 
even my ingenious and respected friend J. N. B. to show how 
this infraction of the literal statute can be resolved into " a 
work of necessity, mercy, and piety," or into one " lawful to 
be done on the Sabbath;" and I hope he will have the candor 
to acknowledge that the Proposition under review cannot, with 
justice, be stigmatized as either " false" or " calumnious." 

Again, when the disciples gathered grain on the Sabbath 
day, they evidently did that which under the fourth command- 
ment required extenuation, and for which extenuation was 
given. " Have ye never read what David did when he had 
need, and was an hungered," doing that ''which was not law- 
fid?'^ And by this very parallel, Jesus clearly teaches us that 
the institution of the Sabbath, precisely like that of the show- 
bread, was a "positive" one, for the breach of which hunger 
was a sufficient justification. Thus we corroborate, by addi- 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 27 

Sabbath-breaking excused by hunger. The law subservient to man. 

tional evidence, the preceding Proposition, with which, indeed, 
the present one is closely connected. Think you he would 
have justified a slight infringement on the sixth, the eighth, 
or the tenth commandment — on any moral law, in short, by 
the plea of hunger? — -that he could ever have permitted the 
doing of that '' which is not lawful" in natural duty? — that he 
could yet appeal to the precedent of the priests (who, by the 
necessity of their office, impinge upon the literal inhibition of 
the fourth commandment), and hold the ^'unlawful" doer — 
"guiltless?" The question needs but to be asked! 

But, further than this, he asserts, '' The Sabbath was made 
for man — not man for the Sabbath." The institution is 
subordinate to the man, and not the man to the institution.* 
Could he have said this of any law but a positive or ceremonial 
one ? Assuredly not ! — Man is subordinate to "moral" law, 
and not moral law to the man. " AYere the observation of the 
Sabbath a natural duty," justly remarks Bishop Warburton, 
" it is certain man was made for the Sabbath; the end of his 
creation being for the observance of the moral laiv. On the 
contrary, all positive institutions were made for man." (Div. 
Legation, B. iv. sec. 6, note.^ This furnishes another proof 
that the fourth commandment is positive, ceremonial, and 
Jewish. 

Singularly enough, J. N. B. quotes a part of this very 
passage to confirm its obligation ! " 'The Sabbath was made 
for man/ that is, not for the benefit of that peculiar nation, 
but for the good of the whole human race." To read this 
alone, one would think that the old Pharisees had been sad 
Sahhath-hreakers, and that Jesus was trying to reform them — 
by preaching up the universal obligation of this glorious in- 
stitution; while every Bible student knows that the fact is 

■^ "A principle is here laid clown, which it is clearly impossible to 
confine to the Sabbath alone. Rather it must extend to the whole circle 
of outward ordinances." Trench. [Notes on the Miracles, ch. xix.) 



28 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A curious syllogism. " The Lord of the Sabbath." 

just the contrary. It was Jesus who was the '^ Sabbath- 
breaker'^ (no offence to my friend this time, I hope; — no 
great harm in breaking " shadows/' you know), and he was 
endeavoring to satisfy the clamors of its rigid observers, by 
teaching them that it had not this supreme authority over 
man which they supposed, but that it was " made for man/' 
Now what sad nonsense does your correspondent make of this 
important passage : " You accuse me of breaking the Sabbath, 
but it was made, ^not for the benefit of the Jews alone, 'but 
for the good of the whole human race!' Therefore your 
charge is groundless." This is logic, with a vengeance. The 
truth is, this much perverted quotation was pronounced — not 
as a check upon the Anti-sabbatarian, but to counteract the 
Sahhatorian ; and honesty requires that it should not be 
employed for an opposite purpose. 

Lastly, after Jesus had thus most distinctly and emphati- 
cally denied the morality of the Sabbath by asserting, first, 
that hunger excused its breach, and secondly, that it was en- 
tirely subservient to man (neither of which could possibly be 
the case with any moral duty), he concluded his lesson with 
the memorable declaration, '' Therefore the Son of man is 
Lord even of the Sabbath !'' That is hecause it was a posi- 
tive ordinance. How was he Lord of the Sabbath, except by 
having authority to alter or control it ?* And how would 
this reply have any force to the charge against him, unless 
he designed to teach that, being Master of the institution, he 
could justly do that which, without such authority, he could 
not lawfully do ? To what purpose did he assert his right 
to disobey the commandment, if the very claim did not ne- 
cessarily infer an exertion of that right? ''If I have done 

■^ "The Sabbath day was instituted for men's cause, and not men 
made for the Sabbath day. The Son of man came not to destroy men, 
but to save them: and for that cause hath he power — yea, clean to 
take away the Sabbath, so oft as man's health so requireth." — {Para- 
phrase of Erasmus on Mark ii.) 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 29 

9 

The " charge" of violation not new. " Sabbath-breaking" unreproved. 

what by this positive ordiuance 'was not lawful/ know that 
I am Lord of the Institution ! And this is my warrant for 
what I have done." 

I sincerely trust that J. N. B. will now be "less surprised" 
at the conclusion arrived at than he was on its former an- 
nouncement. The passages in Matt. xii. 2, Mark ii. 24, 
John V. 10, 16, 18, ix. 16, must have escaped his memory, 
when he observed : " This is the first time I remember to 
have seen ' him who knew no sin' charged with a ' studied 
and repeated violation' of the law." While thus confii-ming 
the charge, I hope I shall be relieved from the imputation of 
exhibiting any " malice prepense." 

TV. The Fourth Proposition, that the observance of the 
Sabbath is never once enjoined or even encouraged by the 
New Testament writers, and that, on the other hand, "Sab- 
bath-breaking" is never once condemned by them, "has 
more show of truth," says my obliging friend, " than any of 
the preceding." Considering upon what impregnable founda- 
tions of Scriptural authority these have been established, 
such an encomium is as satisfactory as it is ingenuous; and 
leaves but little occasion for any further illustration of this 
position. A single passage has been diffidently suggested by 
J. N. B. It is where Paul reminds Timothy that " the law" 
is made "for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly 
and for sinners, for unholy and profane/^ (1 Tim. i. 9.) 
After so liberal a concession, courtesy alone would forbid my 
being captious with his quotation. I therefore leave it, con- 
gratulating him on its applicability, and wishing him joy of 
all its deductions. 

The comprehensiveness of the subject has already so ex- 
tended the present communication, that I am compelled re- 
luctantly to defer the consideration of the two concluding 
Propositions to another occasion. 

W. B. T. 
3* 



30 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



The Jewish Law resisted by the Gentile converts. 



PART 11. 

"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free in- 
deed." — John viii. 36. 

"Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in re- 
spect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." — 
COLOSSIANS ii. 16. 



Upon tlie two remaining — and the two most vital — assump- 
tions of Anti-sabbatarianism, I find your correspondent J. N. B. 
and myself directly at issue. 

V. The Fifth Proposition, that the Sabbath was formally 
abrogated by the first council at Jerusalem, receives from 
J. N. B. a criticism equally concise and emphatic. "This 
Proposition/' says he, " is a pure assumption, without a' 
shadow of proof. I meet it with an unequivocal denial.'' 
It will be necessary for me, therefore, to refresh my friend's 
memory concerning some of the circumstances of this import- 
ant judicial deliberation. 

It will be remembered that, when the church threw open 
its doors to the Gentile world, a warm contention almost im- 
mediately arose between the Pharisaic Christians and these 
new converts, respecting the obligations of the Jewish law ; 
the former — who claimed Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, " He 
which should have redeemed Israel" — insisting " that it was 
needful to circumcise them, and to require them fo keep tlie 
LaiD of Moses f^ and the latter, as naturally rejecting what- 
ever they found burdensome in that code, as forming no ne- 
cessary part of the evidences, or of the doctrines, which had 
attracted them to the Christian fold. It will also be remem- 
bered that, in consequence of this " no small dissension and 
disputation" in the church at Antioch, it became necessary 
to invoke the authority of the catholic Church ; and it was 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 31 

Three Mosaic enactments alone enforced. 

accordingly " determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain 
other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles 
and elders, about this question." The great subject thus 
presented for the consideration and adjudication of this general 
council was evidently the wTioJe '^ Law of Moses,'' and the 
extent of its obligation (Acts xv. 5) ; and the decision arrived 
at, after " there had been much disputing/' excepted from ab- 
rogation but three prohibitions of the "LaV as "necessary 
things" to be abstained from ; namely, idolatry^ fornication, 
and the eating of things strangled, and hlood.^ As Paley 
very correctly states, " The observance of the Sabbath was not 
one of the articles enjoined by the Apostles, in the fifteenth 
chapter of Acts, upon them ' which from among the Gentiles 
were turned unto God.' '' {Mor. Phil B. v. ch. 7.) 

If my friend J. X. B. will still contend that this " does not 
affect the original law of the Sabbath,'' that "the key to the 
whole fallacy is in the wrong sense given by the writer to the 
term Law," and that "in this case, as the lohole context shows, 
it is to be restricted to the Jewish ceremonial law," I can only 
express a deep regret that he has read the Scriptures to so 
little purpose, as thus glaringly to misconstrue their teaching. 
" The whole context shows," incontrovertihlj/, that the eccle- 
siastical decree was not " restricted to the Jewish ceremonial 
law," by its actually specifying two provisions of the moral 
law ! So " wrong a sense given to the term Law," by my 
friend, is really worse than a fallacy I 

The obvious reason why these two points of the moral law 
were at all referred to was that they were the only ones likely 
to be transgressed by those just emancipated from the Roman 
Paganism. Otherwise they would no more have been noticed 

* Irenseus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosius, Jerome, and Augustine, 
in quoting or alluding to the Jerusalem canon, all omit the "things 
strangled:" evidently considering this included in the prohibition of 
"blood." 



32 ABROGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

No Gentile Sabbath before conTersion : none after. 

than robhery or murder ; and J. N. B. would then have had 
some slight chance of exercising his ingenuity in maintaining 
his " fallacy.'^* It is very certain that these Gentiles never 
were bound by the Jewish Sabbath law previous to their con- 
version ; and it will not be doubted that they would have 
found a strict observance of the Jewish Sabbath not the least 
burdensome portion of " the law of Moses/' which the Pha- 
risees had commanded them to keep. When, therefore, the 
mother Church at Jerusalem by official edict resolved '' to lay 
upon them no gi^eater burden than these necessary things" 
above mentioned, it is impossible to include the fourth com- 
mandment as obligatory upon them, without grossly pervert- 
ing the language and the purport of Scripture. 

But, even granting, for the sake of the argument, that the 
canonical decision was "restricted to the Jewish ceremonial 
law," the admission would not help my friend a particle. As 
the Sabbath law has already been fully shown to belong to 
that law (vide Proposition II.), it would still necessarily fall 
within the recognized province of the ecclesiastical judgment, 
and its omission would be quite as decisive. On either sup- 
position, therefore, the silent rejection of the fourth command- 
ment at once suspends its authority; unless J. N. B. is pre- 
pared to show that the Greeks and Romans themselves had a 
weekly Sabbath — apart from this repudiated law of Sinai. I 
hardly suppose that this will be attempted. 

When the church at Antioch received the circular epistle 
announcing the decision, we learn that " they rejoiced for the 
consolation." Contemplating the relief thus accorded by this 
gospel sabbatism from Mosaic bondage, how appropriate be- 
comes the prophet's announcement concerning the root of 

■^ "If the Apostles had intended to decx'ee anything against homi- 
cide in this canon, they would doubtless have appointed the whole 
Desalogiie to be observed by the Gentile converts." Spencer. {De 
Legibus Hebrceor. Ritual, lib. ii. cap. xxvi. sect. 4.) 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 33 

The Sabbath as clearly abrogated as circumcision. 

Jesse, "To it shall the G-en tiles seek; and his rest shall be 
glorious !" (Isai. xi. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 11.) 

It is true that the church at Jerusalem continued to observe 
the Sabbath, long after this repeal — as it did indeed the whole 
Mosaic code — the first fifteen Bishops of that church being all 
circumcised Jews ; but the repeal appears to have been ad- 
dressed particularly "unto the brethren which are of the Gen- 
tiles'' (^Acts XV. 23), and not to the Jews; and accordingly 
we learn from history that these Gentile Christians Tcejjt no 
Sabhath. They did meet together early on Sunday " to break 
bread" in commemoration of the "resurrection morn" (appa- 
rently occupying the remainder of the day with their usual 
employments), but so far was this day from being regarded as 
a Sabbath, that the Jewish Christians, while adopting the same 
practice, still rigidly observed the seventh day in literal obe- 
dience to the fourth commandment. 

The firm conclusion, then, at which we arrive, is this : that 
the abrogation of the SabbHh is as certainly and as distinctly 
announced by this Jerusalem council, as is the abrogation of 
circumcision. There is no suggestion that can be ofiered to 
preserve its vitality that will not equally apply to the latter. 
Was the one symbolical ? so was the other ; was the one cere- 
monial ? so was the other ; was the one unknown to the Greeks ? 
so was the other ;* was the one excluded by silent neglect ? so 
was the other; was the one distinctively referred to in the 
subsequent Epistles ? so was the other ; is the one abolished ? 

■^ Circumcision, indeed (although the great seal of the Abrahamic 
covenant), was even less distinctive of the Israelite than was the Sab- 
batic institution! Theodoketus, one of the Christian "Fathers," liaS 
well remarked : "No other nation beside the Jews ever observed the 
Sabbatic rest : neither did circumcisiori itself so perfectly distinguish 
them from other nations as this Sabbath ; for the Idumseans (who 
are descended from Esau), as well as the Ishmaelites, and even the 
Egyptians, also had circumcision; but the Jewish nation alone had 
the institution of the Sabbath." (Comment, in Ezek. xx.) 



84 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Warburton ; and Bunyan. Epistle to the Hebreivs Anti-Sabbatarian, 

SO is the other ! ^' No one ever yet mistook circumcision for a 
natural duty," remarks Bishop Warburton, "while it has 
been esteemed a kind of impiety to deny the Sabbath to be of 
that number !" (^Div. Leyat. B. iv. sec. 6, note.') 

To adopt the language of John Bunyan, I would ask, 
"What can be more plain, these things thus standing in the 
Testament of God, than that the seventh-day Sabbaths, as 
such, were given to Israel — to Israel only : and that the Gren- 
tiles as such were not concerned therein V (^Essay on the Sab- 
hath, quest, iii.) He was fully warranted in the assertion, 
" that the old seventh-day Sabbath is abolished and done aivayy 
and that it has nothing to do with the churches of the Gen- 
tiles.'^ (Ibid, quest, iv.) 

VI. In regard to the Sixth and last Proposition, that the 
Epistles uniformly regard the Sabbath as a provisional type, 
fulfilled and superseded by the gospel dispensation, my friend 
again laconically says, " This I deny, and challenge him to 
the proof. It certainly is not fothid in the epistle to the He- 
brews. '' Let us see how far this interesting treatise confirms, 
or tends to illustrate our proposition. The deductions of its 
author are oftentimes apparently remote, and (as Peter has 
observed, 2 Upist. iii. 16) even their scope occasionally ob- 
scure ; still, accepting his doctrines, we must, to the best of 
our ability, endeavor to discover his design. 

What is the "rest" of God, referred to by the Psalmist 
(xcv. 11), and by whom should it be enjoyed, appear to have 
been the questions suggested to the apostle's mind by the quo- 
tation he had introduced, to warn the Hebrews against " un- 
belief" (chap, iii.) And in this connection, since the ancient 
Israelites who believed not " could not enter in because of 
unbelief," he contends that, by application to the new dispen- 
sation, only those " which have believed, do enter into rest" 
(iv. 3), that is, that the promised rest could only be referred 
to — and enjoyed by — the faithful Christian. And he endea- 
vors to establish this by the consideration, first, that while the 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 35 

Tlie Christian's " rest" not Sabbatic. Exposition of Clarke: and Gill. 

Creator's rest — reaching back even to the " foundation of the 
world" — gave sanction to a Sabbath which had been long arid 
fully enjoyed by the Israelites, the text yet declared, ''They 
shall not enter into my rest;" proving that this could not 
mean the Sahhath rest {y. 4, 5, 6); and secondli/y that, while 
'' Joshua had given them rest" in Canaan, long before the 
time of David, the expression " ' To-day' — after so long a 
time," equally proved (and for the same reason) that the 
Psalmist could not refer to the Canaan rest : " for if Joshua 
had then given this rest, he would not afterward have spoken 
of another day" of rest, into which some should " not enter.'^ 
(7, 8.)^ 

Having thus clearly excluded both the repose of Canaan 
and that of the Sabbath from the contemplation of the pas- 
sage quoted, he establishes his conclusion, " There remaineth, 
therefore, a rest to the people of GocV (v. 9), to those who 
'^ are made partakers of Christ," as the only hypothesis left, 
to give significance to the text. " We, which have be- 
lieved, do enter into rest ;'^ and with regard to its character, 
" he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased /rowi his 
own works, as God did from his." (y. 10.) This spiritual 
'' sabbatism to the people of God" is thus as complete in its 
application, and as perfect in its fruition, as was the carnal 
sabbatism of the Israelites. The believer, says Dr. Clarke, 
"no longer depends on the observance of Mosaic rites and 
ceremonies for his justification and final happiness. He rests 
from all these works of the Jaw, as fully as God has rested from 
his works of creation." {Comment, in loco.) Dr. GlLL very 
unnecessarily and unsatisfactorily refers this verse (10) to 
Christ, instead of to his followers; though, on the preceding 
verse, he very forcibly remarks : " The rest which remains for 
them is not a new Sahhath day, but a sabbatism ; and this 
does not so much design eternal rest in heaven .... but 
rather the spiritual rest believers have in Christ, under the 
Gospel dispensation, which they now enter into, and of which 



36 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The heavenly rest not referred to. The two types. 

the apostle had been treating ; and as for the word ' re- 
maineth/ this does not denote the futurity of it, but the 
apostle's inference or consequence from what he had said; and 
the sense is, it remains, therefore, and is a certain fact, a clear 
consequence from what has been observed, that there is an- 
other rest distinct from God's rest on the seventh day, and 
from the rest in the land of Canaan 3 which were both typical 
ones of the present rest the saints now enjoy." (^Comment, in 
loco.^ 

The view which would refer this sabbatism to the rest be- 
yond the grave finds no support from the context. The 
whole subject of this dissertation is the Levitical symbolism 
of the gospel; without the slightest reference to a future 
life. ^^ Unbelief" — the great stumbling-block of the Hebrews 
— is characterized as the chief obstacle to their enjoyment of 
the promised repose ; which (it would appear) is complete in 
proportion to faith. ^' Let us therefore fear, lest a promise 
being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem 
to come short of it," " Let us labor therefore to enter into 
that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbe- 
lief." (v. 11.) "For we which have believed, do enter into 
rest ;" — evidently not in a future sense. " Come unto me all 
ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." 
{Matt. xi. 28.) 

The two different rests referred to above (in verses 4 and 
8) appear to have prefigured — each its peculiar antitype ; and 
while the spiritualizing Jews regarded Canaan (to possess 
which they passed the Jordan — Josh. i. 11) as emblematic of 
the heavenly repose after death (Joh iii. 17 ; Rev. xiv. 13), 
they looked upon the more transient Sabbath day as a shadow 
of the temporal repose of their nation under their Messiah's 
empire.* Hence, the early and wide-spread sentiment of a 

-X- "The Jews," says Burnet, "have a remarkable prophecy, which 
expresseth both the whole and the parts of the world's duration. The 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 37 

The celestial Canaan : and the Millennial Sabbath. 

millennial Sabbath, that should succeed and terminate six thou- 
sand years of worldly toil.* 

The intimations, then, that we receive from this somewhat 
abstract treatise are, first, that there is a Sabbatism for 
Christians ; and, secondly, that this Sabbatism is something 
very widely different from the keeping of a holy dai/. A 
strong presumption is thus afforded that the Jewish Sabbath 
was itself, in fact, the ^'provisional type'' of this new rest 
reserved for believers ; that, as literally it commemorated 

world, they say, will stand six thousand years. . . . This prophecy they 
derive from Elias." (Sacred Theory, ^c. B. iii. chap. 5.) "And so our 
Rabbins of blessed memory have said in their commentaries on * God 
blessed the seventh day' — the Holy One blessed the world to come, 
which beginneth in the seventh thousand of years." [Bereschith Rabba.) 

* We find this idea of a millennial Sabbath very common among the 
Christian '' Fathers." In an epistle of undoubted antiquity (though 
generally considered as falsely ascribed to Barnabas, the companion 
of Paul), the meaning of the six days' creation is said to be, ''that in 
six thousand years the Lord will bring all things to an end," and " that, 
when his Son shall come and abolish the season of the Wicked One — 
then he shall gloriously rest in that seventh day." ( Wake's Translation^ 
chap, xiii.) 

" The assurance of such a Millennium was carefully inculcated by 
a succession of Fathers, from Justin Martyr and Irenteus, who con- 
versed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, down to I^tan- 
tius, who was preceptor to the son of Constantine." Gibbon. [De- 
cline and Fall, chap, xv.) 

Says this last-named Father, " Since in six days all the works of 
God were finished — so, during six ages (that is, for six millenniums), 
it is necessary for the world to remain in the present state. For the 
great Day of God is completed by the circuit of a thousand years, as 
the prophet indicates who says, ' Before thy eyes, Lord, a thousand 
years are as one day.' . . . And since God rested on the seventh day 
from his finished work, and blessed it, it is necessary that at the end 
of the six thousandth year, all evil should be abolished from the 
earth, and justice should reign for a thousand years; and that there 
should be anxmiversal tranquillity and rest from labors." Lactantius. 
(JDivin. Instil. Lib. vii. sect. 14.) 

4 



88 ABROGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

Justin Martyr. Erasmus. Calvin's comment. Whatelt's summary. 

Israel's repose from the bondage of Egypt {Deut. v. 15), so 
spiritually it foreshadowed Israel's repose from the bondage 
of Sinai (^Gal. v. 1). How far this presumption is weakened, 
or illustrated, by collateral Scripture testimonies will presently 
appear. 

Says Justin the Martyr, in his reply to the charge of the 
Jew Trypho, that the Christians had abolished the Sabbath — 
'^ Instead of wasting a day in idleness and calling it religion, 
this new law will have you keep a perpetual Sabbath." {Dia- 
log. P. i.) 

The learned Erasmus in the same spirit remarks that "they 
that stick unto the Son of man (who is Lord of the whole law, 
and teacheth how all things which were figured by the cor- 
poral ^ shadows' ought to be observed after a spiritual sense 
and meaning), are free, and clean discharged in conscience 
from any longer observing of such Jewish ceremonies." 
(^Paraphrase on Mark ii.) 

Calvin, in his celebrated " Institutes," commenting on the 
fourth commandment, holds the following language : " He 

[Christ] is the true /«//?/mew?; of the Sabbath 

This is kept, not by one clay, but by the whole course of our 
life, till, being wholly dead to ourselves, we be filled with the 
life of God. Far away from Christians, therefore, should be 
the superstitious observance of days. . . . Let us sum 
up the whole in the following manner : as the truth was deli- 
vered to the Jews under a figure, so it is given to us without 
any shadow; first, in order that during our whole life we 
should meditate on a perpetual rest from our own works," &c. 
{Instit. B. II. chap. viii. sees. 31, 32.) 

"Numerous early Christian Fathers" (says Archbishop 
Whately), "in their commentaries on the Decalogue, de- 
scribe the Jewish Sabbath as corresponding, in the analogous 
scheme of Christianity, not so much to the Lord's day as to 
the whole life of the Christian, to his abstinence from all 
works that may draw off his afi'ections from God, and to his 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 39 

Paul's Epistle to the Colossians. Distinguished expositors concurrent. 

complete dedication of himself to his service. See Athanasius, 
Horn, de Sab. ; — Hieronymus, in Decalog. ; — Origen, Tract. 
19 in 3Iaff. ; — Chrjsostom, Horn. 39 in Matt. xii. ; — Justin 
Martyr, Dial. c. Trypli. ; — Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 
lib. iv. ; — and Augustine, passim ; — all of whom hold this 
language. I refer, however," continues Whately, " to these 
and other authorities, not as guides to regulate our faith and 
practice, for I amtaught to 'call no man Master upon earth;' 
but merely to show that the novelty which has been attributed 
to my views lies, in fact, on the other side." (^Essay v. Note 
A. On the Sahhath.) 

But we must return to Paul. '' Let no man judge you/' 
says he to the Colossians (ii. 16), '^ in respect of an holy day 
. . . . or of the Sabbath-days ; which are a shadow of 
things to come ; but the body is of Christ." At first sight, 
this really looks as if the apostle intended to teach us that 
the Sabbath was a " provisional type, fulfilled and superseded 
by the Gospel dispensation !" But my friend J. N. B. says 
he did not '^ refer to the Sabbath of the Decalogue, but only 
to the ceremonial fasts and festivals of the Jews." How un- 
fortunate for my hypothesis ! It is some encouragement, how- 
ever, to find that John Calvin expressly quotes this text, 
in his exposition of the fourth commandment, and approves its 
literal application. • '^ Therefore the apostle says, in another 
place, that the Sabbath was a shadow of something future, but 
the body was in Christ that is, the real substance of the truth, 
as he has there well unfolded." (^Calvin's Institutes, B. ii. ch. 
8.) I have the satisfaction also of discovering that Martin 
Luther, John Milton, Richard Baxter, Isaac Bar- 
row, John Bunyan, and a few other minds of the same 
stamp, all apply this text to the fourth commandment. Jeremy 
Taylor very concisely remarks : '' That we are free from the 
observation of the Sabbath, St. Paul expressly affirms in Co- 
lossians." {Ductor Duhitant. B. ii. ch. 2, rule vi. 52.) Arch, 
deacon Paley, an able Biblical critic, and certainly a close 



40 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Assertion, inconclusive. A challenge. Paul to the Romans: — all days alike. 

student of Paul's writings, infers from this passage that '^ St. 
Paul evidently appears to have considered the Sabbath as part 
of the Jewish ritual, and not obligatory upon Christians.'' 
i^Mor. Phil B. V. ch. 7.) 

I can hardly permit J. N. B., therefore, to dislodge me thus 
summarily ; but before surrendering my castle at summons, I 
require him to show by a single hint " from the context," — 
by a single syllable from the New Testament — how he can ex- 
clude the seventh day Sabbath from " the Sabbath-days which 
are a shadow." But again; as is generally the case with 
theories founded in error, my friend has wholly overlooked 
another point. After he has given me, therefore, some ground 
more substantial than assertion, for believing that this passage 
" does not refer to the Sabbath of the Decalogue," I further 
require him to show how Christians can possibly retain this 
Sabbath, and yet not keep '^ an holy day !" I suppose the 
next step in the argument (if I may be pardoned the misno- 
mer) will be the assurance not only that " Sabbath days" do 
not mean Sabbath-days ; but that " an holy day," obviously 
*'from the context," imports something entirely different from 
an holy day ! and perhaps ultimately, that ^^ the context" itself 
falls within the same category. If, in addition to these philo- 
logical revelations, your correspondent will also make the tri- 
fling discovery of a Scriptural text, half so explicit — half so 
unmistakable — on his side of either of our " Six Propositions," 
I promise to abandon to him the whole argument loithout re- 



serve 



But, fortunately, we have corroborating testimonies to estab- 
lish the position under review : it is not dependent on a single 
chain of evidence — however irrefragable that chain may be. 
^^Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye," says Paul to 

the Romans, " but not to doubtful disputations 

One man esteemeth one day above another ] another esteemeth 
every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his 
own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 41 

The text conclusive, unless "limited!" Erasmus. Gill. Macknight. 

the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord 
he doth not regard it.'' (xiv. 1, 5, 6.) To this J. N. B. 
replies : ^' If Paul's language in that chapter be taken with- 
out any limitation, as affirming that every day is to he es- 
teemed alike by enlightened Christians, it goes beyond the 
apostle's aim, and strikes equally against the Christians' 
^ Lord's day,' as against the Sabbath of the Decalogue !" 
This is certainly an original mode of argument ; and deserves 
a copyright ! If our recognized authority " be taken without 
any limitation," it entirely overthrows me, and therefore I 
must limit it ! — to what extent, we are not informed. Humbly 
supposing that the apostle really meant pretty much what he 
said, I am disposed to accept his language as it is. 

Erasmus illustrates the text thus : " For he that is weak 
and of unperfect faith, maketh a difference betwixt day and 
day, as though one were ' holy,' and the other not. . . . 
On the other side, he that is perfect and strong in his faith, 
eonceiveth in days no such difference, but rather thinketh all 
the space of his life consecrate and hallowed to godly conver- 
sation." (^Parajphrase on Rom. xiv.) 

Dr. Gill remarks, concerning this passage, that it must be 
understood as including, among the various Jewish festivals, 
'^ one day in a week, the seventh day Sabbath ] now there were 
some," he adds, "who thought that the laws respecting these 
days were still in force, particularly the latter, and therefore 
esteemed it above another." (^Comment, in loco?) 

" With respect to days,'^ says Macknight, paraphrasing 
the same passage, " the Jewish Christian indeed thinketh one 
day more holy than another ; the new-moons, for example, and 
Sabbaths ; but the Gentile Christian, better informed, thinketh 
every day alike holy, because the law of Moses is not the law 
of Christ's kingdom." (^On the Epistles, Bom. xiv. 5.) 

Whatever vaUd grounds then there may be for weekly wor- 
ship, and for Sunday commemoration, I sincerely hope they 

are perfectly satisfactory to my friend : if not, he deserves 

4* 



42 ABROaATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Luther. Paul to the Galatians : — Sabbath observance condemned. 

commiseration. But at present I am only concerned to show, 
first, that this observance is not required by the fourth com- 
mandment (vide Proposition I.), and secondly, that, if it were, 
this commandment has been, in Paul's expressive language 
(unconsciously used by my friend), completely *^ blotted 
out." {Col ii. 14, 16.) If J. N. B. will esteem Sunday as 
more '' holy'' than any other day, I leave him to escape Paul's 
implication of ^' weakness in the faith,'' as best he can. To con- 
sole him, I will remind him of the opinion of Martin Luther, 
as quoted in Coleridge's Tahle-Talk: (vol. ii. 3Ia2/ 19, 1834 :) 
^' If anywhere the day is made holy for the mere days sake, 
if anywhere any one sets up its observance upon a Jeivish 
foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to 
dance on it, to do anything that shall reprove this encroachment 
on the Christian spirit and liberty." 

" 0, foolish Galatians," says the apostle once more, (iii. 1,) 
*' who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth ?" 
" How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, 
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ? Ye observe 
daysV (Gal. iv. 9, 10.) '^Sabbaths:" says Grotius. (Anno- 
tations in loco.') ^' These days," says a note in Valpy's Greek 
Test., ''are the Sabbaths." "This expression," says Bloom- 
field's Greek ^es^., "refers to the Sabbath." "By days," 
says Macknight, " the apostle means the weekly Sabbaths." 
(Commentary in loco.') Dr. Clarke paraphrases it: "Ye 
superstitiously regard the Sabbaths." (in loco.) And Dr. 
Gill says: "By ^clays' are meant their seventh day Sab- 
baths ; for since they are distinguished from ' months' and 
'years,' they must mean such days as returned weekly ; and 
what else can they be but their weekly Sabbaths ?" (Com. in 
loco.) 

If my friend J. N. B. thinks these " days," so warmly con- 
demned by the apostle, do not refer to the Sabbath of the 
fourth commandment, I shall be very happy to learn the 
grounds on which such an opinion is based. Mespwhile, I 



MR. Taylor's first reply. 43 

The Sabbath uniformly regarded as a shadow in the Epistles. 

must avow that I have seen nothing calculated to *' abate the 
tone of confidence" with which I reiterate the unimpeached 
conclusion, that while the apostolic council at Jerusalem clearly 
rejected the Sabbath from the " things necessary" for Gentile 
Christian observance, the Epistles uniformly regard the in- 
stitution " as a provisional type, fulfilled and superseded by 
the gospel dispensation : the *res^ which remaineth to the peo- 
ple of God' being not that of 'the seventh day^^ but that into 
which they ' who have believed do enter,' when they ' have 
ceased from their own works.' " If in a solitary instance these 
Epistles regard the Sabbath otliericise than as " a shadow," I 
have yet to read it, and I shall be under deep obligations to 
him who shall thus enlighten me. 

Two points of my friend's review, that I particularly desired 
to notice, yet remain; the "obligation" of Mosaic law, and 
the "Antinomianism" of its rejection : but I have already so 
encroached upon your courtesy, Messrs. Editors, and, I fear, 
upon the patience of your readers, that I must for the pre- 
sent neglect them. 

In conclusion, I would ask your correspondent J. N. B. 
one serious question : Does it not painfully impress him as a 
most suspicious circumstance for the doctrine he advocates — as 
a circumstance well qualified — not to ''abate" — but to destroy 
his confidence in its truth, that, while the Anti-sabbatarian calm- 
ly reposes on the perspicuous and repeated declarations of Scrip- 
ture, he himself is driven to the merest expedients in futile 
efi'orts to evade or to extenuate their significance, and finds no 
single text to counteract their force — no single intimation 
from the whole New Testament, to sustain his Sabbath obliga- 
tion ? 

W. B. T. 



THE OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH, 



REPLY TO ''W. B. T." 



PART I. 

*' Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, 
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be 
called great in the kingdom of heaven." — Matthew v. 19. 



Messrs. Editors : — 

I HAVE read with interest, not unmixed with melan- 
choly, the ingenious defence by W. B. T. of the ^'Six Anti- 
sabbatarian Propositions." It is written with vivacity and 
force, is courteous in tone, and its argument is lawyer-like in 
subtlety, brilliancy, and strength. 

If (as he claims by the text he has prefixed as a motto) 
he regards himself as defending Christian liherty, I honor his 
motives ] but at the same time must lament that he entertains 
such views of the Sabbath as to suppose it was ever to pious men 
a burden and a bondage. The good of old were taught of Grod to 
^' call the Sabbath a delighf." A very different class of men 
were they who said, " What a weariness is it !'^ " When will 
the Sabbath be gone ?'^ 

Should not this single Scriptural contrast suggest to his 
mind that, after all, his views mai/ be wrong ? And if wrong, 
then dangerous ? Is the liberty which Christ has come to give 
us, a liberty /rom, or a liberty to, holy delight ? Is it not the 
uniform effect of a spiritual change in true conversion (I put 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 45 

The Sabbath no " burden ;" but a " delight." Evil tendencies. 

it to the observation and Christian experience of every one) to 
endear to us the day of religious rest? Would my brother 
wish it otherwise ? 

A word as to my stand-point and aim in this discussion 
seems necessary. Let no man think me the advocate of Jew- 
ish prejudice, or religious intolerance. All my principles for- 
bid it. I honor no class of men more highly than the apostles 
and champions of religious liberty. In this respect I belong 
to the school of Roger Williams, or rather/let me say, to the 
glory of our common Master, to the school of Christ. Of Him 
I have learned to " call no man master on earth,'^ and to for- 
bid no man to do good, because he follows not with me. I go 
all length with my brother in his abhorrence of bigotry. I 
say with Paul, that great apostle of Christian liberty : '' Let 
us not, therefore, judge one another any more ; but judge this 
rather, that no man put a sfumhiing-block, or an occasion to 
fall in Jiis brother's wayT {Roim. xiv. 13.) I trust he will 
believe me when I say that, while I entirely acquit him of all 
such intention^ I could not suppress the apprehension that such 
an ill effect^ as is here deprecated, might follow from the con- 
fident tone and natural tendency of the '^ Six Propositions," 
against the divine authority of the Sabbath. 

For this reason I wrote at first, and for this reason I now 
resume the pen. Had W. B. T., in this reply, convinced me 
of any radical error in my position, or fundamental truth in 
his own, I should have acknowledged it as cheerfully as I 
shall any incidental defect he has pointed out in my statements 
or reasoning. I hope, notwithstanding some strong expres- 
sions on his part, to find him at least equally open to convic- 
tion. 

I must repeat my regret that I have so little leisure to give 
to a discussion so seasonable, so practical, and in its relations 
to the Law and the Gospel so fundamental and all-pervading. 
I almost envy my friend, whose opening words on occupying 
'' a small space" by '^ a few remarks," when compared with 



46 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The real question at issue. Proof necessary on either side. 

the space actually filled by his defence, suggests to me the 
idea of an unlimited affluence of time. Limited as my own 
time is, I have felt obliged to enter thus fully into the preli- 
minary explanations required by the motto he has chosen, lest 
any should misjudge my stand-point. The question is not 
whether we shall ^^ stand fast in the liberty'^ of the Grospel ; 
this I mean to do as well as he. The question between us 
really is, Has Christ, who has made us free from the obligation 
of the Jewish ritual, made us free from any commandment of 
the Decalogue ? In other words. Has Christ annulled the 
Sabbath ? This W. B. T. affirms, and I deny. 

I. I now come to the First Proposition ; that ^' There is 
but one Bible Sabbath, and that, the Saturday Sabbath.^' W. 
B. T., in his defence, has ingeniously dropped the last clause of 
this complex proposition, though it is the only one I have 
ever denied. I willingly concede that the Sabbath under all 
dispensations is substantially one, with only circumstantial 
differences suiting each dispensation. But this is not the 
meaning of W. B. T. He contends that there is but one 
Bible Sabbath, and that one, the Jewish Sabbath, in all its cir- 
cumstances and details ; in a word, that the Law of the Sabbath 
begins and ends with that nation only. This is the real 
meaning of the original proposition. Here it is that I take 
issue with it, and with him. 

W. B. T. says, very truly, that no one can assail it by "ven- 
turing to affirm.'' I give him all credit for this logical dis- 
covery. But I beg leave to remind him that neither can it be 
sustained by "venturing to affirm" the original proposition. 
I admit the justice of his demand on my jmrt for "chapter 
and verse" touching what I propose to prove ; and shall there- 
fore hold him to the same. 

When T said that the Decalogue knows nothing of Saturday, 
and that from the Decalogue alone no one could determine the 
day of the week, I did not mean to deny (as my reference to 
Exodus xvi. shows) that it could be otherwise ascertained ; and 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 47 

A day Jixed by miracle, may be changed by miracle. Sabbath in Eden. 

I fully concur with my friend that, " if once ascertained, it be- 
comes the exclusive object of the law's consideration, and en- 
grosses its entire authority." {p. 21.) But I must at the same 
time remind him that this very mode of fixing the particular 
day of the week by miracle is a circumstance applicable alike 
to any change of dispensation. He has spent much labor in 
defending what I never denied, that /or the Jews, it was fix:ed 
to the last day of our week. Granted. But then it was not 
fixed by the Decalogue ; therefore the whole authority of the 
Sabbath enjoined in the Decalogue may, for sufficient reasons, 
by the "Lord of the Sabbath'^ be transferred to the Jirst day 
of our week. This is the very thing for which I have contend- 
ed. And if by sufficient evidence " this is once ascertained,'^ 
then the Jirst day (to use his own words) "becomes the ex- 
clusive object of the law's consideration, and engrosses its en- 
tire authority." 

From this point I might proceed at once to the proof from 
the Scriptures, that such a change has actually been made. 
But it will clear the ground under this first head, to notice 
what W. B. T. has said of the Origin of the Sabbath. He 
denies its existence in Eden, and regrets that I, in affirming it, 
have made "so important an addition to the testimony of 
Scripture !" (p. 22.) I had referred to Gen. ii. in proof; on 
which he remarks that "to assume that the declaration in Gen. 
ii. 3, ' God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,' means 
that man '' sanctified it,' requires rather too great an exercise 
of ^ fancy' for a sober logician." (p. 22.) I answer, that the 
meaning of that verse is not the proper work of the logician, 
but of the interpreter ; determining the true sense, by the 
usage of words, context, scope, and other circumstances. Truly 
this is no business for "fancy," but for sober judgment. 
Does then my friend soberly think these words mean that 
God set apart the seventh day and blessed it, for himself to 
observe, and not man ? Of all " fancies," this seems to me 
the most singular. I had almost said, the most ludicrous. If 



48 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

" Blessed" for man: and " sanctified" to religion. A conjectural evasion. 

it were so, why was the fact, in which of course man has no 
interest, recorded in a revelation for man ? But I must re- 
mind my friend that his notion is contrary to the established 
usage of the words ^' sanctified" and " blessed" in the Scrip- 
tures. The word ^' sanctify" is found for the next time after this 
text, in Exodus xiii. 2 ; xix. 10, 22, 23. In all these and in 
other places, it is used in the sense of setting apart to the spe- 
cial service of God, hy divine authority. If he can find any 
other meaning appropriate to Gen. ii, 3, 1 shall be glad to see 
it. I know of no interpreter of Scripture who agrees with 
him. When it is therefore said by the inspired historian, 
that Grod ^^ sanctified the seventh day," I must understand 
him to say, that God set it apart (from the other six days of 
labor), to he religiously employed hy man. The use of the 
same words in the fourth commandment (^Exodus xx. 8 — 11) 
confirms this meaning, beyond all the power of scepticism. 
The word *' bless," when used of an act of God, signifies, in 
the Scriptures, to confer hlessings on men (^Gen. i. 22; xxx. 
27 ) xxxix. 5) ; when spoken of things, it signifies to make 
them means of hap)p)iness to men (^Exodus xxiii. 25 ; Dent. 
xxviii. 12 ; xxxiii. 11). I am really ashamed of all this de- 
tail. But my friend has compelled me. And ^'in the 
mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be es- 
tablished." 

The only plausible evasion of the force of this passage is 
that of Paley and others, who conjecture that it may be a 
prolepsis, or anticipation by the sacred historian, of the insti- 
tution of the Sabbath twenty-five hundred years after. But 
to this conjecture, I answer, 1. It admits my interpretation 
of the words to be just. 2. It supposes, instead of a re"^ 
corded fact, a figure of speech, without any necessity contrary 
to a fundamental law of interpretation. In other words, it is 
a pure " fancy," without any grammatical, logical, or histori- 
cal support. 3. It is a supposition employed to set aside a 
divine testimony : just as if a man, to get rid of the Divine 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 49 

An answer. The Sabbath " made for man :" kept by our first parents. 

Law of Marriage, were to say that the words in verse 24th of 
the same chapter (quoted as divine by Christ, in 3Iark x. 5 — 9) 
were a mere anticipation by Moses of a subsequent Jewish 
law, and therefore that the Law of Marriage was not binding 
" from the beginning'^ of the race, and upon the race at large. 
4. It is against common sense; for common sense says that 
any commemorative institution should commence at, or near 
the time of the event commemorated j whereas, this supposition 
of a mere i^rolej^sis leaves " a great gulf,^' a vast oblivious 
chasm of more than two thousand years, between the Creation 
and the Sabbath by which it was commemorated. And even 
then, to crown the climax of absurdity, it limits that com- 
memoration of an event, in which the whole created race are 
equally interested, to the smallest fraction of that race ! 

From this legitimate mode of interpretation, I trust it will 
now appear that I proceeded upon no mere " fancy" in refer- 
ring the origin of the Sabbath to the day after man's Creation. 
So much is sure. That it " was made for man," and not for 
God to keep, is also certain, if (in any case) language has a 
determinate meaning. The inference of a "sober logician" 
may now follow, that the first Sabbath was kept by Adam and 
Eve, in their state of unsullied innocence; and that it was 
kept " the first day after their own creation." This is all I 
affirmed ; and this I have proved, I think, beyond the possi- 
bility of reasonable doubt. 

My friend makes merry with the idea of that day, as a day 
of holy rest for Man. '^ In the name of wonder," he asks, 
rest " from what ?" (p. 22.) It had better become him had he 
risen upward in thought to the sublime repose of the Creator 
over his finished work, and remembered that Man was then in 
perfect communion of spirit with his God. 

It follows irresistibly, from the fact thus demonstrated, that 
if the law of the Sabbath was given to our first parents, it 
was given to all their posterity. Even Paley admits this. 

But " in vain shall we search for even a hint," says my 
5 



50 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The "Week." IIesiod; Homer; Callimachus. Philo; Josephus. Clement; Eurebius. 

friend, " that, during the twenty-five hundred years previous 
(to Moses), man ever did keep, ov ever was required to keep 
a Sabbath/' (p. 22.) This bold, but unfortunate assertion is 
sufficiently answered already. I only quote it to remark that 
the division of time into " weeks," or " seven days,'' is re- 
peatedly mentioned (in the history of Noah and Jacob), and 
that we know of no other foundation for such a division of 
time but in the original institution of the Sabbath. 

It is difficult to account on any other principle for the sort 
of sanctity attached to the seventh day among the ancient 
heathen- nations. The old Greek poets, Hesiod, Homer, and 
Callimachus call the seventh day " holy." Philo says, 
*' The seventh day is a festival to every nation." Josephus 
says most explicitly, " No city of G-reeks or barbarians can be 
found which does not acknowledge a seventh day's rest from 
labor." The learned Clement, of Alexandria, a witness of 
the highest competency, says, " The Greeks, as well as the 
Hebrews, observe the seventh day as holy." And, finally, the 
learned Eusebius affirms that '^ almost all the philosophers 
and poets acknowledge the seventh day as holy." 

Now, if we allow the fact, thus testified by so many wit- 
nesses, Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, to what cause can this 
general agreement be ascribed, but to the law of nature, or to 
the remains of an original tradition from Adam and Noah ? 
These Gentiles surely did not conform to an institute of the 
Jewish law, which they despised and hated. 

But whether the Sabbath was kept or not, during that long 
period of human apostasy, is nothing to the point. The 
authority of the institution remained the same, as our Lord 
says of marriage, ''from the beginning." The Law bound 
men, in each case, even though they broke it. And the reck- 
oning of the Universal Judge is sure. (See Jude 14, 15.) 

Having thus shown by " chapter and verse," briefly, but 
conclusively, that the Sabbath did not hegin with the Jewish 
people, I shall now show, in the same manner, that it did not 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 51 

A Sabbath predicted, in the new creation. Proof of the transfer. 

end with them. I have before cited a prediction of the Mes- 
siah's resurrection and exaltation {Ps. cxviii. 16 — 26), in 
which the day of Christian worship is manifestly made to cor- 
respond to, and celebrate that glorious event. If so, then a 
Salhath is predicted under the gospel dispensation. And 
whatever belongs to that dispensation, all admit, is of universal 
and perpetual obligation. 

That a change of day icould he demanded, seems evident 
from the nature of the case. The original day was originally 
and appropriately chosen to commemorate the work of Crea- 
tion. But the work of Christ, being our Kedemption in its eter- 
nal results, must, in the esteem of all Christians, be of far 
higher and sweeter import. The day that sealed the certainty 
of that glorious work, and of the '' new heavens and earth'' 
for the redeemed, must, therefore, of necessity be more sacred 
and joyful to believers than that which commemorated the 
creation of this visible globe. This must perish, but that 
must endure {Isai. li. 6). And if, according to Isaiah (Ixv. 
17, 18), the glory of the first creation is so to fade in compa- 
rison, as to cease from the commemoration of men, then here 
is a divine prediction of a change of the Sabbath from the 
seventh, in the order to the first day of the week, grounded 
upon the \eTj nature of things, and the consequent necessity 
of the case. 

That such a change icas made in fact — in other words, that 
the day appropriated to Christian worship, and the commemo- 
ration of the work of Redemption (especially in the Eucharist, 
or " breaking of bread"), was the first day of the week — that 
this was sanctioned by Christ himself after his resurrection, as 
the " Lord of the Sabbath" — that it has the example of the 
inspired apostles in its favor — that it was familiarly known and 
acknowledged among all Christians as the " Lord's day," i. e., 
the day by His authority consecrated to Him — are four dis- 
tinct facts, for which we can cite both chapter and verse. (See 



52 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

Ecclesiastical History. Testimony of Iren^u3. Sabbath-observance blessed. 

John XX. 16 ; Matt, xxviii. 9 — 11 ) Luke xxiv. 30 — 40; Jolin 
XX. 19, 20 ; 26—29 ; Act?, ii. 1—4 ; xx. 6, 7; xxi. 4, 5 ; 1 
Cor. xvi. 1, 2 ; Rev. i. 10.) 

This Scriptural view is confirmed in the clearest manner by 
Ecclesiastical History. This is good testimony as to the mat- 
ter of fact. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr of Rome, 
DiONYSius of Corinth, Tertullian of Carthage (all writers 
of the first and second centuries), agree in their views of the 
Lord's day, or the day of Christ's resurrection, as the day of 
Christian worship. It is true they often distinguish it from 
the "Sabbath,^' meaning the Jewish Sabbath; but at other 
times, their language is as explicit as we could desire, as to 
the name and authority of the Sabbath being transferred to 
the First Day. Take for example these words of Iren^us, a 
writer of the highest character, (a. d. 178 :) ^^ On the Lord's 
day we Christians keep the jSabbath.'' Were the first Chris- 
tians then Anti-sabbatarians ? So far from it, a man who re- 
fused to keep the Sabbath on the Lord's day would not have 
been easily recognized by Iren^us as a Christian. Let W. 
B. T. think of this. 

The conclusion of the whole argument is this : Either there 
are now two Sabbaths (which W. B. T. denies), or the one 
Sabbath of the Creation, and of the Decalogue is perpetuated ; 
is exalted by a new association with the work of Hedemption, 
and for that reason by Divine Authority attached to the Jirst 
day of the week, in preference to the seventh. Still, it is a 
'^seventh" day as before; and as such, of course, absorbs into 
itself all the authority of the original Law, and all the bless- 
ings of the original Promise. What want we more ? 

That the conscientious observance of the Sabbath is attended 
with 'peculiar hlessings to individuals, we have testimony from 
men of the highest intelligence and closest observation, of all 
countries, ages, sects, and occupations. This is not to be set 
aside by a sneer at superstition. Superstition will hardly ac- 



MR, brown's second REPLY. 53 

Experience of Sir Matthew Hale. Montalembert's Report. 

count for such a high testimony, for example, as that of Sir 
Matthew Hale.* 

And that nations prosper most, where the Sahbath is most 
observed in a Christian spirit is, I think, a matter of observa- 
tion and history. Hear what Montalembert (himself a 
French Romanist, and therefore a witness against the credit 
of his country and his church), says on this subject, in his 
recent Report on the Sabbath to the French Assembly : ^' We 
still see" (I quote his words) " the two most powerful and 
flourishing natioias in the world, England and North America, 

* As all may not be able to refer to Judge Hale's testimony, I 
shall here quote a part of it, only regretting that I cannot give it en- 
tire. He says: "I will acquaint you with a truth, that above forty 
years' experience, and strict observation of myself, hath assuredly 
taught me. I have been, near fifty years, a man as much conversant 
in business, and that of moment and importance, as most men ; and I 
will assiu'e you, I was never under any inclination to fanaticism, en- 
thusiasm, or superstition. In all this time, I have most industriously 
observed, in myself and my concerns, these three things. First : That 
whensoever I have undertaken any secular business upon the Lord's 
Day (which was not absolutely and indispensably necessary), that 
business never prospered or succeeded well with me. Nay, if I had set 
myself that day but to forecast or design any temporal business to be 
done or performed afterwards — though such forecast were just and 
honest, and had as fair a prospect as could possibly be expected — yet I 
have always been disappointed in the effecting of it, or in the success 
of it ; so that it grew almost proverbial with me, when any importuned 
me to any secular business that day, to answer them, that if they ex- 
pected it to succeed amiss, then they might desire my undertaking it 
upon that day. And this was so certain an observation to me, that I 
feared to think of any secular business that day, because the resolu- 
tions then taken would be unsuccessful or disappointed. Secondly : 
That always the more closely I applied myself to the duties of the 
Lord's Day, the more happy and successful were my employments of 
the week following ; so that I could, from the strict or loose observation 
of this day, take a fust prospect, and true calculation of my temporal suc- 
cess in the ensuing tveek.'" See Hale's Meditatioxs. 

5* 



54 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

National prosperity dependent on the Sabbath. Truth invincible. 

witnessing by their prosperity, to the price God himself pays, 
even in temporal things, to those nations that remain faithful 
to the first of his laws.'' In other parts of his Report (which 
occupies fourteen columns of the Moniteur), this eminent 
statesman places the public profanation of the Sabbath in the 
first rank of popular dangers and faults; declaring it is like a 
public profession of Atheism, violating liberty, violating equality 
before Grod, and nourishing ignorance, vice, and disorder. 

I have dwelt long on this point, perhaps too long. But the 
settlement of this will greatly aid in determining other points 
involved in the remaining Propositions. Necessity compels 
me to close this communication here. In a future one, I hope 
more briefly to dispatch what remains. May " the Lord of 
the Sabbath'' bless my friend ! 

J. N. B. 



PART II. 

" Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, 
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be 
called great in the kingdom of heaven." — Matthew v. 19. 



I HOPE no one may be dismayed by the length to which this 
Discussion has been carried, or discouraged from reading it for 
fear of its resulting in the establishment of error, or the 
perplexity of merely '^ doubtful disputations." It is a Christ- 
ian law (doubted by n© Protestant, and disputed only by the 
Romanist), " prove all things ] hold fast that which is good ; 
abstain from all appearance of evil." Truth loves examina- 
tion. Rooted in its Eternal Author, God, it rears its majestic 
form to the light of evidence, and safe in His protection, defies 
alike the tempestuous sway of opinion, the lightning shaft of 
wit, and the untempered edge of sophistry. The clouds of 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 55 

The " Second rroposition" most important. Already overthrown. 

the tempest may indeed envelop and obscure it for a moment; 
yet it soon reappears, stripped haply of its decayed branches 
and redundant foliage, but intact in every vital part, more 
perfect in beauty, corroborated in strength, and rejoicing in 
the radiant light of day. Such I cannot but believe will, 
through God's grace, be the result of the present Discussion. 
If the Sabbath be no part of the Law of God, let it perish. 
If it be, one must indeed be " weak in faith" to fear its over- 
throw by any fair discussion, when he hears Him, who is 
Truth itself, declaring, ^^It is easier for heaven and earth to 
pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail." — {Luke xvi. 17.) 

II. The main strength and sole hope of my friend W. B. 
T. lies in the Second of the '' Six Propositions" he defends, 
viz., that " the Sabbath was strictly a ceremonial and Jewish 
institution." All his other Propositions in reality re^t upon 
this, and stand or fall with it. I wish this point to be 
distinctly understood, marked, remembered, and inwardly 
digested. It was in fact involved in the preceding Proposi- 
tion, according to its real import, as I have shown. If, then, 
I have succeeded in my argument there, and have proved that 
the Law of the Sabbath, like that of Marriage, dates " from 
the beginning" of the world, and belongs to the whole race, 
then I have in fact already demolished this *^ Second Proposi- 
tion," and, vnth it, all the rest. My friend W. B. T. may 
exclaim against this summary conclusion, in reply to his length- 
ened argument; but I submit it even to him as a ^' good logi- 
cian," if the entire consequence does not legitimately follow. I 
know he may attempt to escape the consequence ; but it will 
be solely by challenging the proof I have presented of the 
premises. Of such challenge, however, I feel no fear. Why 
should I ? I live for Truth. 

It may, however, be satisfactory to him, as a lover of truth 
and consistency, if I examine all his remaining Propositions 
and reasonings in detail, and show that the principles I have 
established already under the First Proposition pervade the 



56 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Moral and ceremonial distinctions confounded. Ceremonial association. 

entire New Testament, and give a vital unity and glorious 
harmony to all the various facts and representations of the 
Bible. If the patience of my readers will hold out, I will, as 
far as time and space permit, undertake this, using all the 
brevity consistent with justice to the argument. 

Let us then scrutinize more closely this Second Proposi- 
tion, with the reasonings of W. B. T. upon it. The question 
between us here is precisely this : he affirms the strictly 
ceremonial and national character of the Sabbath, and I its 
moral and universal authority. 

Now, I take it for granted that two men of average 
intelligence and candor, with the same sources of evidence 
open before them, could not come to such opposite conclusions 
on a question like this, unless the question were complicated 
with circumstances that tend to confound moral and ceremo- 
nial distinctions, and thus to lead one of them unwittingly to a 
false issue. Here, in all candor, I think lies the root of my 
friend's difficulties ; and not of his alone, but of many others 
whose opinions he has subsequently quoted, though not always 
to the point. And here I may as well say, once for all, that, 
of the writers he has cited, I think only Warburton and 
Paley, perhaps Dr. Whately also (eminent, but often mis- 
taken men), fully agree with him in his Anti-sabbatarian 
views. Of the unguarded language of others, he has made a 
use, I think, they never designed ; but " what is written is 
written,'^ and published too ; and being fairly quoted by my 
friend, must go for what it is worth. 

His first argument for the ceremonial nature of the Sabbath 
is drawn from the fact of its incorporation with the ceremonial 
law of the Jews. — Lev. xxiii. Qy. 10.) The fact is clear. I 
admit it. His inference is — therefore the Sabbath was " strictly 
ceremonial and Jewish.'' This conclusion, I submit, is in 
logic a non scquitur. The inference dose not hi/ any necessity 
follow from the fact. Let us try it in another strictly parallel 
case. The Law of Marriage was incorporated with the cere- 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 57 

Jewish motive assigned. The Law not therefore ceremonial and Jewish. 

monial law of the Jews. The fact is clear. Therefore 
Marriage is a " strictly ceremonial and Jewish institution !" 
Will my friend W. B. T. accept this inference ? It is just as 
sound as his own; and he is bound either to accept it ih hoth 
cases, or to reject it in both. 

His next argument is drawn from the incorporation of a 
motive from Jewish history into the reasons for its observance. 
— Dent. V. 15. {p. 10.) But this is explained by the fact that 
Moses is here rehearsing the Decalogue in a wsij peculiarly 
applicable to the Jewish people. No such motive is found in 
the Decalogue itself, as originally delivered by God -, although 
very proper to be added afterwards to enforce its observance 
upon them. 

But suppose it were found appended to the original reason 
given in Ex. xx. 11 ; how does this prove the Second Proposi- 
tion ? That grand ''republication of the law of nature/' 
the Decalogue, was given to mankind through that nation^ 
till the Messiah should come. {Beut. xviii. 15 ; Rom. v. 20 ; 
Gal. iii. 19.) Though universal in its nature, it was of course 
particular in its application. It was all for the time incorpo- 
rated both with their ceremonial and civil code. Was it all 
therefore " strictly ceremonial and Jeioish f^ "Will W. B. T. 
really affirm this ? Much of his reasoning implies it, yet I 
am unwilling to impute to him a conclusion so immoral, as well 
as illogical. 

Very different, it seems to me, is the language of our Lord 
in the opening of his Sermon on the Mount. ''Think not 
that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets ; I am come 
not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till 
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass 
from the law, till all be fulfilled." (J/««. v. 17, 18.) And 
lest any of his own disciples, in consequence of the abrogation 
of the strictly Jewish code, should suppose and teach any re- 
laxation of the moral code, he adds the solemn warning which 
I have prefixed as a motto to these articles. " Whosoever 



58 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Decalogue enforced by Christ. A specification unnecessary. 

therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and 
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom 
of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and t-each them, the same 
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.'^ That by 
^' these commandments,'' our Lord meant the commandments 
of the Decalogue, seems to me so perfectly plain, from the 
specifications which follow, that I consider it beyond all 
dispute. When it is formally denied, it will be time enough 
formally to prove it. Let it suffice now to say, that his first 
examples are taken from the sixth and seventh (perhaps also 
from the third and ninth) commandments of the Decalogue ; 
and that every other is of a moral, not one of a ceremonial 
nature, throughout this whole discourse. Could anything add 
to the evidence thus given that, as Lord and Judge of the 
world, Christ recognizes the Decalogue as the immutable Law 
of God, and ratifies all its commandments in their genuine 
import, and stripped of every Pharisaic construction, as funda- 
mental laws of his own kingdom ? 

I can think of but one objection to this, so far as the 
Sabbath is concerned. It may be said, " Christ does not 
specify the fourth commandment as a part of this immutable 
law 3 therefore it may be an exception." Is it then necessary, 
after so decisive and comprehensive a statement as to every 
"jot or tittle of the law," that he descend to a specification 
of everi/ commandment ? As well might you raise the same 
objection against the first commandment, or the second, or the 
fifth, or the eighth, as against the fourth. " But He does 
specify them elsewhere," it may be said. I answer, yes, the 
fifth and eighth (perhaps the first and tenth also) ; but no- 
where the second. Is the second, then, abolished by Christ ? 
What ! when the world was full of idolatry and image 
worship, to be conquered by His word ! Absurd and monstrous 
supposition ! I do not impute to W. B. T. such quibbles and 
evasions as these. But then I say, equally absurd is the 
attempt to detach the fourth commandment from the Decalogue ; 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 59 

Human authority futUe. '• The seventh day" of the Decalogue, — moral. 

of which it ever formed au integral part, from the day that 
it was uttered by the voice of God from the blazing summit 
of Sinai, and was engraven by his finger in the two tables of 
stone ; distinctions equally sublime and significant, which were 
never accorded to any of the merely local and terrvporary laws 
of Judaism, either civil or ceremonial. 

The Law of the Sabbath, then, beyond all controversy, is 
^^ one of these commandments. '' And even if ^' one of the 
least of them,^^ it is expressly comprehended in the warning 
of our Lord. And if a thousand Christian divines of the 
highest distinction, with Luther and Calvin at their head, 
were to ''break it and to teach men so," from some mistaken 
view of Christian liberty under the gospel, how would that 
alter the case ? Will they sit on the throne of final judgment, 
and pronounce our sentence? They are but men; great men 
indeed, but fallible ; and to their own Master, in this matter, 
they stand or fall. I, too, could quote great divines on my 
side. But I will not. Let Christ speak for himself. 

But "the particular day, 'the seventh day,' is also," says 
my friend, " an integral portion of the Decalogue. Is that 
also acknowledged to be of a moral nature?" (p. 23.) This 
I have so fully answered already under the preceding Propo- 
sition, that I should not advert to it again, except to correct 
my friend, who quotes me as allowing " that a 'part of the 
Decalogue is not of a moral nature." I have made no such 
exception. The seventh day of the Decalogue I hold to be a 
part of the moral law of the Sabbath, but not the mere cir- 
cumstance of its order or mode of designation. Half the dis- 
pute at least, on this subject, springs from confounding two 
things perfectly distinct in their nature, viz : the seventh day 
of the Decalogue, and the seventh day of the Jewish week. 
The connection was fixed by statute only for that people. 
This therefore may be changed by competent authority; I 
mean by the authority of "the Lord of the Sabbath day," 
without touching "one jot or tittle" of the Decalogue. And 



60 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Au historical mistake corrected. The Sabbath purified, and ennobled. 

it loas changed, as we have seen. The connection was dis- 
solved at once, by the abrogation of the Jewish code. The 
Decalogue remained immutable, but all else that tvas joeculiai' 
to Judaism was abolished. 

But the Sabbath " was actually peculiar to the Jews," says 
my friend. " Throughout all history we discover no trace of a 
Sabbath among the nations of antiquity." (p. 24.) My friend 
here speaks as if all history were under his eye. But he has 
fallen into a mistake here, which proves that he has not read all 
history. I have corrected his mistake by the united testimony 
of seveii competent witnesses : — Hesiod, Homer, Callima- 
CHUS, Philo, Josephus, Clement, and Eusebius. 

But *^ moral law," says my friend, " being founded on natu- 
ral and universal relations, must be as immutable as those re- 
lations." (2?. 24.) Granted. And, therefore, the Decalogue, which 
is founded on such relations, remained intact, when everything 
" strictly ceremonial and Jewish" was swept away like shadows 
before the sun ! 

But, says W. B. T., ^^the Sabbath has been changed in its 
period, changed in the reasons for its observance, changed in 
the character of its requirements, and changed in its sanction." 
(p. 24.) Wherein ? It is still the same weekly "period" required 
by the Decalogue. The original " reasons" for its observance 
remain ; only new and niore affecting motives have been sup- 
plied, by the death and resurrection of our Bedeemer ! No 
change has been made in the "nature of its observance," except 
the abolition of the " strictly ceremonial and Jewish" code, 
with which it once was incorporated, together with all the 
peculiar constructions, penalties, and sanctions of that code. 
Like Marriage, it now stands as " in the beginning ;" pure from 
every tincture of Judaism; hallowed and beautified with new and 
loftier associations. Pre-eminently now a part of " the perfect 
and royal law of liberty," from the slaver}^ of the woB^d, the 
bright link of man with man, and earth with heaven, the safeguard 
of virtue, the glory of religion, the pillar and prop of society, the 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 61 



Col. ii. tiecessaribj limited. Perpetuity of the Decalogue taught by Christ. 

palladium of nations, " the pearl of days," the blessing of this 
world, and the beacon light of that which is to come ; 
who that rightly understands its worth, can fail to "call the 
Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord honorable V 

But my friend now calls in to his aid the authority of the 
Apostle to the Gentiles. *' ' Sabbath-days,' " says Paul (in Col. 
ii. 16, 17), 'are a sliadoio of good things to come.' This, 
apart from all the previous considerations, would itself be con- 
clusive. No one will pretend that a shadow or type can be 
other than ritual. '^ (p. 24.) My friend has inserted the word 
" good" into the teXt ; probably from inadvertence. I hope 
its discovery may be a lesson of caution and charity to him in 
future. But now for the Apostle's meaning. " The language 
of the text," says my friend, ''is comprehensive and unquali- 
fied. The weekly Sabbaths are certainly at least as much in- 
cluded in the phrase ' Sabbath-days,' as any other ' ceremo- 
nial fasts and festivals of the Jews.' — 'This is clear from the 
context,' and confirmed by the uniform tenor of the other Epis- 
tles. He who asserts a limitation of its application must 
clearly prove it." (p. 25.) And I hope clearly to prove it 
thus. Paul is the servant of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ 
taught the perpetuity of the Decalogue, in even the least of its 
commandments, of which the Sabbath is one. This, therefore, 
was the doctrine of Paul. " The disciple is not above his Mas- 
ter," says Christ, " but every one that is perfect, shall be as 
his Master." [Luke vi. 40.) With what astonishment would 
Paul, if he were now among us hoclili/, behold an attempt 
to torture his language into a direct opposition to a fundamen- 
tal doctrine of his Master ! What conceivable form of "wrest- 
ing the Scriptures" could be more painful to his generous 
spirit ? It may not be ! Having received the Grospel by the 
direct "revelation of Jesus Christ" (^Gal. i. 11, 12), it is im- 
possible that he could mean to teach the abrogation of the De- 
calogue, in direct contradiction to his Lord. Any interpretation 
that leads to such an issue violates an axiom, and overturns 
6 



62 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

No contradiction possible. Neither Christ, nor Paul, — Anti-sabbatarian. 

the first principles of all sound interpretation. It is nothing 
less, in effect, than attempting to make the Saviour contradict 
himself. It follows, that the weekly Sabbath days are not cer- 
tainly included, but only those 'peculiar to Judaism, and which 
the false teachers upheld in opposition to Christ, as '^ the head 
of all principality and power. '^ (verse 10th.) The whole of 
the context, from verse 6th to verse 10th of this chapter, is 
the Apostle's protest against these Judaizing teachers. They 
would have placed the yoke of circumcision, and of the whole 
Jewish law upon the Gentile believers. Paul resists this un- 
warrantable imposition, by showing, 1, that Christ, as '' Head 
over all things," had a right to set it aside ; 2, that he had 
really conferred on believers all the blessings it vainly prom- 
ised; 3, that, therefore, Christ was the substance^ and that 
ceremonial system but the " shadow ;'' from all which, it fol- 
lows that no man could lawfully condemn them for not ob- 
serving it, in any part of its burdensome ritual. Even to 
observe the Sabbath, in a Jewish way (i. e., on the seventh 
day of the week, and in combination with other Jewish ^' holy 
days"), would, in a G-entile Christian, be wrong; in a Jewish 
Christian, it must be a matter of indifiference, expediency, and 
condescension only ; but for either to observe it as a part of 
an obligator!/ ritual, would be a renunciation of the authority 
of Christ, and, therefore, of the Gospel itself. It is in this con- 
nection Paul uses this strong language here and elsewhere, 
which some have mistaken for a repudiation of the Decalogue, 
and among them, my friend W. B. T. 

The truth is, such a mistake in him is a logical result of his 
principles. He starts wrong at the beginning. He does not 
recognize the moral law in the Decalogue. His stand-point 
is not that of Christ, and, therefore, not of Paul. Hence, he 
allows not to the ardent language of the apostle, in a contest 
against Judaizing teachers, the necessary limitations that keep 
it in holy harmony with the doctrine of his Lord. This is the 
source of that fatal confusion in an intellect naturally bright 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 63 

The Apostle misunderstood. Wrong construction of the word " work." 

and clear, and therefore the more likely, when itself misled, 
to '^make the worse appear the better reason." 

Let me make Paul's meaning plain by an illustration. Sup- 
pose, with my views of the Decalogue and of the Sabbath, I 
were arguing with a modern Jew, or, if you please, with a 
Seventh Day Baptist (many of whom are yet excellent men), 
and they both should insist upon the obligation of the seventh 
day of the iceeh in opposition to the first. I should resist them 
both as Paul does, on the very ground that they, wittingly or 
imwittingly, upheld the authority of the whole abrogated Jew- 
ish ritual, and denied the authority of Christ as Head over all. 
And if I saw any of my fellow-Christians, from weakness of 
faith, and tenderness of conscience, yielding to the plausible 
reasonings which would confound, in a single point, the Jew- 
ish ritual with the Decalogue, I would invoke them, by all 
their obligations of adoring gratitude to a crucified Redeemer, 
to " stand fast in the liberty with which Christ had made them 
free.'' Does W. B. T. now understand me ? Does he not 
now understand Paul ? 

The conclusion of the whole argument is that W. B. T. is 
not justified in the confident announcement that the Sabbath 
was a '' strictly Jewish and ceremonial institution.'' On the 
contrary, it is demonstrated by the highest of all evidence, the 
testimony of Christ himself, that it is an integral and insepa- 
rable part of the Moral Law, and, therefore, of universal and 
perpetual obligation. 

III. The Third Proposition, that " Jesus studiousJi/ and 
repeatedly violated the Sabbath," W. B. T. has attempted to 
defend at length ; but so weakly, that it will require but few 
remarks in reply, and those chiefly by way of explanation. 

His defence is built upon the construction of the word 
" work," in the fourth commandment. '' The lighting of a 
fire, the gathering of grain or food, the picking up of sticks, 
iinnecessari/ walking, even the carrying the slightest burden," 



64 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Sabbath, and the " Shew-bread," not perfectly parallel. 

he says, " all fall within the legal construction of the prohibi- 
tion/' (p. 26.) 

Had he put the word ^^unnecessary," which he prefixes 
alone to "walking," before the entire enumeration, he would 
have stated the exact truth. But now it conveys a wrong and 
injurious impression, injurious to the Jewish code, and inju- 
rious to our Saviour. By a miracle, every week repeated in 
the wilderness, Grod had made the gathering of food, the light- 
ing of a fire, &c., on the Sabbath unnecessary. To do any of 
these things in such circumstances was therefore justly con- 
strued as a violation of the law. But when the Pharisees ap- 
plied this construction to the act of the disciples, who plucked 
the grain merely to satisfy the cravings of hunger, our Saviour 
says justly that they " condemned the guiltless." My friend 
must be hard driven for evidence, when he infers from the case 
of David eating the shew-bread, a perfect parallel between the 
two laws. David did do in his necessity iDliat loas unlawful 
by the express terms of the ceremonial statute ; and necessity 
alone excused him. But the disciples did not violate the Sab- 
bath at all, for no "necessary" work was forbidden, as. is clear 
from the case of the priests in the temple. When our Saviour 
says, " they pro/a^e the Sabbath, and are hlameless,'' he evi- 
dently means to confound the Pharisees on their own principles 
of construction. On any other view, the language would be 
self-contradictory. On this view, it is perfectly in point. And 
when he adds that " there is one present greater than the tem- 
ple," meaning himself, he evidently claims that his authority 
is paramount in settling the construction, and his decision final 
in pronouncing his disciples "guiltless." 

To charge our Lord with a " studied violation of the Sab- 
bath," because he commanded the impotent man whom he had 
healed on the Sabbath day to "take up his bed and walk," is 
again to adopt the Pharisaic construction. — For the poor man's 
bed was evidently nothing but xpaSSatov (Jcrahhatoii), a small 
portable coucli or mattress, such as travellers carried about 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 65 

Doing good, lawful. Bi.^hop Warbuuton's argument fallacious. 

with them; and yet to carry it home with him, is construed by 
my friend W. B. T. as " in the very face of the express inter- 
dict" (in Jer. xvii. 21) against bearing burdens on the Sab- 
bath day ! I suppose on the same principle he must consider 
our Lord's healivg on that day a " studied violation of the Sab- 
bath. "" Happily we have a better authority to assure us, every- 
where and always, that " it is Imcful to do good on the Sabbath 
day." 

In truth, the only argument of any weight under this Pro- 
position (and that belongs under the 'preceding j and does not 
sustain tliii) is drawn from the words of our Lord which I had 
quoted in proof that the Sabbath is of a moral nature, and of 
universal force, viz., *^ The Sabbath was made for man, and 
not man for the Sabbath." My friend asks, " Could he have 
said this of any law but a positive and ceremonial one ? As- 
suredly NOT !" (/?. 27.) I answer. Why not? The argument 
which he quotes from Bishop Warburton, and adopts as 
decisive of the question, I think is only one of the Bishop's 
specious fallacies. — Try it on a kindred case — ^just substituting 
the Law of Marriage for the Law of the Sabbath. Axiom, 
'' Man was not made for Marriage, but Marriage was made for 
man." Now look at the argument of the Bishop. "Were 
the observance of the Law of Marriage (in the seventh com- 
mandment) a natural duty, it is certain man was made for 
that law ; the end of his creation being for the observance of 
the moral laio. On the contrary, all positive institutions were 
made for man." And now for my friend's inference, "This 
furnishes a proof that the [seventh] ccTnimandment is positive, 
ceremonial, and Jewish !" Who does not perceive the fallacy 
of this? 

The truth is, there is a distinction in moral laws, which 
this argument overlooks altogether. Our Saviour teaches 
(^Matt. V. 19) that some of the precepts of the law of G-od, 
though of binding force to the end of time, are yet of less im- 
portance than others. Some moral la\7s are founded in moral 

6* 



66 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A distinction in moral laws. Christ's vindication. 

relations wHch exist in the present world, but not in the next. 
Thus it is with the moral laws of conjugal and filial affection. 
Yet how truly moral, universal, and sacred here ! And thus 
it is with the law of the Sabbath. It is founded upon our 
moral relations to God and man in the present life, whether 
necessary or not in the future; as I showed in my very first 
communication. Of that argument for the moral nature of the 
Sabbath, W. B. T. in his defence has taken no notice what- 
ever. But I cannot help saying here that if he can set aside 
the moral nature of the fourth commandment, it will be an 
easy thing, by the same process, to set aside the fifth and 
seventh • not to say the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth. 
^^ Facilis descensus Averni ; sed revocare — .'' He will under- 
stand and appreciate this school-boy quotation, 

I know he accuses me of making '^sad nonsense" of our 
Lord's words in the passage under consideration, (p. 28.) And 
the argument, as he ingeniously puts it, is, as he says, " logic 
with a vengeance." But let me try to put it in its proper 
shape. "You accuse my disciples," says Christ, ''of break- 
ing the Sabbath. I have proved that you arc both unjust and 
inconsistent with yourselves, in this accusation." (See his 
whole argument on this point above.) " But now, to cover the 
whole ground of right construction in future, I lay down this 
broad axiom, ' The Sabbath was made for man, and not man 
for the Sabbath.' And because, designed like all other moral 
laws for the benefit of the whole race, therefore the Son of 
Man (to whom it is given to judge the whole race), is Lord also 
of the Sabbath day : i. e* the proper judge of the manner of its 
observance or desecration. In the exercise of this rightful 
authority, I must rescue it from your technical and bigoted 
construction, and restore it to its original use and end." 

I submit to every unprejudiced mind, nay, I submit to W. 
B. T. himself, whether there is any want of logical connection, 
or sound sense, or self consistency, in our Lord's words, ac- 
cording to this construction. On the contrary, do tliey not. 



MR. BROWN'S SECOND REPLY. 



Tlie charge of "violation"' made by Pharisees: not by Christian writers. 

when thus understood, perfectly agree with his character, his 
office, his uniform doctrine, and all the exigencies of the case ? 
Thus understood, what a sublime dignity do they give to the 
Sabbath, and to him as " the Lord of the Sabbath/^ But un- 
derstand them as W. B. T. would have us, and every trace of 
their glory vanishes. "The Son of Man is Lord," of what? 
Of a '' strictly ceremonial and Jewish institute !" " entirely 
subservient to men !" and vanishing away with other " sha- 
dows I" " No great harm in breaking ' shadows,' you know," 
says my friend gayly. Most true ; but take care that you do 
not impinge upon something more substantial ! Take care 
that you do not strike at foundation-stones in the great edifice 
of religion and morals. " The truth is (to use his own lan- 
guage in part, ^?. 28), this much perverted quotation {Hark 
ii. 28) was pronounced not as a check upon [Sabbatarians], 
but to counteract [bigoted Pharisees] ; and honesty requires 
that it should not be employed for an opposite purpose." 

To conclude this part of the subject. My friend thinks the 
passages in 3Iatt xii. 2; 3I(U'7c ii. 24; John v. 10, 16, 18; 
and ix. 16, must have escaped my memory, when I observed, 
on this Third Proposition, " This is the first time I remember 
to have seen ' him who knew no sin,' charged with a ' stu- 
died and repeated violation of the law of God.' " (p. 29.) By no 
means. I knew that Pharisaic Jews had brought the charge 
])efore ; but I meant (as my context shows) that it was the 
first time I had found that charge indorsed by a Christian 
writer. I had indeed read Paley; but I thought his language 
was more guarded; and on recurring to Paley' s argument, I 
am happy to acquit him of the charge in question ; nor do I 
now remember any professedly Christian writer, except the 
author of these Propositions, who has indorsed it. That the 
Jews did make the charge " with malice prepense," is mani- 
fest; but I think too well of my friend W. B. T., in spite of all 
his mistakes, to class him with men who had murder in their 
hearts against the " Lord of the Sabbath." 



68 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Injurious to Christ's character. 1 Tim. i. — not fully examined. 

Nevertheless, I am bound to remind him that this charge 
against our Lord is a grave one, and if not sustained (as I 
think on reflection he must feel that it is not), demands on his 
part profound regret, and public retraction. It is " a word 
against the Son of Man,'' which, though not unpardonable (as 
He in his mercy assures us), is yet really "false and calum- 
nious," injurious to his honor, to his purity, to his piety, to 
his self-consistency, to his uniform regard for the Sabbath, and 
for the virtue and happiness of mankind, to say nothing of his 
self-consuming zeal for their salvation. May the mild majestic 
eye that once looked on Peter, look on my friend ! 

IV. His Fourth Proposition, that "the New Testament 
never encourages Sabbath observance nor condemns Sabbath- 
breaking," will detain me but for a moment. It is so vitally 
involved in what has been discussed that every one will see 
that the proper observance of the Sabbath, before Christ's re- 
surrection on the seventh day of the Jewish week, and after 
that memorable event, upon the first, is always implied, as 
well as often expressed. Indeed it is evident that for many 
years the Apostles observed hotli, though for different reasons 
and only among the Jews. 

My friend treats with lightness the evidence I adduced from 
1 Tim. i. 9 — 11, of the condemnation of Sabbath-breaking, as 
one species of profaneness. (^p. 29.) I do not wonder; since it 
is quite evident, from the manner in which he quotes it and 
comments on it, that he looked only at the 9tli verse. But I 
beg him to examine this passage again. The force of the ar- 
gument it yields lies open before every plain English reader, 
in the order observed by the Apostle in his specification of sins 
and sinners. So exact a correspondence with the order of the 
ten commandments of the Decalogue cannot be the work of 
chance. It follows, 1. That the Decalogue is recognized as 
the- moral standard " according to the glorious Crospel of the 
blessed God." 2. That Sahhatli-hreahers are certainly includ- 
ed among " the ungodly and profane," and as such condemn- 



MR. brown's second REPLY. ()9 

The Decalogue recognized : and Sabbatli-brcakers condemned. 

ed. The force of this conclusion is heightened by a more exact 
translation of the first words, thus, " The law does not lie 
against a righteous man, but against the lawless and disobedi- 
ent, the ungodly and /)ro/a??e, &c. Against all such (including 
Sabbath-breakers) the law of God is levelled." A thought 
more pregnant with grave and solemn meaning can hardly be 
conceived. My friend in his haste must have overlooked the 
real force and bearing of this passage on the argument, or he 
could not have treated it lightly. This is my excuse for liiniy 
for only "fools make a mock at sin." {Prov. xiv. 9.) 

I regret that I cannot take up the two remaining Proposi- 
tions this week. They are defended by W. B. T. with an ability, 
an earnestness, an extent of reading and research, a force of 
personal conviction, and mingled feelings of triumph and ten- 
derness towards me, beyond anything he has before dis- 
played ; and really worthy of a better cause. Though still 
compelled to differ from him in his main conclusion, I am 
happy to see some common ground where I can embrace him 
with sentiments of esteem as well as of admiration and affec- 
tion. I look forward to the encounter with him where we 
disagree, with something (though not unkindly) of 

"That stern joy whlcli warriors feel 
In foemen worthy of their steel." 

I shall aim to do full justice to his arguments, but I promise 
in my Reply not to exceed the length of his own defence. In 
the mean time may the " Lord of the Sabbath" throw around 
my friend the pure radiance of " the perfect law of liberty," 
that he may " see things as they are." 

J. N. B. 



70 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



The Council at Jerusalem. 



PART III. 

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, 
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be 
called great in the kingdom of heaven." — Matthew v. 19. 



I SNATCH time from repose to finish my Reply to W. B. T. 
Some of my friends liave been pleased to express their ap- 
proval of my last article on all points but one — its length. 
But it seems to me, on this score, i/ou, Messrs. Editors, have 
the best right to complain. I do not wish to abuse your forbear- 
ance. Well-considered brevity does give to a discourse new 
force and beauty. But, give me the full length living man, 
even of large proportions, rather than the mummy regularly 
embalmed, shrunk, and shortened ! Some others of my friends 
think that I have treated W. B. T. with too much indulgence. 
I wonder whether such, if aiming at the front of the defying 
Philistine, would, like David, have chosen the smooth stones 
from the brook. All tastes cannot be satisfied. I prefer the 
smooth stones, the free hand, and the full sweep of the sling. 
But wisdom is profitable to direct, especially 'Hhe wisdom 
which is from above ; which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, 
and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, loithout 
jjartialitT/ and without hijpocTisy. And the fruit of righteous- 
ness is sown in peace, of them that make peaceJ' (James iii. 
17, 18.) May that wisdom from above be given to me in 
this Discussion, and also to my friend ! 

V. The Fifth Proposition defended by my friend W. B. 
T. is, that ^^ the Sabbath was formally abrogated by the first 
council at Jerusalem.'' 

I had said of this at first, '^ it is a pure assumption, without 
a shadow of proof. I meet it with an unequivocal denial." My 
friend W. B. T., it appears, thinks my brevity here even too 
laconic. So easy it is in argument to err on either side, of full- 
ness or conciseness. 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 71 

A statement generally correct. Three prohibitions declared. 

It is doubtless very kind in him to '^ refresh my memory'' 
with the history of that " important judicial deliberation." 
Though I studied it with some care about thirty years ago 
(when, perhaps, my friend was in his cradle), yet I am getting 
somewhat old and forgetful. But to be serious, I am really 
obliged to him for presenting so clear and concise a statement 
of the circumstances and occasion of that first Church Council. 
It is in the main so good, that I accept it with pleasure, waiv- 
ing any verbal criticism on the ambiguous phrase, ^' to invoke 
the authority of the Catholic church." Substantially, though 
not inform, this was a ^'general council;" not because all the 
churches then in Syria, Cilicia, and Palestine were represented 
by chosen delegates, but because '^ the Apostles" were present, 
together with '^ the elders" and ^^ the brethren" of Jerusalem. 
My friend says (p. 31) : ^' The great subject presented for 
the consideration and adjudication of this general council, was 
evidently the ichole ' Law of Moses,' and the extent of its ob- 
ligation." (^Acts XV. 5.) Precisely so. " And the decision 
arrived at, ^ after there had been much disputing,' excepted 
from abrogation" says my friend, ''but three prohibitions of the 
law, as ' necessary things' to be abstained from 3 namely idola- 
try , fornication, and the eating of tilings strangled, and hlood." 
Very true. He adds, " As Paley very correctly states, ' the 
observance of the Sabbath was not one of the articles enjoined 
by the Apostles, in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, upon them 
which from among the Gentiles were turned unto God.'" Here 
is a fair statement of the case. And what then? How does 
it bear upon the Fifth Proposition, " that the Sabbath was 
then formally abrogated." 

This W. B. T. proposes to show. I had said at first that 
" this decision does not afi'ect the original law of the Sabbath," 
and that ''the key to the whole fallacy (in this Fifth Proposition) 
is in the wrong sense given by the writer to the term Law." 
{p. 18.) But this, W. B. T. does not admit. " The whole con- 
text above (he says) shows incontroveriihly that the ecclesias- 



72 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



Wrong application of the term " Law." Argument analyzed. 

tical decree was not restricted to the Jewish ceremonial law, 
by its actually specifying two provisions o^ the moral law/' 
He then adds, on my statement, ^' So wrong a sense given to 
the term ' Law' by my friend, is really worse than a fallacy V 
{p. 31.) Here, then, we are fairly at issue. 

My friend's argument is ingenious and plausible. It is put 
together with skill, and to his own mind was no doubt ^'in- 
controvertible.'^ But I must take the liberty to examine both 
its form, its materials, and its strength. Analyzed, it stands 
thus : Position. The term Law is not here to be restricted 
to the ceremonial laio of the Jews, but includes also the 
Decalogue. Proof, 1. The phrase {verse 5) " Law of 
Moses" means the whole Law. 2. Two commands of the 
moral law are specified. 3. Gentiles were never bound by 
the Law of the Sabbath. 4. The Law of the Sabbath would 
have been not a little burdensome to them. 5. The whole 
Law of Moses was abrogated (as to the Gentiles) except in 
three points, neither of which includes the Sabbath. Con- 
clusion. Therefore '' it is impossible" that the term can be 
restricted, or that the Law of the Sabbath can be obligatory 
on Gentile Christians. — Nor is this conclusion set aside, even 
if a restriction of the term were conceded. For the Law of 
the Sabbath has been already proved to be ceremonial (Pro- 
position n.) ) therefore the abrogation of the ceremonial law 
alone, would abrogate the Sabbath. — And this conclusion again 
is strengthened by subsequent facts. For 1. The Gentile 
Christians, on learning the Apostolic decision, ''rejoiced for 
the consolation." 2. They kept no Sabbath; but met only 
on the 7norning of the first day of the week, employing the 
rest of the day in ordinary work. 3. The Jewish Christians 
did the same, only that they still kept the seventh day Sab- 
bath. — The conclusion of the whole is, that the abrogation of 
the Sabbath by this Council is "as certain and distinct" as 
that of Circumcision. And in this conclusion Bishop War- 
burton and John Bunyan, as well as Dr. Paley, agree. 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 73 

The ceremonial and civil code. Moral laws not in dispute. 

Presuming W. B. T. will admit this as a fair analysis of his 
argument, let us now try the strength of his proofs. 1. Does 
the phrase ''Law of Moses/' necessarily include the Deca- 
logue? Is it not often used in Scripture distinctively, i. e. 
with special reference to the ceremonial and civil code which 
was given after the Decalogue; and was distinguished from it 
by three most significant circumstances — neither being uttered 
by the voice of God, nor engraved on the two tables of stone, 
nor laid up under the Mercy Seat in the sacred Ark of the 
Covenant ? I think this distinction will appear in the very 
first use of the phrase: Deut. xxxi. 9 — 13. (See also 1 Kings 
ii. 3 ; Acts xxi. 20 — 25 ', Heh. x. 28.) Now if this distinctive 
use be found in any case, surely it must be admitted in this 
chapter under discussion. For who wished to enforce this 
law? The Judaizing teachers — the sticklers for circumcision 
(^verses 1st, 5th, and 24th), men whom Peter describes as tempt- 
ing God to put upon the Gentiles " a yoke, which neither we 
nor our fathers were able to bear." Now this ''yoke" can 
only include icliat ivas distinctive of Judaism. It cannot in- 
clude that Law of God, which He has promised to "put into 
the hearts" of his people, " the royal law of liberty," that law 
of which Paul says, " I delight in the Law of God after the 
inward man." The first proof of W. B. T. then is fallacious. 

But 2. "Two provisions of the moral law," he says, "are 
specified — those against idolatry and fornication. And is not 
this fact decisive ?" Not at all. For they are not specified 
as parts of the law in dispute ; but only as " things necessary" 
in the peculiar condition of Gentile Christians to be speciallij 
observed. Even W. B. T. is compelled to admit this ; not 
perceiving that it ruins his argument. " The obvious reason 
why these two points of the moral law were at all referred 
to," he says, " was, that they were the only ones likely to be 
transgressed by those just emancipated from the Roman Pagan- 
ism. Otherwise, they would no more have been noticed than 
robhery or murder." {p. 31.) I thank my friend for this 
7 



74 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The ten commandments all abrogated ! The Sabbath never " burdensome." 

honest confession of the truth. It shows that, after all, his 
heart is sounder than his logic. For, look at the consequence 
to his argument. His argument is — "Nothing was enjoined 
on the Gentiles but these three necessary things, abstinence 
from idolatry, from fornication, and from the blood of things 
strangled. Therefore, the Sabbath was not enjoined upon 
them." Now apply this argument to any other commandment 
of the Decalogue, and see what it comes to. " Nothing was 
enjoined upon the Gentiles but the three things specified in 
this Apostolic decree. There/ore all the ten commandments y 
except the first and the seventh, are abrogated.'' That is to say, 
profaneness towards God, disobedience to parents, lying, '^ rob- 
bery, and murder,'' are no longer sins under the Christian dis- 
pensation ! — And this, then, is the liberty wherewith Christ 
has made us free ! even that Christ who said, " Think not that 
I am come to destroy the laAv or the prophets !" To what ab- 
surd results will wrong theories, logically pursued, lead intel- 
ligent men ! 

But 3d. The " Gentiles were never bound by the Law of the 
Sabbath," says W. B. T. Pure assumption. A mistake in fact, 
which I have already exposed in part i. of this Reply, (^p. 50.) 

But 4th. " The Law of the Sabbath would have been not a 
little burdensome to them," says my friend. Another assump- 
tion. The Gentile Christians of that age, as in this, must have 
esteemed the Sabbath a delight, not a burden. Cases of trial, 
as of Christian servants bound to Jewish or Heathen masters, 
might occur, yet these were exceptions rather of form than of 
feeling ; nor were such exceptions confined to the fourth com- 
mandment. The rule is set forth in prophecy (Isai. Ivi. 6 — 8) 
by the voice of God himself. " Also the sons of the stranger, 
that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love 
the name of the Lord, to be his servants, ever?/ one that 
keepefh the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my 
covenant ; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and 
make them joyful in my house of prayer," &c. 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 75 

The Sabbath shown to be not "ceremonial." 

But, says my friend, in the fifth place, " The wliole Law 
of Moses was abrogated, as to the Gentiles, except in three 
points, neither of which includes the Sabbath ; therefore it is 
impossihie that the term can be restricted, or that the Law of 
the Sabbath can be obligatory on Gentile Christians.'' My 
friend's impossibilities are both purely imaginary. I have 
shown that the term is restricted, both by Scripture usage, and 
by the whole context which describes the case ; by the position 
of the parties in this early controversy ', and by the previous 
positive decision of Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. I 
have also shown that, if the Decalogue were to be included in 
the term, as here used, it would follow by necessity from his 
own statement, that there remains no moral dbligation on Gen- 
tile Christians, except to abstain from idolatry and fornica- 
tion : which is as absurd in morals, as it is contrary to the 
whole tenor of the New Testament. So much for his 
arguments. 

In vain will W. B. T. seek to sustain his shattered position, 
by saying that under his " Second Proposition" he has 
proved the Sabbath to be " strictly ceremonial and Jewish." 
That Proposition has been (I trust to the conviction of all) 
completely shattered before. No point, therefore, remains on 
which he can fall back and rally his shattered forces, unless it 
be on the subsequent facts. But these will not help him. The 
churches of the Gentiles ^^ rejoiced for the consolation" of the 
Apostolic decree, on better grounds than that of a freedom 
from the Decalogue; for (as I proved in part i. of my 
Beply) they did " keep the Sabbath on the Lord's Day." My 
friend seems to have been misled by a recollection of Pliny's 
Epistle to Trajan, as to their early morning meetings in a 
time of severe persecution. But neither the Pagan Pliny, nor 
any Christian writer that I remember, will bear him out in 
his assertion that they spent the rest of the Lord's day, even 
then, in their ordinary work. 

Sure I am, as I shall now show clearly, that these early 



OELTGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



Clement. Justin. Tertullian. Barnabas. Diontsius. Clement Alex. 

Christian writers speak a very different language. '^ God hath 
required us," says Clement of Rome (a. d. 95), ^'to serve 
Him in the appointed times and seasons.^' " On the day that 
is called Sunday/^ says Justin Martyr (a. d. 140), '' all, 
both of the country and city, assemble together ; when we 
preach and pray, and discharge all the other usual parts of di- 
vine worship." " On Sunday, we give ourselves to joy," says 
Tertullian (a. d. 200). " We keep the eighth day," says 
Barnabas (still earlier), meaning the day after the Jewish 
Sabbath, " with gladness." " To-day being the Lord's day," 
says DiONYSlus of Corinth (a. d. 165), " we keep it lioly" 
And Clement of Alexandria still more explicitly says that 
" a true Christian, according to the commands of the Grospel, 
observes the Lord's day, by casting out all evil thoughts, and 
entertaining all good ones ; glorifying the resurrection of the 
Lord on that day." And so far from regarding it as "burden- 
some," he calls it '^ the chief of days, our rest indeed !" In 
fact, the only thing " burdensome" about it would be to quote 
all their various expressions of devout recognition of the 
Christian Sabbath. 

What, then, in view of these authentic facts, becomes of my 
friend's assertion to the contrary? or of his confident conclu- 
sion that '' the abrogation of the Sabbath, by the Council at 
Jerusalem, is as certain and distinct as that of circumcision ?" 
(p. 33.) I am curious enough to wish to see whether he can 
produce such evidence as the above, " equally certain and dis- 
tinct,'^ that the primitive Gentile Christians observed "circum- 
cision," or, indeed, any other part of the " burdensome" Jew- 
ish ritual. His eloquent parallel between them is, alas, for 
him! untrue in every particular — ^^ vox, et pra4erea nihil." 
Nor can Bishop Warburton help W. B. T. here, however 
willing. John Bunyan ivould not, if he could; for he really 
is on my ground, as any one may see who reads him with pro- 
per attention. 

I have now done with the Fifth Proposition of my eloquent 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 77 

The Epistle to the Huhrews: — character and time of the "rest." 

friend. God grant that he may have done with it too ! I re- 
serve the examination of the Sixth to the next week, for fear 
of crowding your columns. 

J. N. B. 



PART IV. 

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least command- 
ments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the king- 
dom of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same 
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." — Matthew v. 19. 



VI. Only one more Proposition of "W. B. T. remains to 
be considered. It is that " the Epistles uniformly regard the 
Sabbath as a provisional type, fulfilled and superseded by the 
Gospel dispensation.'' 

It may seem a waste of time and strength to examine this 
last Proposition minutely, after what has been said already. 
And happily, it is unnecessary to follow in detail my friend's 
argument from the Epistle to the Hebrews, as most of his re- 
marks and reasonings are really sound and appreciating. I 
give him credit for a very careful study of the Apostle's train 
of thought, and exhaustive method of argument, on the pas- 
sage quoted from Ps. xcv. 11. Only on two points of his con- 
clusion, which indeed resolve themselves into one, do I see 
cause to differ from him. The first is as to the character of 
the " rest that remaineth to the people of God ;" and the 
second as to the time of entering into it. The first of these 
he understands to be simply a spiritual sabbatism ; and the 
second, an immediate, as well as complete entrance into it, by 
faith, in the present world. A word on each of these. 

The first opinion of W. B. T. (and partially, not exclusivel}^, 
of Dr. Gill) rests on two grounds: 1. The (jeneral scope of 
the Epistle. Tliis, I agree with my friend entirely, '^is the Levi- 



78 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

Constant reference to a future life. A defective conception. 

tical symbolism of the Grospel;" only I differ with him altogether 
when he says it is '^without the slightest reference to a 
future life/' (^p. 36.) On the contrary, it is with perpetual refer- 
ence to a future life. Christ, says the Apostle, as " our fore- 
runner hath entered for us within the vail f' he is seated on 
the right hand of God in heave^i ; he reigns there as King ; he 
officiates there as our High Priest and Intercessor ] he speaks 
from thence as our Prophet, in distinction from Moses, " who 
spake on earth.'' Pie receives there, at last, those who *' in- 
herit the promises," even those " who draw not back unto per- 
dition," but "believe to the saving of the soul." There the 
" elders who, by faith, obtained a good report," and " of whom 
the world was not worthy," are already entered ; and we who 
follow them are said to '' have here no continuing city, but to 
seek one which is to come." But enough. A future life, and 
the way, divinely ordained, to enjoy its blessings forever, are 
the very substance and soul of this Epistle to the Hebrews ; 
all Eabbinic opinions, indorsed by Christian divines, of the 
phrase, " world to come," to the contrary, notwithstanding. 

And 2. This opinion of W. B. T. rests upon an inadequate 
conceptioyi of the context. For the particular sco2:)e of the 
Apostle, in the passage under consideration, is peculiarly 
directed to this doctrine of a future life. For he is here 
exhorting the Hebrews (iii. 6 — 19 ; iv. 1 — 13) to beware lest 
" through unbelief," they, like their fathers in the wilderness, 
fall under the irrevocable oath of exclusion from the Rest of 
Grod with Christ. This Rest, of which God speaks so solemnly 
in Ps. xcv. 11, the Apostle proves h^ the time of its mention 
there, cannot be either the rest of the original Sabbath (^Gen. 
ii. 2), or the rest of Israel in Canaan (Josh. i. 15), both which 
were in actual possession of the persons addressed in the time 
of David. Therefore it is a rest " which remaineth" still to 
be enjoyed by "the people of God," that is, by believers. 

As to the time of entering it, W. B. T. lays unwarrantable 
stress upon the tense of the verl). " For irc ivlrich hdiere, 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 79 

Undue stress on the verb. The Hehreivs not Anti-sahbatarian : nor Colossians. 

do enter into rest." Whereas, the meaning evidently is, 
believers (and they only) shall inherit it, not liere but hereafter. 
True, Christ now gives them rest {Matt. xi. 28), but only 
^' rest to the soul,'' whereas the Apostle is speaking of the 
Rest of the whole man with God, in the ^' city that hath 
foundations, whose Builder and Maker is Grod." (chap. xi. 10. )* 

*'Let us labor, therefore, to enter into that rest.'' This 
exhortation, W. B. T. thinks, refers exclusively to spiritual 
rest ; " evidently (he says) not in a future sense." On the 
contrary, it is precisely parallel to the exhortation (vi. 11, 12, 
19) : " We desire that every one of you do show the same 
diligence, to the full assurance of hope unto the end ; that ye 
be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and 
patience inherit the promises." — ^^ Which hope we have as 
an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which 
entereth into that icithin the vail, whither the Forerunner hath 
for us entered, even Jesus," &c. 

Having thus shown that W. B. T. has mistaken the Apos- 
tle's scope, it is easy to see that the argument he builds on 
this passage to support his Sixth Proposition falls to the ground. 
The doctrine that ''the Sabbath was merely a provisional 
type of the Gospel rest, fulfilled and superseded by it," finds, 
as I said at first, no support from the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
And if not there, where then ? We have searched for it 
before in the Epistle to the Colossians (ii. 16, 17), and it is 
not there. W. B. T. has afl&rmed that the " Epistles uniformly 
so regard it;" but a rigid examination, on philological and 
logical principles, finds no such doctrine in any one. And 
if not taught in the New Testament, of what avail is a dream 
of the Jewish Rabbins, or a happy metaphor of Justin 
Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, or the occa- 
sional allegorical expositions of other later Christian divines? 
" What is the chaff to the wheat ? saith the Lord." Even 
the great name of Calvin, generally the keenest of interpret- 
ers, or of Whately, generally the shrewdest of logicians, will 



80 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A surrender promised. 

merely prove that my friend errs in illustrious company, not 
that lie does not err. 

My friend grows truly eloquent and witty withal, in wind- 
ing up his argument, especially on the oft-cited words, 
*' Sabbath days" and "holy days" in Col. ii. 16, 17. I can 
admire eloquence and wit, even when directed against myself ; 
especially when so evidently the offspring of a genial heart, 
and when at the time it seemed to him to have some foundation 
in truth. But as in PART ii. of my Reply, I so fully answered 
the whole argument built on these words, and showed that his 
construction is at war with the fundamental doctrine of Christ 
as to the perpetuity of the Decalogue, it is unnecessary now to 
say a single word more. If I have not made "the trifling 
discovery of a Scriptural text half so explicit — half so unmis- 
takable," on my side, " of either of the 'Six Propositions,' '' 
as that text is upon his, I have certainly no right to expect 
him to be convinced. But if I have fairly met him at every 
point, with 'pertinent text, and necessary interpretation, and 
historical fact, and logical reasoning, I may perhaps venture to 
hope he will remember his "j^rrmiise" here, to "abandon the 
whole argument untliout reserve.'^ {p. 40.) The views I take 
of human nature in general, even in that case, would hardly 
lead me to anticipate such an unconditional surrender, without 
the interference of a Higher Power, whose hand is on the hid- 
den places of the heart. 

To that Higher Power, I do indeed earnestly look on behalf 
of my friend. And should so happy a result ensue from this 
Discussion, I too here promise to the " Lord of the Sabbath," 
that it shall be hailed by me with the lowliest self-abasement, 
and with the warmest gratitude. No sweeter hope could cheer 
me in my labor of love than this, " If he hear thee, fliou hast 
(joined thy hrotherJ' 

My friend throws himself in the last resort into Rom. xiv. 
1, 5, 6, as into a citadel of impregnable strength. But can- 
didly, now ; what is Paul urging there ? Forbearance with 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 81 

Jx'nm. xiv. — A distinction between "meats," and "daj-s." 

weak faith — with imperfect knowledge — ^with mistaken judg- 
ment — in true Christians ; — who, however they for the time 
doubt or differ as to the will of God, still with conscientious 
love do, or forbear to do, solely to please Him. (See verses 
1, 5, 9.) Now mark, one momentous distinction. As to 
"meats,'^ tJie Apostle decides the question clearJy, while urging 
forbearance {verse 14); whereas in regard to ^^days,^^ lie 
leaves the question here undecided, as one of a more compli- 
cated nature, and requiring therefore the greater forbearance, 
in the existing relations between Judaism and Christianity. 
At the same time, he urges conscientious care in deciding this 
question on right grounds. ^' Let every msLJihe fully persuaded 
in his own mind.^' {verse 5.) He then forbids all uncharita- 
ble judgment of each other's motives {verse 10), and urges the 
utmost caution against every antinomian tendency, or unohari- 
table stretch of our Christian liberty, lest it should betray 
others into sin, and jeopard their salvation, {verse 13. See 
also to the same purpose, wrses 15, 16; 19 — 23.) His con 
elusion is, that '^the strong in faith ought to bear the infirmities 
of the weak,^^ and not to please but deny themselves, after the 
bright example of the meek and benevolent Saviour, (xv. 1 — 7.) 

Now, if this be the Apostle's real meaning, my friend has 
small occasion to triumph in this passage. For he can find in 
it no condemnation of a Christian Sabbath, express or implied. 
On the contrary, every tendency to overstrain Christian liberty, 
to the injury of a brother's soul, is smitten as with lightning 
from Heaven. If any wish to see the awful force of the expres- 
sion, " put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his 
brother's way," he may consult Matt, xviii. 6 — 14 ; Mark ix. 
38 — 50; Rev. ii. 14; and 1 John ii. 10; where he will find 
various examples, and the most impressive warnings. 

Notwithstanding my friend has indulged in a little witticism 
at my expense here, I hardly think, after reading my remarks 
on the passage in Colossians, in part ii. of my Reply, explain- 
ing the Apostle's stand-point, and illustrating his real aim, that 



82 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Christ and the Apostles to be followed rather than great men. 

he will again charge me, in any had sense, with " an original 
mode of argument." It is sometimes the highest merit of a 
mode of argument that it is original, i. e. that it ascends to a 
higher point of view ; from which seeming contradictions dis- 
appear in one grand and triumphant harmony of truth and 
reason. Whether mine has that merit, I submit to the impar- 
tial. — Since I am " fully persuaded, in my own mind" that 
Christ, followed by Peter, and James, and Paul, and John, are 
on my side, I can look very calmly upon an occasional slight 
disagreement with such illustrious men as Luther, and Tyn- 
DALE, and Gill, and Yalpy, and Coleridge, and Clarke. 
Indeed if the question simply were whether the Sabbath is 
now to be observed on Jewisli principles, with the rigidity of 
Pharisaic constructions, or the severity of monkish super- 
stitions, then I myself would adopt almost everything these 
great men have spoken as my own. I plead for the obligation 
of the Sabbath, only as expounded, settled, and glorified by 
Jesus Christ. 

On reviewing what I have written, I am pained at perceiv- 
ing a certain air of egotism, which does not become a minister 
of Jesus. I know that something of this appearance is 
unavoidable in discussions which demand a free use of the 
personal pronoun. So far as it goes beyond this point of real 
necessity, I ask forgiveness of God and man. 

I am happy that my friend W. B. T. is to have room 
allowed him to speak of the '^two points" he desires to notice 
{p. 43), and indeed of any other points involved. 

On my friend's ''serious question" in his closing paragraph, 
I remark but this : He put it, before he knew the real 
strength of my position, and the utter weakness of his own 
at every point. The two positions are contradictory. They 
cannot both be true, W. B. T. has made a gallant stand 
against mj first brief attack; but let him now look along the 
whole line of his defence, and see if one stone is left upon 
another. 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 83 

The '• Six Propositioxs" all overthrown. 

And now, in conclusion, I submit it to him with equal sin- 
cerity and seriousness, Have I not fairly met and overthrown 
every one of the " Six Propositions,^' which a few weeks ago 
he honestly thought were " undeniable,'' and able to ^^chal- 
lenge refutation?" Have I not shown by fair argument and 
authentic facts, 1, that there is a Sabbath as early as Creation, 
and as perpetual as Christianity; 2, that this Sabbath, as recog- 
nized in the Decalogue, is not ceremonial nor Jewish, but moral 
and universal ; 3, that Jesus never (much less studiouslt/') violat- 
ed, but vindicated and honored it; 4, that the New Testament 
does uniformly encourage its observance, and condemn its pro- 
fanation ; 5, that it was not abrogated, nor even touched in 
'' one jot or tittle," by the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem ; and 
6, that it was not therefore merely a provisional type, fulfilled 
and superseded by the Gospel ? In a word, have I not proved 
that it was inserted by our Lord with the rest of the Deca- 
logue, into the fundamental law of Christianity ; exalted by a 
new association with the mightiest of God's works, the glorious 
work of human redemption ; and observed by the Apostles and 
primitive Christians as the "Lord's day," the," chief of days," 
" our rest indeed ?" Have I not shown that this view em- 
braces, harmonizes, and illustrates all the facts, testimonies, and 
representations respecting it, in Scripture and elsewhere, in a 
manner worthy of God, and beneficial to mankind; and is 
therefore as much entitled to universal credence and respect 
as the Newtonian Theory of gravitation in Physics, and for 
similar reasons, viz : that it admits all the phenomena ; assigns 
to each its real character, relations, and force ; and solves all 
the problems suggested by apparently contradictory facts?* 

* The Argument for the present is closed. I leave the subject in 
the hands of my readers "vvith this little Apologue, suggested by the 
occasion, and illustrative of my views. 

Apologue. 
TiiEioN, the venerable king of Ourania, had a daughter named 



84 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

Discussion too seldom dignified. 

It is to be lamented that Discussion is so seldom the noble 
and beautiful thing it ought to be. As the handmaid of Truth, 
it should have only less than her queenly dignity^ with all her 
captivating attractions. If I might illustrate my conception by 
a comparison, I would say, that Argument should be like the 
Crystal Palace of London : constructed not for a party or 
nation, but for a world 3 of ample comprehension ; of harmo- 
nious proportions : of pure and polished material ; fitly framed, 

EusEBiA, -whom he tenderly loved. At a very early age, he presented 
her with a beautiful necklace, composed of ten priceless pearls, fastened 
on a golden chain, each link of which was curiously inwrought with 
his own name. He clasped it around her neck with his own hand, and 
charged her to preserve it unbroken through her whole life, as the 
proof of her filial love. When she came of age, Eusebia formed the 
acquaintance of a gentleman by the name of Apeithos. One day, on 
examining her beautiful necklace, he surprised her by pronouncing 
positively that one of the supposed pearls was but a paste imitation. In 
her curiosity to ascertain the fact, or her indignation at a supposed 
imposition, she broke from her neck the golden band which bound 
them all together; and instantly, to her dismay, she beheld all the 
glittering pearls rolling in the dust, and trampled under foot by filthy 
swine. Apeithos coldly turned away, and left her blinded with her 
tears, to collect them again as she could. But in vain she tried to 
clasp the golden chain around her neck as before. Filled with sorrow 
and shame, and fearful of her father's just displeasure, she sovight her 
eldest brother Christos, and entreated his intercession. The gene- 
rous Prince sympathized in her afiliction, and proffered his best offices 
in her behalf. Soothed by his tenderness, and supported by his arm, 
she hastened to her father, and at his feet confessed her fault, and 
implored his pardon. Her father, out of regard to her generous bro- 
ther, kindly forgave her, and pressed them both to his bosom. He 
then commanded his Son's name to be engraved on the golden chain, 
together with his own, in perpetual memory of the event ; and as he 
reclasped the golden band around her neck, charged her in future, by 
her filial and fraternal love, to beware of a second delusion, especially 
from the confident tone of a stranger. — (The key to this Apologue will 
be found in Matt. v. 17—20.) 



MR. brown's second REPLY. 85 

The "Crystal Palace" an appropriate symbol. 

and firmly compacted with ligaments of iron, yet transparent 
tliroiighout, and luminous with light from Heaven ! Into such 
Argument, supported by its broad foundations and solid pil- 
lars, might be introduced all the selectest productions of earth, 
wrought into the most useful and elegant forms, arranged in 
perfect order, exhibited to the highest advantage, and enlivened 
by the figures, costumes, and ideas of the various tribes which 
make up the great brotherhood of Man. 

Neither my friend W. B. T. nor myself claim to fully realize 
this high ideal ; but even to recognize it, is something ; to ap- 
proach it practically nearer and nearer, will be no small attain- 
ment. May we aid one another by steady example, and sound, 
because friendly criticism ) jealous of the honor of Truth, ra- 
ther than of our own reputation ; thankful for the detection of 
our own unconscious errors, and, like Milton, writing — 
"As ever in our great Taskmaster's eye." 

J. N. B. 



THE ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



PtEPLY TO "J. N. B." 



PART I. 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I 
am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till 
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from 
the Law — till all be fulfilled.^ I — Matthew v. 17, 18. 

<' After this Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished 
. he said, It is finished! and he bowed his head, and gave 
up the ghost." — John xix. 28 — 30. 

^^ Now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherem we 
were held ; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the 
oldness of the letter," — PvOmans vii. 6. 

" Shall we sin, because we are not under the Law, but under grace ? 
God forbid !" — (Ib. vi. 15.) " Do we then make void the Law through 
faith? God forbid ! Yea, we establish the LaAv." — Ib. iii. 31. 



Messrs. Editors : — 

Were I disposed to flattery I miglit reciprocate com- 
pliments on the skill of my friend, and file an implied caveat 
with the impartial reader not to be misled by the " lawyer- 
like subtlety" of his very " ingenious defence" of the Sab- 
bath. But while fully and unaffectedly recognizing the supe- 
rior ability of the advocate, confiding in the strength of my 
cause, I shall simply entreat the considerate to overlook this 
disproportion ; to regard solely the evidences respectively pre- 
sented; and to weigh carefully their relative cogency. 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 87 

The Sabbath Question, a Bible one. Instructive " Scriptxiral contrasts." 

The question between J. N. B. and myself is, as he has 
correctly stated, strictly one of ^' Christian lihcrfi/;" — a ques- 
tion long since agitated with " much disputing" — a question 
obviously admitting, at the present day, but one appeal. For 
the Christian, all considerations of ''ill eifects" or of "dan- 
gerous" consequences must be postponed to the main inquiry 
— " What saith the Scripture?" — Disregarding, therefore, all 
extraneous suggestions in favor either of a " day of religious 
rest," or of a life of religious activity^ I merely remark that, 
with the individual blessings, or the national prosperity, 
attending a " conscientious observance of the Sabbath," I 
have at present no concern. The point before us is its Scrip- 
tural authority. If the view I defend be unsustained by the 
Bible, it will doubtless be made manifest, and I shall cheer- 
fully acknowledge a neic — and consequently firmer belief. If 
the reverse be the case, I sincerely hope, in denying that one 
man's liberty should be "judged of another man's conscience," 
that I shall not " put a stumbling-block" in any believer's 
way, however "weak in the faith" he may be considered. 
Certainly, I shall neither presume to "judge" him, nor to 
" set him at naught." 

I am reminded by J. N. B. {p. 44) that " the good of old 
were taught of God to 'call the Sabbath a delight;' " he will 
permit me to remind him that the good of the neio dispensa- 
tion were also taught of God to call the Sabbath " a shadow" 
— a cancelled bond — a blotted handwriting — "nailed to the 
cross." If it was a subject of just condemnation to them of 
old time who said: "When will the new moon begone, that we 
may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat?" 
— under the "better covenant" of Him who likewise "iaught 
as one having authority," those "buried with him," and 
" quickened together with him," are no longer judged in re- 
spect of "the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." To those 
adopted as " heirs" redeemed from pupillary bondage, it is 
rather subject for condemnation to ^^ observe days and months/' 



ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



The day required. The " seventh day" to be determined extraneously. 

— a sign of weakness to " esteem one day above another/' 
These striking " Scriptural contrasts" are pregnant with in- 
struction. But I must hasten to the particular points pre- 
sented by my friend's elaborate " Reply." 

I. The Day required hy the Sahhath law. 

In regard to the Proposition that " there is but one Bible 
Sabbath, and that, the Saturday Sabbath," J. N. B. appears 
strangely to have misconceived my allegation. He says, 
^' W. B. T., in his defence, has ingeniously [?] dropped the 
last clause of this complex proposition, though it is the only 
one I have ever denied." (p. 46.) Now, although it is true 
that in the statement of the proposition I omitted the word 
^^ Saturday," for the sake of brevity, so far was I from drop- 
ping it "in the defence,'^ that I distinctly asserted — and 
enforced by illustration — " that Saturday is ^ the Sabbath 
enjoined in the Decalogue,' is as certain as human knowledge 
can be, even concerning the Bible itself." (p. 21.) 

My friend insists on a distinction between "the seventh day 
of the Decalogue, and the seventh day of the Jewish week." 
(p. 59.) And how shall we ever ascertain what is "the 
seventh day of the Decalogue ?" Clearly not by itself! All 
legal interpretation must ultimately be based on some assump- 
tion without the statute. Now, in reference to the day re- 
quired, J. N. B. admits " that for the Jews it was fixed to the 
last day of our week. Grranted. . But then it was not fixed 
by the Decalogue." (p. 47.) Truly not! and I reply that this 
would be a simple impossibility. With all the ingenuity for 
which I give my friend credit, I challenge him to define by 
statute a particular day, otherwise than the fourth command- 
ment does ; — namely, by adopting the universal designation of 
a well-recognized distinction. Now the term " Sunday" is not 
more precisive in o^ir law, than is the term "Jia-shibingi" in 
that of the Hebrews. It is applicable to no " seventh day" 
but Saturday. 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 89 

The reclconing, undisputed. A supernatural application not to be set aside. 

But it is contended that " the connection was fixed by statute 
only for that people" — the Israelites, (p. 59.) Then, most 
certainly the statute itself was ''only for that people." As 
Whately well observes, '' the difference between the Jews 
and the Christians is not a difference of reckoning. Our 
computation is the same as theirs." And the legal term is as 
exclusive in its application now, as it was in the time of Moses. 
'' The seventh day is the Sabbath," says the Decalogue ; and 
Saturday is " ^/le seventh day," says Grod by the manna; there- 
fore Saturday " is the Sabbath," says the Decalogue. If the 
seventh day is the day " fixed" by the law, then beyond all 
refuge, is Saturday the day "fixed" by it. And my friend has 
admitted that the day, "if once ascertained, becomes the ex- 
clusive object of the law's consideration." 

Concerning the authoritative determination of the day (by 
a suspension of the manna), J. N. B. remarks: "This very mode 
of fixing the particular day of the week by miracle is a circum- 
stance applicable alike to any change of dispensation." (p. 47.) 
A^ery true, if he means that the circumstance of a Divine reve- 
lation of what is required by a law, is as applicable to one dis- 
pensation as another; but he surely does not design to inti- 
mate that because a miracle has determined what the particular 
thing referred to by the law really is, — a new miracle may es- 
tablish a different intent in the very same law. This would 
be to suppose that a supernatural interpretation of a statute 
might be allowed to disprove the correctness of a previous 
supernatural interpretation ! Show us however the miracle, 
(fixing another ^'seventh day"), and it suflEiceth us. 

"The whole authority of the Sabbath enjoined in the Deca- 
logue," it is said, "may for sufiicient reasons by the 'Lord of 
the Sabbath' be transferred to the Jirst day of our week." 
(p. 47.) This seems to be a new phase in the alogi/. Surely 
this Jirst day cannot still be "the Sabbath enjoined in the De- 
calogue," for that is expressly limited to the seventh day of the 
week: and if "the whole authority" is transferred to "the first 

8* 



90 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A memorial of Redemption, entirely independent of the Sabbath memorial. 

day/' it must necessarily have been transferred entirely /ro??i 
^'the seventh day/' or in other words — -from the fourth com- 
mandment; since that is the only day therein specified. But 
even ''the Lord of the Sabbath" has not power to make "the 
jfirst day of the week" obligatory by a law requiring the sev- 
enth day of the week- — the law remaining unchanged. Omnipo- 
tence cannot validate a contradiction. 

"That a change of clay looulcl he dewMnded^^ says my friend, 
"seems evident from the nature of the case. The original 
day was originally and appropriately chosen to comlnemorate 
the work of Creation. But the work of Christ, being our 
Redemption in its eternal results, must, in the esteem of all 
Christians, be of far higher and sweeter import." (p. 51.) This 
consideration may be a very sufficient reason for its commemo- 
ration, but it is no reason whatever, either for superseding the 
former Divinely appointed memorial, or for inferring a change 
in the application of the original command.* As well might 
it be contended (if I may be allowed to illustrate "great things 
by less") that, as the 22d of December was chosen to com- 
memorate the landing of the Pilgrims, and as subsequently 
the 4th of July was distinguished by an event of broader and 
more interesting import, therefore, "that a change of day 
would be demanded, seems evident from the nature of the 
case." And so, after strenuously contending that the original 
institution was " founded on reasons oi perpetual force" — that 
the " reasons for its observance remain f^ — in order to sustain 
this memorial (that of the Pilgrim arrival), we must carefully 
observe the 4th of July ! — for an observance in the origincd 
way, would now "be wrong!" And then to complete our 
humble resemblance to our orthodox prototypes, we must 
zealously maintain that this observance is certainly required 

* "We have good example, and strong propriety," says Calmet, 
" in behalf of our observance of the * Lord's day' as a religious fes- 
tival, though not as a Sabbath.''^ — [Bib. Die, art. " Sabbath.") 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 91 

Pi?, cxviii. — neither a Sabbath, nor a worship-day inculcated. 

by the identical original institution which specifies Dec. 22 d 1 
Two suggestions might be presented in palliation of the change; 
— first, that the institution (or hypothetical statute) does not 
itself "fix'^ the date December 22d, to any part of the year ; 
and secondly, that the whole authority of the one memorial 
may for sufficient reasons be transferred to the other; and we 
shall still have an anniversary, if it be not the anniversary. 

"This is the day which the Lord hath made ; we will 
rejoice and be glad in it.'' {Ps. cxviii. 24.) On this, J. N. 
B. remarks : " The day of Christian worship is manifestly 
made to correspond to, and celebrate that glorious event. If 
so, then a Sahhaih is i^redicted under the gospel dispensation.'' 
(p. 51.) Admitting his postulate, this is a manifest non sequi- 
tur : if a "day of Christian worship" were necessarily a 
divinely ajypointed Sabbath (the only essential point), we 
should certainly have many more than are set down in the 
calendar; but a "Sabbath" can only be established by an 
explicit and authoritative command , and it can only be "pre- 
dicted" (predetermined) by an equally, explicit designation. 
This text gives not a hint of any " Sabbath day." But in 
the next place I totally deny the premises. I deny that we 
have any warrant whatever for assuming that the passage 
refers to a "day of Christian worship" — to a weekly or any 
other periodical recurrence of time. The most that my friend 
can possibly make of his quotation, is that the Psalmist (or 
the faithful) — gladdened by the anticipation of an era ("the 
Messiah's exaltation") — rejoiced in "the day" not as the' 
commencement of a week, but as the commencement of a dis- 
pensation.^ 

"If, according to Isaiah (Ixv. 17, 18), the glory of the first 
creation is so to fade in comparison, as to cease from the com- 

* " A morning then dawned," says Bishop Horne, ''which is to be 
followed by no evening ; a brighter sun arose upon the world, which is 
to set no more; a 'Jay' began which will never end." [Commentary 
on the Psalms: in loco.) 



92 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Isai. Ixv. — an unfulfilled prophecy : and Anti-sabbatarian. 

memoration of meHj then here is a divine prediction of a 
change of the Sabbath from the seventh in the order, to the 
first day of the week, grounded upon the very nature of things^ 
and the consequent necessity of the case." {p. 51.) This 
assumption is more gratuitous (if such be possible) than even 
the preceding. The creation of " new heavens and a new 
earth," after which "the former shall not be remembered," 
and "the voice of weeping shall be no more heard," certainly 
has not yet been accomplished. The parallel passage in Rev. 
xxi. 1, would be just as pertinent to prove " a change of the 
Sabbath." Moreover, a respectable portion— even of the 
Christian church, still does remember " the seventh day," to 
keep it holy. But again, if the prophet's announcement pos- 
sibly could be referred to an accomplished Advent, it is much 
stronger to prove my side of the question than that of J. N. 
B. If the Creator's seventh day rest is not to be remembered 
longer, then is the institution commemorating it, ipso facto 
annulled. And so far from having any corresponding memo- 
rial to replace it, we arc to "be glad and rejoice for ever.'' 
"And it shall come to pass that //-cm one new moon to another ^ 
and from one Sahhath to another^ shall all flesh come to wor- 
ship before me, saith the Lord." {J.sai. Ixvi. 23.)* 

To establish a new Sabbath law however — or what is the 
same thing, "a change of the Sabbath" — we require more de- 
cisive authority than the supposed intimations of an uncertain 
prophecy, or presumptions derived "from the nature of 
the case." I have demanded direct proof that such a 
change has been commanded; I have asked for "the chap- 
ter and verse" from the New Covenant recording such 
command. My friend thus answers the appeal: "That 
such a change was made in fact — in other words, that the day 
appropriated to Christian worship, and the commemoration of 

■^ "These saints shall not have set times for God's worship, but 
shall hQ perpetually employed in serving and praising Plim." — Lowm. 
[^Commentary: in loco.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 93 

The word " Sabbath" wanting in all the texts cited. 

the work of Redemption (especially in the Eucharist, or 
'breaking of bread') was the first day of the iceeh — that this 
was sanctioned by Christ himself after his resurrection as the 
' Lord of the Sabbath' — that it has the example of the in- 
spired apostles in its favor — that it was familiarly known 
and acknowledged among all Christians as ' the Lord's day/ 
i. e. the day by His authority consecrated to Him — are four 
distinct facts, for which we can cite both chapter and verse. 
See John xx. 16; Matt, xxviii. 9 — 11; Luhe xxiv. 30 — 40; 
John XX. 19, 20; 26—29; Acts ii. 1—4; xx. 6, 7; xxi. 4, 
5; 1 Cor, xvi. 1, 2 ; Rev. i. 10.'^ {p. 51.) 

Overlooking the immethodical junction of '^ four distinct " 
propositions (suggestive that their union is their safety), I 
remark, that the full admission of all of them would prove 
just nothing concerning " a change of the Sahhath." This 
vital word — unfortunately for my friend's side of the question — 
had to be omitted from all his decisive '^ facts'^ built on 
''chapter and verse !'^ 1st. The texts from the evangelists 
may be summarily disposed of. Not one of them proves — or 
tends to prove — anything to the point. A person uninformed 
of their required use would be sadly puzzled to surmise what 
precept they most approved. It is inferred that because Jesus 
appeared to his disciples on Sunday, this must be a divinely 
appointed Sabbath ! A most singular method of superseding 
a positive commandment — one would think ! And since 
several " appearances'' are recorded, occurring on different 
days, I suppose we are to have several Sabbath days in the 
week, exclusive of that of the Decalogue. It is observable 
that all the appearances above quoted took place (with a single 
exception) on one and the same day — that of the resurrection ; 
and this one exception {John xx. 26) most probably took 
place on Tuesday — eight days afterward. The "third'' ap- 
pearance, my friend himself will hardly admit to have been 
on Sunday ! {John xxi.) 2d. The only " fact " discoverable 



94 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The texts all irrelevant. 

from the Acts, is that the disciples met togetlicr on Sunday 3* 
and if this establishes a Sabbath^ then have we superabundant 
evidence that Saturday is the true Sabbath after all !f (see Acts 
xvii. 2 ; xviii. 4 ; ix. 2 ; xiii. 5, 14, 42, 44 ; xvi. 13, &c. &c.) 
The truth is, the primitive Christians met on all days for 
social worship, and for "breaking bread.'' {Acts i. 14; ii. 
42; 46, 47.) 3d. The utmost we can glean from the Epistle 
to the Corinthians is that, in the middle of the first century, 
Sunday assemhUes\ were probably more common — at least in 
Galatia and Corinth (though at Jerusalem such ivas not the 
case — Acts xxi. 17 — 21), than those of other days. But the 
text rather c?isproves a " Sabbath" than otherwise. 4th. 
The quotation from Rev. i. teaches nothing ! 

Such then is the sum of my friend's Scripture testimony 
for a new Sabbath day. We ask for a single explicit command 
establishing a Christian Sabbath, and we are pointed to a 

* Paul necessarily travelled on Sunday, either to reach — or to leave 
■ — Troas. (^Acts xx, G, 7.) It is almost certain, as "the first day of 
the week" commenced at sunset on Saturday evening, that Paul's mid- 
night sermon was on Saturday night, preparatory to his departure on 
Sunday morning. (See verse 11.) The time of holding religious 
assemblies among the primitive Christians — as Mosiieim informs us — 
*' was generally in the evening after sunset, or in the morning before 
dawn." (Eccles. Hist. Book I. Cent. II. Part II. ch. iv. sec. 8.) It 
is scarcely possible that the apostle's discourse could have extended 
six or eight hours into the second day, 

■f " It is very possible," says Jonathan Edwards — (a warm Sunday 
Sabbatarian) — "that the apostles themselves, at first, might not have 
this change of the day of the Sabbath fully revealed to them !" (Ser- 
mons, ser. xxvi. On the Sabbath.) A remarkably shrewd conjecture. 

J I am willing to give my friend the benefit of the most liberal con- 
cession he can claim. But it is at least debatable whether the expres- 
sion "lay by him" (Traj' havTuo) does not simply import (x private reser- 
vation, on Saturday evening (the first of the week), of a portion of 
the past week's earnings. (1 Cor. xvi. 2.) The language is striking: 
Ejcaa-Tof — ^n^flufi^fwv, — ^^ each one treasuring up!" Not a word is said 
about the collection being "upon the first day of the week." 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 95 

A " change" dit^proved by the continued observance of the law. 

few unconnected historical (!) passages, not one of which is pre- 
tended to contain any command, and which go to indicate a 
divine precept about as much as they do a Sabbath; — a 
*' Sabbath'^ as much as they do a " New-moon V Well may 
we say, with Paley, "The opinion that Christ and his apostles 
meant to retain the duties of the Jewish Sabbath, shifting 
only the day from the seventh to the first, seems to prevail 
without sufficient proof!" {3Ior. Phil. B. v. ch. 7.) 

Not only have we no shadow of evidence that Jesus or his 
apostles changed the Sabbath day, but, in the language of 
Archbishop Whately, " it is even abundantly plain that they 
made no such change. There are indeed sufficiently plain 
marks of the early Christians having observed the Lord's day 
as a religious festival ; but so far were they from suhstitutiiuj 
this for the Jewish Sabbath, that all of them who were Jews 
actually continued themselves to observe the Mosaic Sabbath. '^ 
(Essai/ on the Sahhath.) J. N. B. himself admits (p. 68) 
that " indeed it is evident that for many years the Apostles 
observed hoth, though for different reasons and only among the 
Jews :"* admitting thereby, that Sunday did not supersede the 
" Sabbath." The apostle James (called " the Lord's brother," 
and first bishop of the mother church at Jerusalem), in advo- 
cating the Gentile exemption from the Mosaic law, reminds 
the believing Jews that they could still, as of old time, have 
their law preached " every Sabbath day" (^Acts xv. 21) ] and 
in his general Epistle to them, written several years after- 
wards, he makes evident allusion to their Sabbath assemblies; 
{ovvo.y^^yr^v) — literalhj *' synagogue." (James ii. 2.) His own 

* " The effect of wliich consideration is this: that the Lord's day 
did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was 
wholly abrogated, and the Lord's day was merely of Ecclesiastical 
institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth command- 
ment ; because they, for almost 300 years together, kept that day 
which was in the commandment ; but they did it also without any 
opinion of prime obligation." Jeremy Taylor. [Duct. Dubitant. B. 
II.. ch. 2, rule vi. 51.) 



96 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The " Fathers" conclusive against a transfer. Ignatius. 

church, as we learn from the early writers, retained the observ- 
ance of the Sabbath, through the long and uninterrupted suc- 
cession of fifteen Jewish bishops. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. 
iv. cap. 5. Compare also Actsx.^i. 17 — 21, with Matt. xxiv. 20.) 

J. N. B. appeals to " Ecclesiastical History" (p. 52) to "con- 
firm" what he utterly fails to establish by the authority of the 
Scriptures, — a change of the Sabbath. Though my own position 
in the controversy does not require it, I am perfectly willing 
to follow my friend (if space be permitted) into this extensive 
and interesting field of Biblical illustration : but here as be- 
fore we must have " chapter and verse ;" we must have careful 
translations, and not paraphrases. I am prepared thus to show 
by citations, that a chain of "Fathers" from the apostolic 
age to the fifth century — that Ignatius of Antioch (a. d. 90) 
— Justin Martyr (a. d. 140) — Iren^eus of Lyons (a. d. 
170) — Tertullian of Carthage (a. d. 200) — Clement of 
Alexandria (a. d. 210) — Origen (a. d. 230) — Cyprian 
(a. d. 250) — Eusebius (a. d. 315) — Athanasius (a. d. 
330) — Cyril of Jerusalem (a. d. 370) — Chrysostom (a. 
D. 395) — Jerome (a. d. 400) — Augustine (a. d. 415) — 
Theodoretus (a. d. 425) — and various other early writers, 
— all " agree in their views of the Lord's day, or the day of 
Christ's resurrection," as an institution altogether independent 
of the Decalogue, and entirely/ different from the " Sabbath!" 

Says Ignatius (a. d. 90) : "If we still continue to live ac- 
cording to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not 
received grace ;'^ and he boasts of those " arrived at the new- 
ness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living ac- 
cording to the Lord's life,* in which, also, our life is sprung 

* This passage, in Archbishop Wake's translation of Ignatius, ia 
most unaccountably rendered — "No longer observing Sabbaths, but 
keeping the Lord^s day :'''' — though, even this false translation would not 
help my friend a particle, since the first day, instead of being identified 
with the "Sabbath," would be directly con^rcrs^ec? with it. But the 
reading is utterly unwarranted. The original is — lAwin cc&ZaTi- 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 97 

Justin Marttr. Iren-eus. 

up by him, and through his death Wherefore, being 

made his disciples, let us learn to live a Christian life." 
(Fpisf. ad Magnes. sect. 8, 9, 10.) And yet my friend 
claims his authority in favor of a transfer of the Sabbath ! 
(p. 52.) 

Justin (a. d. 140), when reproached by the Jew Trypho 
for " observing no Sabbath," so far from repelling the charge, 
by alleging a change of the day, distinctly admits its truth. 
^' Do you not see," says he, " that the elements are never idle, 
and keep no Sabbath ? Continue as created -, for, if there was 
no need of circumcision before Abraham, nor of the observance 
of the Sabbath before Moses, neither now is there need of them 
after Jesus Christ, the Son of Grod." (^Dialog, cum Try- 
fhone, P. i.) And yet my friend claims his authority ! (p. 62.) 

iRENiEUS (a. d. 170), in a dissertation on " Circumcision 
and the Sahhath/' contends that the latter, like the former, 
" was given as ' a sign :' — but there can be no ^ sign,' " says 
he, " without a thing signified, nor without an application :" 
and he goes on to remark that, as " the Sabbath required a 
constant dedication of the whole day to God," so we should be 
" consecrated, and steadfastly devoted to our faith during our 
whole time, abstaining from all avaricious cares, not seeking, 
nor laying up treasures on earth. And so shall be manifested 
the divine repose which they enjoy who partake of the com- 
munion of Grod. And as man was never justified by these 
ceremonies, it is shown that Abraham himself, without circum- 
cision, and loithout an observance of the Sabbath, ' believed in 
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness ; and he 

^ovrsi, aXXa nara Kv^iannv ^<wi)» ^aivTe; : literally, " no longer sabbatizing, 
but living according to the Lord's life ;" — (which certainly was not a 
" sabbatizing" life.) Nor is there extant any version that will justify 
the other reading. Even had the noun l^oonv (" life") been wanting, 
the context would clearly render the word 'nfxtiav (" day") altogether 
inapplicable. The antithesis is grammatically in the verb, and not in 
any noun : it is in the doinff, and it could not be in the daij. 
9 



98 ABROGATION OB" THE SABBATH. 

A false quotation. Tertullian. 

was called the friend of God/ So Noah, without circumcision, 
and without the Sabbath, pleased God ; and so Enoch ; — and 
so all of those who, before Moses, were accepted without any 
observance of the Mosaic law." {Advers. Hseres. lib. iv. cap. 
30.) In the next chapter, on ^Ulie Decalogue,'' Iren^us, 
after noticing that natural and moral duties were constantly 
conjoined with positive and ceremonial precepts in the Mosaic 
code, adds that, '^ whatever was given to the Jews as a badge 
of servitude, or whatever was given them for a ' sign,' was 
erased from the New Testament, which was one of liberty." 
{Ihid. lib. iv. cap. 31.) And yet my friend claims Ms 
authority ! {p. 52.)* 

Tertullian (a. d. 200) strongly contends with the Jews, 
that Christians observe circumcision and the Sabbath spiritu- 
ally , as foreshadowed by their prophets ; and he argues that, 
since God gave neither circumcision nor the Sahhath to Adam, 
— or to Abel — or to Enoch — or to Noah,&c., and yet "praised" 
them, so '' we also, without the law of Moses, can please 
God .... Thus it follows that, as the abolition of carnal cir- 
cumcision, and the Law, is proved to have been completed in 

* It is peculiarly unfortunate that tlie only actual quotation from 
the "Fathers" attempted by my friend should be an erroneous one. 
He quotes Iren^us as saying: "On the Lord's day we Christians 
keep the Sabbath:'' and he asks with some triumph — "Were the first 
Christians Anti-sabbatarians? So far from it, a man who refused to 
keep the Sabbath on the Lord's day would not have been easily recog- 
nized by Iren.eus as a Christian. Let W. B. T. think of this." {p. 
52.) My friend has quoted at second-hand ; — he will excuse me for 
saying that no such passage can be found in Irenjeus ! — nor anything 
at all similar to it. It is directly contradictory to his true sentiments! 
That the first Christians most decidedly were Anti-sabbatarians, is 
proved by all the New Testament writers — and all the apostolic 
Fathers. And I believe no solitary writer can be found, in the first 
two centuries of the Christian era, who ever calls Sunday the " Sab- 
bath ;" or ever claims the fourth commandment as authorizing Sun- 
day observance. " Let J. N. B. think of this /" 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 99 



Luther. MELANCxnoN. 



their appointed timeSj so, also, the observance of the Sabbath 
is proved to have been temporary J' ( Opera, Tract. ^^Advers. 
Jud." sect. 2, 8, 4.) And yet my friend claims his author- 
ity ! (p. 52.) 

Indeed, it is an indisputable fact that the early Fathers — 
(I believe without exception) — contrast the ^'Lord's day'' 
with the Sabbath -, — that they put them on entirely different 
grounds; — and that they restrict the term "Sabbath," as the 
Bible does, to " the seventh day" of the week. The true 
" Scriptural view is confirmed in the clearest manner by Eccle- 
siastical History."* 

"As regards the Sabbath, or Sunday," says Luther, 
" there is no necessity for keeping it ; but if we do, it ought 
to be not on account of Moses's commandment, but because 
nature teaches us from time to time to take a day of rest." 
(3Ilchelet's Life, Book iv. chap. 2.) 

" There exist, monstrous disputations," says Melancthon, 
" touching the change of the Sabbath, which have sprung up 
from the false persuasion that a worship like the Levitical was 
needful in the church .... They who think that, by the au- 
thority of the church, the observation of the Lord's day was 
appointed instead of the Sabbath, as if necessary, are greatly 
deceived." QAugsburg Confession of Faith, 1530.) 

Says Cranmer, "The Jews were commanded in the Old 
Testament to keep the Sabbath day, and they observed it 

* Cave remarks concerning Satvirday: "The word ' sabbatum' is 
constantly used in the writings of the Fathers, when speaking of it as 
relates to Christians." (Prim. Chris. P. i. chap, vii.) Baxter says of 
Sunday — " The ancient churches called it constantly by the name 
' Lord's day,' and never called it the Sabbath, but when they spoke ana- 
logically, by allusion to the Jewish Sabbath ; even as they call the 
holy table the altar," &c. (Baxter's Work, Vol. iii. " On the Lord's 
day.'' chap. 7.) It was not till erroneous views of the day of Christ- 
ian worship began to be entertained, that it was ever supposed to " ab- 
sorb into itself the authority of the original law" — the fourth com- 
mandment, (p. 52.) 



100 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Tyndale. Calvin. Grotius. 

every seventh day, called the Sabbat or Satterday. But we 
Christian men, in the New Testament, are not bound to such 
commandments of Moses's law, concerning differences of times, 
days, and meats, but have liberty and freedom to use other 
days for our Sabbath days, therein to hear the word of God, 
and keep an holy rest. And therefore, that the Christian 
liberty may be kept and maintained, we now keep no more 
the Sabbath or Saturday, as the Jews do, but observe the Sun- 
day and certain other days as the magistrates do judge it con- 
venient, whom, in this thing, we ought to obey/^ {Caiechis- 
mus. The Co^nmandments.) 

"As for the Saboth,'' says Tyndale, the translator and 
martyr, " we be lordes over the Saboth, and may yet chaunge 
it into the Monday or any other day, as we see neede, or we 
may make two every weeke, if it were expedient, and one not 
enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to 
chaunge from the Saterday, than to put difference betwene us 
and the Jewes, and least we should become servantes unto 
the day after their superstition. Neither needed we any 
holy-day at all, if the people myght be taught without it." 
(^Tyndale s Works. Ansioer to Sir Thomas Moreh Dialogue. 
— Book i. chap. 25.) 

Calvin, after his able exposition of the true import of the 
Sabbath law, adds : " Thus vanish all the dreams of false pro- 
phets who, in past ages, have infested the people with a Jew- 
ish notion, affirming that nothing but the ceremonial part of 
this commandment (which, according to them, is the appoint- 
ment of ^ the seventh day') has been abrogated, but that the 
moral part of it — that is, the observance of one day in seven 
— still remains V^ {Instit. Lib. ii. cap. viii.) 

The learned GrROTius, commenting on the fourth command- 
ment, after referring to the sentiments of the Fathers, and the 
enactments of Constantino, concludes : " These things refute 
those who suppose that the first day of the week (that is the 
Lord's daj"> was substituted in place of the Sabbath, for no 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 101 

MiLTOx. Neander. Whatelt. 

mention is ever made of sueli a thing, either by Christ, or the 
Apostles. And when the Apostle Paul says, Christians are 
not to be condemned on account of Sabbaths, &c. (6W. ii.), 
he shows that they were entirely free from that law; which 
liberty would be of no effect, if the law remaining — the day 
merely were changed. The day of the Lord's resurrection was 
not observed by Christians, from any precept of God, or of the 
Apostles, but by voluntary agreement of the liberty which had 
been given them.'^ {Annotations on the Old Test., Exod. xx.) 

Milton strongly argues : " The law of the Sabbath being 
thus repealed, that no particular day of worship has been ap- 
pointed in its place is evident from the Apostle in Romans 
xiv. 5." (^Christian Doctrine, Book ii. chap. 7.) 

Neander remarks: "The festival of Sunday was always 
only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of 
the x\postles to establish a divine command in this respect, far 
from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the 
laws of the Sabbath to Sunday." (^Hist. of Christian Churchy 
sec. iii.) 

In fine, as Whately justly contends, '^ If the precepts rela- 
tive to the ancient Sabbath are acknowledged to remain in 
force, then the observance of the first day of the week, instead 
of 'the seventh,' becomes an unwarrantable presumption.'' 
{Essay on the Sahhath.) 

But I have already considerably exceeded my appointed 
limits; and am compelled to pause. In justice to myself, I 
must notice an intimation of J. N. B. — that I may have made 
a use "of the unguarded language of others — they never de- 
signed," (p. 56.) Painful as such a conviction would be, I 
should certainly be thankful to my friend for its frank indica- 
tion. If through prejudice, or inadvertence, I have given an 
unfair coloring to authority, I would much rather be corrected, 
and retract a mistaken application, than continue in error, or 
labor under an intangible imjmtation. 

W. B. T. 



102 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



The " interpreter" necessarily a " logician." Antiquity no proof of " morality." 



PART II. 

"Behold, I will rain bread from heaven .... Six days ye shall 
gather it ; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there 
shall be none." — Exodus xvi. 4, 26. 

" And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life : he that cometh 
to me shall never hunger ; and he that believeth on me shall never 
thirst." — John vi. 35. 

"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will 
give you rest!" — Matthew xi. 28. 



II. The Ceremonial character of the Sahhath. 
If this institution be a 7noral one, it certainly is, as J. N. B. 
maintains — of permanent and universal obligation. It is not 
surprising, therefore, that he has labored zealously upon this 
point. If, on the other hand, even sl positive institution (as I 
hope to prove it), it mai/ be still obligatory ; so that my own 
work is not accomplished by establishing this " Second Propo- 
sition. '' 

A very unnecessary antithesis is made by my friend, be- 
tween the function of '^ the interpreter'' and that of " the logi- 
cian.^' (p. 47.) I answer that the relevancy of construction 
is " the proper work" of "a sober logician," and that he alone 
can be a just ^interpreter." 

The first efi'ort of J. N. B., in his Reply, is to strengthen his 
previous affirmation that the Sabbath was instituted at the 
Creation ; and here I must remind him that, even if this could 
be shown, it would prove nothing as to its moral character. 
This depends by very definition — not on the nature of the 
Giver, nor on the date when given, — but on our own constitution, 
and our own reasoning processes. The inference was therefore 
rather hasty, that a proof of the antiquity of the Sabbath law 
'demolished this Second Proposition, and with it all the 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 103 

Purport of the word " sanctify." 

rest.'' (p. 55.)* A "positive" law teas given to Adam {Gen. 
ii. 17) ; and that law which was merely " a shadow of good 
things to come, and not the very image of the things" {Ileb. 
X. 1), 7ni(/7it also have been given to him as readily as to Mo- 
ses ; and still have been no less provisional.f He who com- 
manded, might, if He saw fit, at any time repeal an ordinance 
— even though it ivere " from the beginning." 

^'God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." {Gen. ii. 
3.) " The word ' sanctify,' " says J. N. B. {p. 48), " is used 
in the sense of setting apart to the special service of God by 
divine authority.^'X He appears to have been misled by our 
inexact version. On the contrary, I assert — and fear no con- 
tradiction from the learned — that the word B'np (qadash) here 
used and rendered " sanctified," never has intrinsically such 
a meaning. It radically signifies — "to appoint" — "to set 
apart" — " to devote." Its sanctity can only be inferred from 
the agent or the object. Things and persons devoted or set 
apart to the most infamous purposes are correctly described 

* "These Sabbatarians do not consider that it is not the tme when 
a command was given, nor even the author who gave it, that discovers 
the class to which it belongs, but its nature as discoverable by hu- 
man reason." Bishop Warbueton. (Div. Legat. Book iv. sec. 6, note 

"KRKE.") 

f J. N. B. thinks the conclusion irresistible, "■ that if the law of the 
Sabbath was given to our first parents, it was given to all their pos- 
terity." {p. 49.) Will he be willing to admit the equally irresistible 
sequence, "that if the law of sacrifices was given to our first parents 
it was given to all their posterity?" 

X "Doubtless he hallowed it as touching himself," says Milton, 
"for <on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed' (JSxod. xxxi. 
17) : but not as touching us, unless he had added an express command- 
ment to that effect ; for it is by the precepts, not by the example even of 
God himself, that we are bound." (Christian Doctrine, Book ii. ch. 7.) 

"This text," says Archbishop Bramhall, " only tells us what God 
did Himself, not what He commanded ?<s to do ; God may do one thing 
Himself, and yet command us to do the contrary." (Discourse on the 
Sabbath.) 



104 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The word " bless" very indefinite. Gen. ii. the reverse of proleptic. 

by this word.* If we turn to Jerem. xvii. 22, we shall find 
the true purport and application of the word in this connection. 
" Neither do ye any work, but DnLyip [jiidasl 1(6111] — set apart 
the Sabbath day," — separate it from labor. Nothing can be 
more obvious, than that these two clauses — the prohibitory and 
the mandatory^ are just commensurate with each other — that 
the latter phrase enjoins affirmatively^ exactlj' what the former 
one does negatively — and no more. ^^ Separate ye the Sab- 
bath day" from other days, by ^^not doing any worJc^' upon 
it. And this is all the word indicates in Gen. ii. 3, or else- 
where. 

The word '\'^2 (haraUi) — to ^' bless" — is scarcely more de- 
terminate in its significance, or more available to my friend's 
theory. f It is applied to the newly-created man {Gen. i. 28), 
as properly as to the period of repose ; — to the meanest reptile 
( Ge7i. i.' 22), as expressively as to the viceroy, man. In the 
book of Job, the same word is more than once translated to 
^' curse." (i. 5, 11 ; ii. 5, 9.) In 1 Kings xxi. 10, it is rendered 
^' blaspheme." Its noun 1~i3 (hereJdi) signifies the " knee." 
— My friend's etymological argument is therefore worthless. 

J. N. B. gives four reasons why Gen. ii. 3 is not " Sipro- 
lepsis or anticipation." (p. 48.) I agree with him. I hold 
that the passage is just the reverse of ^ prolepsis. It is not 
contemporary history : it is twenty-five centuries posterior to its 
subject; it was evidently written after the exodus from Egypt. J 

* The noun occurs in Ge^i. xxxviii, 21, in such an application ; and 
in Deut. xxiii. 17, we have it in both its masculine sa\^ feminine forms; 
— " qadesh," and ^'qideshah." The verb occurs in Numh. xi. 18; 
<' Prejya?-c yourselves," where it partakes of the nature of a threat: 
(see verse2Q:) and JbsA. xx, 7: "They a/'joom^ecZ" certain cities, where 
evidently nothing sacred is intended. In Isaiah Ixvi. 17, the word is 
applied to violators of the law, &c. &c. 

f " God blessed it, that is, pronounced it an happy day, all his works 
being finished," &c. Gill. [Body of Divinity : vol. iii. Book iii. chap. 
8.) 

X " The most probable supposition is that Moses, who seems to have 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 105 

The reason of the law aFsigned ; not its date. 

Of the many similar internal evidences of this, but one shall 
be cited : ''By my name, Jehovah [mrr] was I not known 
to them,'' (the patriarchs ;) Exod. vi. 3 : — the root of which 
(rrnx — ehyeh, I am) is given in Exod. iii. 14, in direct an- 
swer to the question, "ichat is his name?^' Is any one fanci- 
ful enough to infer, because the word mn"' occurs in Gen. xv. 
7, and 2, that the " name" was known to Abram? — or because 
the same word occurs in Gen. iv. 26, that the " name" was 
first used by Adam's grandson? — or because the "name" is 
found in Gen. ii. 4, 5, 7, that the Hebrew word niH' is even 
older than man ? " Spirit" away the letter of Exodus vi. 3, 
if you can ! 

Now, just as the historian used familiar though recent 
"names" in describing long antecedent events, so evidently 
the passage in Gen. ii. 3, is simply a parenthesis penned after 
the Sabbath law. It does not say (as J. N. B. seems to im- 
ply) that God "sanctified" the seventh day at that time, but 
merely he sanctified it /or that reason — "because that in it 
he had rested."* Its sole object appears to have been to fix 
the Jewish attention on the sanction of the particular time 
selected as a Sabbath ;f a sanction that for us has no signifi- 

written the book of Genesis much later than the promulgation of the 
Law, inserted this sentence from the fourth commandment, into what 
appeared a suitable place for it ; where an opportunity was afforded 
for reminding the Israelites, by a natural and easy transition, of the 
reason assigned by God, many ages after the event itself, for his com- 
mand with regard to the observance of the Sabbath by the covenanted 
people." Milton. (Christ. Doctrine, B. i. ch. 10.) 

^ " The Sabbatic rest," says Dr. Paley, "being a duty which results 
from the ordination and authority of a positive law, the reason can be 
alleged no further than as it explains the design of the legislator ; and 
if it appear to be recited with an intentional application to one part of 
the law, it explains his design upon no other; if it be mentioned 
merely to account for the choice of the day, it does not explain his de- 
sign as to the extent of the obligation." {Mor. Phil. B. v. ch. 7.) 

f "The Lord's resting on the seventh day from his works of crea- 



106 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Adam's rest by "communion," not a Sabbath. 

cance, as J. N. B, has well remarked. (^Isaiah Ixv. 17. — p. 
51.) 

My friend has inferred (by no very sober logic) that Adam 
rested "the first day after his own creation;"* and to my very 
pertinent inquiry — ^^ from what f' — he replies: " It had better 
become him had he risen upward in thought to the sublime 
repose of the Creator over his finished work, and remembered 
that Man was then in perfect communion of spirit with his 
God!" (p. 49.) So that it appears Adam did not observe a 
human Sabbath after all ! We are to rise upward in thought 
to the sublime termination of creation, and remember that 
Adam by communion of spirit rested from — creation! And 
as he of course enjoyed this sympathetic repose equally on the 
next day, and so on the third, and fourth, — this ^^ first Sabbath 
kept by man," must have been a much longer one than that 
prescribed by the Decalogue : — indeed it has not terminated 
yet ! for though the ^^ Father worketh hitherto," that "sub- 
lime repose of the Creator'' never yet has been broken ! My 
friend's hypothesis does not avail him in the present examina- 
tion. 

tion," says Dr. Gill, "is used as an argument to enforce the keeping 
of the seventh-day Sabbath, now enjoined ; but not as a reason of the 
institution of it." [Body of Divin. vol. 3. B. iii. ch. 8.) In his Com- 
mentary on Gen. ii. 3, he remarks: " These words may be read in a 
parenthesis, as containing an account of a fact that was done, not at 
the beginning of the world, and on the first seventh day of it, but of 
what had been done in the times of Moses, who wrote this after the 
giving of the law of the Sabbath .... He takes this opportunity here 
to insert it, and very pertinently, seeing the reason why God then, in 
the time of Moses, blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it, was be- 
cause he had rested on that day from all his works. {Exod. xx. 11.) 
And the same reason is given here, taken plainly out of that law which 
he had delivered to them." [Com. in loco.) 

* "Being Adam's first day, it could not, with any propriety, be 
called a rest from labor to him, when, as yet, he had not labored at all ; 
such a Sabbath was not suitable to him in a state of innocence." Gill. 
{Body of Div. vol. iii. B. iii. ch. 8.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 107 

No hint of a Sabbath, till after the Exodus. 

The word " Sabbath'' does not once occur in Genesis. The 
earliest intimation of a Sabbath day we can discover in the 
Bible is in Exodus xvi. 5. It is in this chapter {verse 23) we 
find the fii'st recorded Sabbath laio. " In vain shall we search 
for even a hint that during the twenty-five hundred years pre- 
vious, man ever did keep, or ever was required to keep a 
Sabbath."* 

But, says J. JST. B., in reply to ^Hhis bold but unfortunate 
assertion," (p. 50,) " the division of time into ' weeks,' or 
'seven days' is repeatedly mentioned" in Genesis. He has 

* SaysBuNYAN: "As to the imposing of a seventh-day Sabbath 
upon man, from Adam to Moses, of that "we find nothing in holy writ; 
either from precept or example." {Treat, on Sabbath, q. ii.) 

"There is no mention of a Sabbath," says Gill, "before the de- 
scent of the manna in the wilderness of >S'm." [Bod. of Divin. vol. 
3, B. iii. ch. 8.) 

In Paley's opinion, "The transaction in the -wilderness was the 
first actual institution of the Sabbath. For, if the Sabbath had been 
instituted at the time of the creation, it appears unaccountable that 
no mention of it — no occasion of even the obscurest allusion to it, 
should occur." {3for. Phil. B. v. ch. 7.) 

As Whately excellently argues: "The whole question, indeed, 
respecting the patriarchal laws and observances, is one which does not 
directly concern Christians. For we may be sure that any law by 
which certain persons are to be bound will be made known to those 
persons (except through some error or negligence, such as one may 
often find indeed in human legislation, but which it would be absurd 
and impious to attribute to the Deity), not as a matter of probable 
conjecture, but with certainty and precision. The very purpose of a 
law is to lay down accurately, and determine what might have been 
before dubious or indifferent, so as to leave no room for hesitation as 
to our conduct in that particular. To speak, therefore, of a probable 
law (in reference to those for whom that law is designed) seems no 
other than a contradiction in terms. It is to speak of an indetermi- 
nate determination ; of an undecisive decision ; of the removal of 
doubt by something that is itself doubtful." — [Essaijs, ^x., No. v. 
note A. On the Sabbath.) 



108 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The " week" wholly independent of the Sabbath. 

here confounded two things not only different in their origin, 
but entirely independent of each other, as a very brief considera- 
tion will illustrate. Time is necessarily measured by planetary 
phenomena : as is observed in days — months — years — with their 
conventional subdivisions; (such as the four seasons of the 
year — the four watches of the night — or the four quarterings of 
the lunation, or month.) Indeed the interval from new to 
full moon (fourteen days) is almost as striking as that from 
sunrise to sunset. But while the "month" itself is an absolute- 
ly universal measure of time, nations of different origins have 
made different suhdivisions of the "new moon.'^* Thus, the 
Oriental nations generally, adopted the most natural division of 
it into quarterings (oY weeks of seven days); the ancient G-reeks 
divided it into thirds (dechemera of ten days), which was some- 
what modified by the Romans; the Chinese, into sixths (of five 
days) ; the aborigines of America, into the same. The instruct- 
ive fact is, that the oriental week (of seven days) is unknoivn 
and untraced, where the division of the crescent and waning 
moon (each into two parts) has not formed the basis of com- 
putation !f Now the week was evidently familiar to the Pa- 

* "It is plainly to be gathered from many evidences," says the 
learned Spencer, "that the nations of the earth observed the new- 
moon as a sacred festival long before the time of Moses." [De Leg. 
Heb. Lib. iii. Dissert, iv. cap. 1, sect. 1.) It is worthy of remark, 
that while the Jewish nation have unanimously asserted the Ifosaic 
introduction of the Sabbath, they have as unanimously assigned to the 
festival of the new moon a long antecedent, and sometimes even a 
Noachic origin. In perfect conformity, too, with this belief, we ob- 
serve that while the Scriptures ordain and enforce the Sabbath with a 
particularity and a frequency altogether unparalleled — the new-moon 
is never expressly established, but always alluded to as a well-known 
festival. [Numb. x. 10 ; xxviii. 11 ; 2 Chron. ii. 4 ; Ezra, iii. 5 ; &c.) 
And to complete the demonstration, while the most ancient heathen 
poets are absolutely silent on the subject of a " Sabbath," they fre- 
quently speak of the "new-moon" celebration. 

f Hence the frequency with which "New-moons" and " Sabbaths" 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 109 

The Sabbath assodated with the week by arbitrary enactment. 

triarchs (^Gen. xxix. 27, 28; Joh ii. 13), and the Egyptians 
( Gen. 1. 10), as well as the idolatrous Philistines (see Judges 
xiv. 12) ; but so far from sustaining a " Sabbath," this 
very evidence sufficiently proves that no day of the ^^ seven'' 
was more holy than another. A Sabbath no more follows from 
an established quarter-month, than it does from an established 
quarter-year. It is dependent for its existence on positive 
enactment; and may be connected with any period, at the op- 
tion of the lawgiver. {Levit. xxiii.) ^^ Positive precepts,'^ 
says Jeremy Taylor, " are those which depend upon the mere 
will of the lawgiver." {Duct. Bub. B. ii. ch. iii. 18.) 

In the first announcement of an intended Sabbath-day for 
the Israelites [Exod. xvi. 5), the preparatory direction is 
carefully given that "on the sixth day [of an estahlished week 

are associated together. (See 2 Kings iv. 23 ; 1 Chron. xxiii. 31 ; 2 
Chron. ii. 4, viii. 13, xxxi. 3 ; Neh. x. 33 ; Isai. i. 13, Ixvi. 23; Ezek. 
xlv. 17, xlvi. 1, 3 ; Hosea ii, 11 ; Amos viii. 5 ; Col. ii. 16.) 

In an essay on the subject of " Septenary Institutions" (published 
in the Westminster Review, Oct. 1850), characterized by considerable 
historical and philological research, the writer, after showing that the 
hebdomadal period had clearly an astronomical, and not (as is gene- 
rally supposed) a theologic derivation, refers its original institution to 
India, as " on the whole, better established than any other hypothesis ; " 
and gives it as the result of the most diligent investigation, that no 
trace whatever of the "weeA;" is to be found among the Greeks, the 
Romans, the Chinese, &c., or any of the northern races of Europe 
and Asia. " Throughout the whole of North and South America, 
there are no traces of any analogous septenary observances among 

the aboriginal inhabitants Passing from America to 

the numerous groups of i-slands in the Pacific, comprised in the term 
Polynesia, we still search in vain among their aboriginal inhabitants 
for septenary institutions. Everywhere has been found a calendar of 
months, commencing with the first visible 'new-moon,' but no:i"A<?re the 
Hindoo and modern European week of seven days." In short, " when 
we pass the Himalayan range, or in proportion as we recede in any 
direction from India and Egypt, and the countries lyuig between them, 
u-e lose all traces of Sabbaths !" ( West. Rev. No. c\i. Art. 8.) 

10 



110 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The first institution of the Sabbath : Confirmed by Scripture declarations. 

— doubtless] they shall prepare that which they bring in, and 
it shall be twice as much as they gather daily." When this 
was accordingly done, the " rulers" or subordinate captains, 
unacquainted with the regulation, evidently considered this a 
violation of the previous injunction: ^'Let no man leave of it 
till morning -/' {v. 19, 20 ;) " and all the rulers of the congre- 
gation came and told Moses;" (v. 22;) when they were in- 
formed that it was according to the Lord's command — '' To- 
morroic is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord : bake 
that which ye will bake — to-day.^' (y. 23.) On the seventh 
day, Moses again formally announced: ^^ To-day h 2^ Sabbath 
unto the Lord." (v. 25.) Notwithstanding which, " there 
went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, 
and they found none." [v. 27.) To whom the commandment 
was once more proclaimed : " See, for that the Lord hath 
given you the Sabbath." (v. 29.) '' So the people rested on 
the seventh day." (y. 30.) 

The narrative requires no comment : every circumstance 
contradicts the theory of a previous Sabbath law. Very 
shortly afterward, the institution was embodied in the fourth 
commandment {Exod. xx. 8) ; and Moses, in referring to the 
Decalogue many years after, says expressly : " The Lord made 
not this covenant with our fathers, hut icith us." (^Deut. v. 
3.) So in Nehcm. ix. 13, 14 : " Thou camest down also upon 
Mount Sinai .... and madest knoum unto them thy holy 
Sabbath . . . hy the hand of Moses thy servant." No ingenu- 
ity has successfully evaded the force of this deliberate declara- 
tion. " I caused them to go forth out of the laud of Egypt, 

and brought them into the wilderness I gave them 

my Sabbaths* to be a sign between me and them, that they 
might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them :" Dlif^DD 

* " It is not said he restored them, but ^ gave' them, denoting a 
new institution, and as peculiarly belonging to them ; and this is the 
sense of the Jewish nation in general, that the Sabbath only belongs 



MR. Taylor's second reply. Ill 

Sojourners ; and Profclytef. Views of the Talmudists. 

(m'qadtsham) — literally ''that set them apart." {Ezek. xx. 
10, 12.) 

The very circumstance of the fourth commandment being 
expressly extended to " the stranger wifhin thy gates,'' suffi- 
ciently shows that it was not designed for those without thn 
Jewish confines."^ iVnd thus too when proselytes were added 
to the commonwealth of Israel, from among the Gentiles, and 
*'the sons of the stranger joined themselves to the Lord," it 
was the " keeping of the Sahhath from polluting it, and the 
takinjr hold of the covenant," that constituted at once their 
most earnest exhortation, and their most distinctive commenda- 
tion. {Isai. Ivi. 6.) 

If it were possible to corrohorate this, it might be men- 
tioned that the Talmudical writers agree that it was instituted 
between the Exodus and the promulgation of the Decalogue. f 

to them, and that the Gentiles are not obliged to keep it." Gill. 
(Bod. JDiv. B. iii. 8.) 

* Vide e. g. Lcvit. xvii. 10, 13. ''The Israelites have never pro- 
hibited a Gentile from working on the Sabbath, or advised him to rest 
on that day, unless he were a servant or a pi'oselyte." Talmud. 

Maimoxides says it is highly improper for a stranger or Gentile to 
observe the Jewish Sabbath. 

f " "We gather from the Talmudists," says Selden [De Jure Nat, 
lib. iii. cap. 9), "that the time of its institution was not primordial, 
but within the month of the departure from Egypt." And after citing 
R. Jose Ben Chilpetha, in Seder Olam Rabba, cap. 5 ; Gemara Baby- 
lonica, ad tit. " Sanhedrim," cap. 7 ; also tit. " De Sabbaio," cap. 9, 
&c. &c. ; likewise Aben Ezra, ad Dcut. v. ; the Chaldee paraphrase 
of Uzielidus, in Ezod. xv. ; Maimonides, More Nebochim, part iii. cap. 
9, &c., he remarks: ''The Jews indeed consider the Sabbath pecu- 
liarly theirs, as if the spouse of the nation ;" and adds : " There occur 
six hundred testimonies to the same effect, among the Talmudic and 
Cabalistic wi-itei's." [Ibid. lib. iii. cap. 10.) See also Wood's Bib. 
Die. (art. " Sabbath.") 

Dr. Gill, after remarking that, in all the patriarchal history, " we 
nowhere read of any law being given them for the observation of the 
seventh-day Sabbath," continues : " The .Jews pretend that there were 



112 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Belief of the Christian " Fathers." Selden : and Spencer. 

In an ancient Hebrew hymn, it is said : '^ Thou didst not give 
the Sabbath, Lord our Grod, to the nations of the earth.'' 
(Machzor, Juddeorum Germ. part. i. fol. 49, a. — vide Manasseh 
Ben Israel,'^c?e Oreatione, problem 8.) 

The early Christian " Fathers" constantly speak of the Sab- 
bath as having been first given to the Israelites.* I believe 
they are unanimous upon this point; — at least I am not aware 
of any one of them who assigns an earlier origin to the institu- 
tion. 

The learned Selden elaborately maintains and triumphant- 
ly establishes the Jewish and ceremonial character of the 
Sabbath, in a series of chapters. (Z)e Jure Nat. ct Gent. Lib. 
iii. cap. 9 — 12.) 

Says the scarcely less distinguished Spencer : " It can be 
shown by the clearest evidence that God appointed the Sab- 
bath to be observed — not by the human race — but by the Israel- 
ites alone." {De Legihus Uehrseor. Ritual, lib. i. cap. iv. sect. 
9.) And accordingly it always has heen " peculiar to the Jew."t 

seven laws given to the sons of Noah ; but this of keeping the seventh- 
day Sabbath is not among them." (Bod. Divin. B. iii. ch. 8.) The 
antiquity and universality of this Jewish tradition of the Noachic 
Heptalogue give to its exclusion of the Sabbath the greatest value as 
an historic evidence. 

* See Justin Martyr [c. Tryph.)-^ Iren^eus {cont. Hcer. iv. 30); 
Tertullian {adv. Jud. 2, 3, 4), &c. &c. ; also Eusebius the historian 
(lib. i. c. 2, 4; and Corn, in Psal. xci.) ; Athanasius (Synop. Sacr. 
Scrip. Exod ), &c. 

•j- It may be noticed in illustration that, when Antiochus commanded 
the Jewish law to be abolished, it is recorded among the changes of 
custom necessarily consequent — "neither were the Sabbaths kept. 

And whosoever would not conform themselves to the 

ways of the Gentiles were put to death." (2 Maccabees vi. 6 — 9.) In 
like manner, in their belligerent history, it was not uncommon for 
their assailants, on discovering this peculiarity of their religious observ- 
ance, to await their weekly rest for the purpose of attack or surprisal. 
(See Josephus, Antiq. B. xiv. ch. 4, sec. 3 ; Jewish War, B. i. ch. 7, 
sec. 3 ; also Antiq. B. xiii. ch. i. sec. 3 ; B. xviii. ch. 9, sec. 2.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 113 

A universal ncgatiou. " The old Greek poets" examined. 

"Throughout all history we discover no trace of a Sabbath 
among the nations of antiquity." But I " have not read all 
history I" (p. 60.) A universal negation is rarely (if ever) 
founded on personal experience or absolute knowledge. Its 
legitimate ground is induction : and if the assumption be hasty, 
it is of course open to refutation. I believe therefore that even 
with very limited pretensions to historical knowledge, there 
was no want of a becoming modesty in the universality of my 
denial. 

But, says my friend, " The old Greek poets, Hesiod, 
Homer, and Callimachus, call the seventh day ' holy.' " 
(p. 50.) J. N. B. has neglected "chapter and verse;" and 
will be puzzled to verify his references. In following Dr. 
DwiGHT (not always accurate in his quotations), he has been 
led into error. 

The nearest approach to the language of his quotation, I 
am able to find in either of these poets, is the following passage 
from Hesiod (about 1000 b. c), distinguishing fortunate days 
from evil days : " These days are under the providence of 
Jove : the first day of the new moon is consecrated, also the 
fourth day, and the seventh dai/j^ for on this, Latona bore the 
golden-armed Apollo : both the eighth and ninth days of the 
crescent moon are likewise especially favorable to human af- 

* n^aiTov gv>j, TiTja? TE, Kai iQhfA.r] — Ubcv ny.a^. This is the Stereotyped 
eSJo|Mn — i£;0> njwaf ("the seventh day — a Ao^y day"), so currently, yet 
so carelessly quoted by every zealous Sabbatarian, from Aristobulus, 
the Jew (b. c. 150), to Dr. Timothy Dwight; from Dwight down to 
the last prize essayist on " Heaven's Antidote to the cui-se of Labor." 
The number of learned names which, in modern times, have blindly 
followed their false guides upon this point would form a most imposing 
catalogue. So ready is the acceptance of wished-for evidence on the 
one hand, so difficult the detection of a vague quotation on the other. 
It is fully time that this piratical mpressment of testimony should be 
'* withstood to the face." It is fully time that those inadvertently re- 
lying on such perversions should be disabused, and should have the im- 
posture publicly exposed. 

10* 



114 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Hesiod. Homer. Callimachus. 

fairs.'' (Jlemerai : verses 5 — 9 ; or of " Works and Dai/s," 
verses 767 — 771.) If, from this, mj friend is able to construct 
"a trace of the weekly Sabbath/' he is welcome to the con- 
struction. 

The nearest resemblance to anything of the kind I can dis- 
cover in the pages of Homer (nearly 1000 b. c), is where 
Ulysses, entertaining King Alcinous with his adventures, re- 
lates how, after 

*'■ Six days and nights a doubtful course we steer, 
The next, proud Lamos' stately towers appear:" 

{Odyssey, x. 81.) 

or in a subsequent passage, where, after returning from his 
long wanderings, he beguiles his faithful Eumaeus with the 
story th it, 

*'In feast and sacrifice, my chosen train 
Six days consumed: — the seventh we ploughed the main." 

[Odyssey, xiv. 252.) 

If my friend sees, in these passages, an evidence of Grecian 
Sabbatism, I will not rob him of their benefit. 

In the remaining poems of Callimachus (260 b. G.f, I 
cannot even meet with an incidental allusion to a seventh day !* 
The only thing septenary occurs in his Hymn to the Birth- 
place of Apollo; which narrates that, at the birth of Latona's 
son, " the tuneful swans of the god, seven times circled around 
Delos, singing." {To Delos. verses 24Q — 252.) This contribu- 

* Clemens Alexandrinus (to whom Dr. Dwight is indebted for 
his authorities) cites from Callimachus several detached and un- 
meaning phrases [Stromat. lib. v.), ringing the changes on the number 
"seren;" such as "the seventh is among the good things;" — "all 
things in the starry heaven have been constructed, appearing in seven 
orbits," &c. These passages are not to be found in any of the poems 
of Callimachus now extant ; and they have just no relation whatever 
to the Sabbath question. It so happens that another of the Fathers 
(EusEBius: Evangel. Prceparat. lib. xiii. 12), quoting these very same 
passages, ascribes them (with perhaps equal propriety) to Lixus ! 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 115 

Heathen testimonies concerning the Sahbath. Ac.atrarchides. 

tion to my friend's cause, I suppose he will hardly be desirous 
of accepting. 

Such, then, is the whole amount of pagan authority J. N. B. 
is able to present in attestation of '' the sort of sanctity attached 
to the seventh day among the ancient heathen nations!" (p. 
50.) The truth is, ''we discover no trace of a jSahhath" even 
among those oriental nations which had the hebdomade or 
week: but to the Greeks, tJie icetk itself was unknown I—thc'iT 
smallest interval being the decade or period often days.* 

I will therefore make "the bold and unfortunate assertion," 
that neither in Hesiod, nor in Homer, nor in Callimaciius, 
the three classical writers adduced by J. N. B. from Dr. 
Dwight (^Theohgi/, vol. iii. Serm. 107), and by Dr. Dwight 
from Clement of Alexandria (Stromat. lib. v.), can the most 
distant allusion be discovered to sabbatical or septenary in- 
stitutions. And without having " read all history," I will 
further venture to affirm that no such allusion can be found 
throughout the entire range of Grecian literature ! I challenge 
all the learning that is in the heads of all the Sabbatarians, 
(and that is not little), to cite one solitary hint of a Sabbath, 
or even of a week ! 

Since J. N. B. invites me upon classic ground, I accompany 
him with pleasure; and I have the satisfaction of affirming 
(with a confidence which I hope will not be deemed presump- 
tuous), that no Pagan writer ever alludes to the hebdomadal 
"Sabbath," otherwise than as a leading Jewish characteristic! 

Agatharchides, a Greek writer, who flourished B. c. 120, 
thought this observance one of the most remarkable of the 
Jewish customs. Though none of his works are now extant, 

* "The ancient Greeks and Romans had no division properly an- 
swering to our weeks ; although the former had their decade of days ; 
and the latter their nundince, or market days, occurring every ninth 
day. But the Egyptians and oriental nations had a week of seven 
days." (Eschenbueg's 3Ianual of Class. Lit. edited by Prof. Fiske, 
Part V. sec. 191; or of the 4th edition, Part i. sec. 191, b.) 



116 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Horace. Ovid. Strabo. Apion. Persius. Seneca. 

he is cited by Josephus, as writing thus : '* The people called 
Jews, inhabit an exceedingly strong city, which it appears they 
call Jerusalem. They are accustomed to rest on every seventh 
day, on which times they will neither bear arms nor engage 
in husbandry, nor attend to any worldly affairs." {Contra 
Apion, lib. i. sect. 22.) 

If the Roman poet Horace (b. c. 25) makes mention of 
the word " Salhata," he at once associates it with the '^curtis 
Judseis." (Sath\ lib. i. sat. ix. 69.) 

Does Ovid (b. c. 10) allude to this institution, it is as " the 
seventh day kept holy by the Jews" {Ai-s Amat. lib. i. 76) : 
or again, it is spoken of as "a festival observed in Palestine" 
(/&. lib. i, 416) : and in another work, he uses the expressive 
phrase — '^foreign Sabbaths!" {Remed. Amor. lib. i. 220.) 

Strabo, the indefatigable voyager and close observer, 
(a. d. 10), in making an historical reference to the Sabbath, 
calls it "the day of abstinence — on which the Jews refrain 
from all work." [Geograph. lib. xvi. Sj/ria.) 

Apion, the Egyptian grammarian (a. d. 30), in his igno- 
rance of the early history of the Jews, suggests a most ridicu- 
lous origin for their Sabbath, saying that "After they had 
travelled a six days' journey, they were afflicted with buhoes, 
and for this reason they rested on the seventh day ; and having 
arrived at the country now called Judea, they named the 
seventh day ' Sahhaton,' after the Egyptian word ' Sahhatosis' 
— the name by which the disease bubo is known among the 
Egyptians !" (cited by Josephus, Contra Apion, lib. ii. sect. 
2.) 

The satirical Persius (a. d. 50) has a sneer at " the Sab- 
baths kept by the Circumcised" (^Sat. v. 184), — "recutita 
sabbata ;" — an expression equally remarkable for conciseness 
and significance. 

The Roman philosopher Seneca (a. d. 60) severely censures 
the Jews for their religious infatuation; saying that " by their 
Sabbaths interposed, they waste the seventh part of their life 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 117 



in idleness.'' (From a lost work quoted by Augustine, " De 
civitat, Deiy' lib. vi. cap. 11.) 

The witty ^Jartial (a. d. 90), in an epigram, can find no 
more distinctive epithet for Jews, than "Sabbath-keepers.'' 
(^Ep. lib. iv. epigr. iv. 7.) 

Plutarch, the biographer and essayist (a. d. 100), to 
^' point a moral," instances the historical fact that "the Jews- 
sitting idly down on their Sabbath, while the enemy scaled 
and occupied their walls — offered no resistance." ( Opera : Tom. 
ii. Tract. De Superstitione.') In another treatise, he endeavors 
to show that the Jews derived the name " JSahhath" from the 
Greek, aaSSaa/xoi (sahbasmos or sahasjnos), a festival of Bac- 
chus : " SahaziW being one of the names of that deity. {Sj/7n- 
posiac. lib. iv. prob. 5.) 

Suetonius (a. d. 105), illustrating the abstemiousness of 
the Emperor Augustus, quotes him as writing to Tiberius — 
" No Jew indeed so rigidly keeps fast on his Sabbath, as I 
have fasted to-day." {De Csesarihus, Lib. ii. cap. 76.) The Ro- 
mans very naturally inferring that a day so strictly observed 
as the seventh day rest, must be a "fast-day."* 

The polished Tacitus (a. d. 110), in his short description 
of the Jews, records, as one of their peculiarities, that "on the 
seventh day, it is said they were idle." {Hist. lib. v. sect. 4.) 
And he offers various vain conjectures to account for so singu- 
lar a custom If 

* It is strongly illustrative of the ignorance prevailing among the 
Roman writers concerning the origin and object of the Sabbath, that 
they generally describe it as a "fast." Strabo, Suetonius, and Jus- 
tinus all speak of it as such. Plutarch appears to have come nearer 
the truth ; for the Jews, so far from making it a fast day, have always 
accounted it a high festival. It was to be a "feast of the Lord" 
(Levit. xxiii. 2, 3). Indeed it was a serious offence to fast upon it. It 
is said of Judith, that "she fasted all the days of her life excqyt the 
Sabbaths and new-moons, and the feasts of the house of Israel." [Ju- 
dith viii. 6.) 

f One of his suggestions is that the observance was designed to 



118 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



Juvenal. Justinur. Dion Cassius. Julian. 

The poet Juvenal (a. d. 115) thought it worthy of a 
passing notice, as distinctive of these " Barbarians/' that they 
'^observe their festival Sabbaths." QSatir. lib. ii. sat. vi. 158.) 
And in a subsequent satire, he speaks of those who "obey the 
Jewish law, which Moses delivered in a secret volume," as 
being a bigoted and churlish set, "to whom every seventh day 
was idle, and not engaged in any aim of life." (lib. v. sat. xiv. 
96—106.) 

JusTiNUS (a. d. 150) informs his readers that "Moses, having 
reached Mount Syna, after conducting the weary Jews seven 
days through the deserts of Arabia — fasting, on his arrival 
there, appointed the seventh day (called in their language 
^ sahhatum') to be observed perpetually as a fast-day, in com- 
memoration of the day which had terminated their hunger and 
their wandering!" {Ilistor. PhllqypLC. lib. xxxvi. cap. 2.) 

Another Roman historian, Dion Cassius (a. d. 220), 
treating of the Jews, tells us that " the day which is called 
Saturn's they hold sacred; and among the observances peculiar 
to that da}^, carefully abstain from engaging in any work on 
it." He supposes that the custom of "naming seven days 
after the seven stars, which the Romans call 'planets,' 
was derived from the Egyptians:" and adds that this appears 
to have been wholly unknown among the ancient Greeks," 
{Rom. Hist. lib. xxxvii.) 

The Emperor Julian, nephew of Constantino (a. d. 362), 
in a work of which -only fragments have been preserved to 
us, speaks of Unitarianum and Sahhatlsm as the two great 
distinctions of the Mosaic code. After quoting the Decalogue, 
he contemptuously asks — "What nation is there — verily, 
which does not agree that (excepting the precept ' Thou shalt 
not worship different Gods;' and the one ^Remember the Sab- 
batJida?/') all the other commandments should be observed? 

honor Saturn! — by whose name the seventh day was then generally 
known, as it still is at the present time. 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 119 

CLAUDirs RuTiLics. Jewish, and Christian authorities examined. 

— and that punishments such as those of the law of Moses, or 
more — or less severe — should be inflicted on those who violate 
them?'' {Opera. Cyrlll. advers. Jul. lib. v. 2.) 

Even so late as the fifth century, a considerable time after 
Christianity had been established by Constantine as the law of 
the empire, Claudius Rutilius (a. d. 415), in a poetical 
account of his travels, indulges in a jeer at "the Jew — that 
unsocial animal,'^ and "his frigid Sabbaths;" with whom 
"every seventh day is condemned to a shameful sloth." 
(Itinerar. lib. i. 383—392.)* 

Such testimonies supply us with the most irresistible con- 
firmation of the " Proposition" under discussion. Admirably 
do they illustrate the lamentation of Jeremiah, in the Scripture 
Record — " The adversaries saw her, and did mock at her jSab- 
haths!" (^Lament, i. 7.)t Most triumphantly do they over- 
throw my friend's cherished " fancy'^ of a Gentile Sabbath. 

Having thus satisfactorily disposed of our " heathen testi- 
monies," I might readily be excused from noticing the two 
Jewish, and the two Christian authorities, to which J. N. B. 
has appealed in addition, in corroboration of his insubstantial 
theory. Were I inclined to be captious, I might call on him 
for " chapter and verse," before admitting his quotations in 
evidence : or were I inclined to be formal, I might at once dis- 
miss them with the brief answer — "incompetent," as sum- 
marily as I would the assertions of any modern Sabbatarian. 
Before accepting their secondary evidence, I might insist on 
the production of at least some show of original or Gentile au- 

* These authors are accessible to almost every one. They may all 
be found in the Loganian Department of the Philadelphia Library — 
a noble foundation, whose volumes not only are freely open to the 
public for consultation (as in the Philadelphia Library), but may be 
taken home for perusal by any one without charge. 

f " The Gentile nations all considered the Jewish Sabbath very 
absurd, and made it a no less fertile theme for jest, than circumcision 
itself." Spencer. (Z>e Leg. Heb. Kit. lib. i. cap. iv. sect. 9.) 



120 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Testimony of Philo : and of Josephus. 

tliority. But being neither formal nor captious, I shall aiford 
a passing glance at these authors also, and endeavor to elicit 
their true bearing. 

^' Philo says : ^ The seventh day is a festival to every na- 
tion.' '' (J. N. B. p. 50.) To explain this vague declaration 
(found in his Lib. de Opificio), it is only necessary to turn to 
pHiLo's remarks upon the Sabbath law. ''The fourth com- 
mandment," says he, " is concerning the holy seventh day, 
requiring that it should be sacredly and piously observed. 
Some states celebrate this once a month, counting from the 
appearance of the new-moon ; hut the Jewish nation observes it 
weeMjjy after completing every six days." (^Opera: Lib. de 
Decalog.)^ The evidence of Philo will scarcely benefit my 
friend more than that of Hesiod ! I boldly claim him as an 
indorser of my Proposition, that the Sabbath was a purely 
Jewish institution. 

" Josephus says most explicitly : ' No city of Greeks or 
Barbarians can be found, which does not acknowledge a 
seventh day's rest from labor.' " (J.N. B. p. 50.) Josephus says 
nothing so foolishly false, however his translators may some- 
times have construed him : though, even if he had done so, his 
assertion would weigh nothing against the combined force of 
'' all Gentile history. "f In the passage referred to, Josephus 
is not treating of the antiquity of the Sabbath, but of the in- 
fluence of Jewish institutions on other nations. The whole 

* "Nothing can be more obvious," says the learned Selden, citing 
this passage against the Sabbatarians, "than that Philo here makes 
the observance of a weekly festival peculiar to his ovv^n people, inas- 
much as he notices that another kind of seventh day was received 
among certain other nations. And it is very true that the seventh 
day of the month was sacred to the birth of Apollo." (Be Jure Hat. et 
Ge7ii. lib. iii. cap. 14.) 

f Seldex remarks (De Jure Hat. lib. iii. cap. 19) : "A seventh day 
Sabbath was observed among no jyeople in the time of Josephus — except 
among the Jews, and the few Christians who followed their example." 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 121 

, A perverted quotation rectified. 

passage is as follows : '' Moreover, there has been with multi- 
tudes, for a long time past, a great desire to emulate our 
religious customs : nor is there anywhere any city of the 
Greeks, nor a single Barbarian nation, whither the institution 
of the Hebdomade (which ice mark hy resiting) has not 
travelled )^ and by whom our fasts, and lighting of lamps, 
and many of our prohibitions of food are not observed.^' ( Con- 
tra Apioriy lib. ii. sect. 40.) 

Making due allowance for the natural exaggeration of an 
apologist, the substance of this statement expresses a well- 
recognized fact in Roman history. "' The institution of the 
Hebdomade" (introduced about the date of the Christian era) 
did travel almost throughout the empire. f But Josephus, so 
far from intending to assert that the Sabbath was ever a Gen- 
tile ordinance, in the very next section, the conclusion of his 
elaborate vindication of the Jews, says : " If we have shown 
that the origincd introduction of these institutions is our oivn, 
let the Apions, and the M(jlones, and all the rest of those who 
delight in false reproaches, stand confuted!" {Cont. Ap. lib. 
ii. sect. 41. )t I claim Josephus as a strong indorser of the 
Jewish character of the Sabbath ! 

* Ev9a fA,r\ TO tjij eSS'OjaaS'o; {nv a^youfxBv hfJ.iii) ro i9o( ov ^icL7rB'poiTn>is. Jo- 
SEPHUS does not say that the Greek and Barbarian rested ; but that 
^^we [the Jews] observe it by rest." 

f Dion Cassius (a century and a half later than Josephus) informs us 
that, in his time, the custom of designating every recurring seven days 
by the names of the planets, was practised everywhere ; and he refers 
its origin — not to the Jews, but to the Egyptians. (^Rom. Hist. lib. 
xxxvii.) 

Dr. Adams, in his work on "Roman Antiquities," observes: "The 
ancient Piomans did not divide their time into weeks as we do, in imi- 
tation of the Jews .... This custom was introduced \mder the Empe- 
rors." (Rom. Anliq. chap, on ^^ Roman Year.^^) 

% JosEPnrs invariably speaks of the Sabbath as peculiar to his own 
people ; — repeatedly designating it as their ancestral law, [Antiq. B. 
xiv. ch. iv. 2 ; J. War. B. ii. ch. xvi. 4, &c.) — constantly exhibiting the 
11 



122 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Testimony of Clement : and of Eusebius. 

'' The learned Clement, of Alexandria/' continues J. N. B. 
{p. 50), " a witness of the highest competencj_, says : ' The 
Greeks, as well as the Hebrews, observe the seventh day as 
holy/ " Not quite ; the word " day'' is interpolated. The 
language of Clement is : '^ Not only the Hebrews, but even 
the Greeks, recognize the seventh as a sacred [number], ac- 
cording to which the whole universe revolves. For Hesiod 
says of it: 'The first, the fourth, and the seventh, are sacred 
days,' &c. Callimachus also writes: 'The seventh is among the 
good things,' &c., 'the starry heavens \i2i\e seven revolutions/ 
&c. So also the elegies of Solon greatly distinguish the 
VLumhev seven." (^Stromat. Yih. \.^ Clement never inculcated 
— either in this work or elsewhere — the universality of the 
Sabbath, or its moral obligation. On the contrary, he evi- 
dently considered it altogether a Jewish and ceremonial insti- 
tution ; remarking that " those renewed, observe the Sabbath 
by abstinence from evil" {Stromat. lib. iii.), and that the 
spiritual purport of the ordinance is righteousness and con- 
tinence. {Stromat. lib. iv.) 

"And, finally," says J. N. B. {p. 50), "the learned Euse- 
bius affirms that ' almost all the philosophers and poets ac- 
knowledge the seventh day as holy.' " Eusebius does not say 
so ; he merely quotes Aristobulus as saying so (^Evangel. 
Prsepar. lib. xiii. cap. 12) ; the whole of this chapter being 
directly transferred from that writer, as Eusebius explicitly 
declares, both at its commencement and at its termination I"'" 



conti-ast between Jewish and Gentile practice on this subject [Antiq. 
B. xii. eh. vi. 2 ; B. xiii. ch. i. 3 ; B. xiv. ch. iv. 3 ; B. xviii. ch. ix. 
2 ; J. War, B. i. ch. vii. 3; B. iv. ch. ii. 3) ; — and carefully recording 
that, in the Jewish appeals for religious liberty, or in the edicts of 
toleration accorded to them, the privilege of this national custom was 
especially indicated. [Aniiq. B. xiv. ch. x. 20, 21, 23, 25 ; B. xvi. 
ch. ii. 3, 4 ; ch. vi. 2, 4, 8.) 

* Aristobulus cannot escape the dilemma of having been either 
conversant with the Greek writers, or ignorant of them ; he is charge- 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 123 

]Mi.<approiiriation of the " seven witnesses" corrected. 

Now, unfortunately for my friend here, Eusebius himself, so 
far from sustaining his position, expressly asserts that " those 
just and holy men who lived before Moses neither observed 
nor understood the Sabbath days. Hence, neither Abraham, 
nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor his sons, nor those more ancient yet 
than these, appear to have had any knowledge of the Sabbath. '' 
(^Comment ar . in Psalmos, Ps. xci. ; see also \\\sllist. Ecd. lib. 
i. cap. 4.) 

In PART II. of my friend's Reply {p. 60), recurring to the 
*^ mistake" into which he thinks I have fallen in my universal 
negation, he adds : " I have corrected his mistake by the 
united testimony of seven competent witnesses : Hesiod, 
Homer, Callimachus, Philo, Josephus, Clement, and 
Eusebius." In return, I hope that by these seven competent 
witnesses, I have now even still more effectually corrected his 
own very serious " mistake." And, " if we allow the fact 
thus testified by so many witnesses. Pagan, Jewish, and 
Christian," I think that by the sound philosophy of Bacon 
we are fully warranted in the affirmation that " throughout all 

able -with a most deplorable dishonesty, or with an astounding infa- 
tuation. One instance of an actual falsification of the text of Homer, 
to aggrandize Sabbatarianism (which has been copied by both Clement 
and Eusebius), is too flagrant to be here passed over. The passage 
occurs in the Odyssey (book v. line 262), where the hero of the poem, 
making preparations to sail from Calypso's island, it is said : — 

TETjaTOV Y)fxa.e £>]V, )iai t« TST6Xfa-T0 awaVT*. 

" It was now the fourth day, and on it all things -were completed." 
Aristobulus has quoted this line verbatim, with the simple substitution 
of 'eC^o^ov for TST^aTov, in order to show that Homer copied his ac- 
count — from the second chapter of Genesis! " It was now the seventh 
day, and on it all things were completed." Uufortimately, the very 
next line of the poem relates that Calypso dismissed Ulysses {'nzfx'iT'rta) 
on the fifth day ! It is scarcely necessary to add that the Mosaic quo- 
tation is not to be found in Homer. Let us hope that the two learned 
and distinguished Christian Fathers who copied this were satisfied to 
quote ignorantly, and did not attempt to verify their quotations. 



124 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

All the Jewish Sabbaths — " moral," — or none of them so. 

history we discover no trace of a Sabbath among the nations 
of antiquity." 

J. N. B. very kindly constructs for me an ^^ argument for 
the ceremonial nature of the Sabbath, drawn from the fact of 
its incorporation with the ceremonial law of the Jews ','" and 
as the sophism is entirely Ms own, I am not surprised that it 
should be a '' non sequitur." (p. 56.) The important fact 
communicated by Lcvit. xxiii. and Nmnh. xxviii., xxix , is not 
that of association or "incorporation/' but that of affiliation; 
the fact that '' the Sabbath of the Decalogue" is distinguished 
by no single characteristic from a variety of similar festivals , 
which also commemorated important events ; which also were 
celebrated with peculiar sacrifices ; which also prohibited ser- 
vile work ; which also were " convocations ;" which also were 
entitled '' feasts of the Lord ;" which also were '^holy;" which 
also were " Sahhaths." My friend must, therefore, either 
admit that these also were " moral" institutions, or he must 
admit my '^Second Proposition." I transfer to him the onus 
proband l.^ 

The next point he adverts to, is " the incorporation of a 
motive from Jewish history into the reasons for its observance." 
(Deuf. V. 15.) To which he replies : " No such motive is found 
in the Decalogue itself, as originally delivered by God." (p. 
57.) Now the reason assigned in the "original" Decalogue 
(Exod. XX.) is actually as " Jewish"^ — (having been revealed 
only to the Jews) — as that given in the second Decalogue. f 
(^Dent. v.) And it is just as utterly inapplicable as that, to 

* "The distinction of the Sabbath is in its nature as much R: posi- 
tive, ceremonial institution, as that of many other seasons which were 
appointed by the Levitical law to be kept holy, and to be observed by 
a strict rest." Paley. (3Ior. Phil. B. v. eh. 7.) 

I " Thus, also, the great reason of the Sabbath, I mean God's rest 
from the works of creation, is a temporary, transient reason ; because 
there is now a new creation, * old things are passed away, and all things 
are become new.' " Bishop Taylor. {Duct. Dubitant. B. ii. eh. 2, rule 6, 
sec. 44.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 125 

The two Decalogues equallj' national. The first one destroyed. 

the Sabbath advocated by J. N. 13. ; for it is in fact the very 
reason, and the onJy reason given for the Saturdai/ Sabbath : 
*' The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God/' be- 
cause that '^ He rested the seventh day!" (^Compare Exod. 
xxxi. 17, with Isdi Ixv. 17.) The first day is not the Lord's 
Sabbath, because that " in it" he did not rest (^Gen. i. 5) : and 
Sunday therefore cannot possibly commemorate the Lord's rest. 
As Justin Martyr well remarks, it commemorates exactly the 
opposite circumstance, — the first crea7<*ye labor ! {ApoL part i.) 
But passing all this, where did my friend find his warrant 
for thus magisterially repudiating the one Decalogue, and ca- 
nonizing the other ? By what prophet was it revealed to him 
that the revised edition was "perw?/«>7y applicable to the Jews," 
and the other peculiarly applicable to the rest of mankind? If 
he is disposed thus pointedly to contrast the two Decalogues, I 
will remind him that the one " originalJy delivered by God" 
was destroyed. {Exod. xxxii. 19.) If he insists then on dis- 
criminating between them, I shall hold him to the Deuterono- 
my, — to that second edition of the "tables," which was not 
destroyed. {Deut. v.) We there find that the Sabbath was 
expressly given to the Israelite as a memorial of national eman- 
cipation. Thou wast redeemed from an oppressive bondage; and 
"therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the 
Sabbath day!" — for this especial reason was it instituted.* 

* " It is an argument that the Jewish Sabbath was not to be per- 
petual," says Jonathan Edwards, "that the Jews were commanded 
to keep it in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt .... Now 
can any person think that God would have all nations under the Gos- 
pel, and to the end of the world, keep a day every week, which was 
instituted in remembrance of the deliverance of the Jews out of Egypt?" 
(Sermons, ser. xxvi. On the Sabbath.) This argument is the more satis- 
factory as coming fi-om an ardent Sabbatarian ! And he might have add- 
ed, with no less cogency, — Can any Sunday Sabbatarian think that God 
would have all nations under the Gospel keep that day every week which 
commemorated his rest from creation ? {Exod. xx. 10, 11 ; Isai. Ixv. 17.) 

11* 



126 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Sabbath a Jewish memorial ; and a distinctive institution. 

The obvious explanation wby this reason is not formally as- 
signed in Exod. xx., is that the institution was then too re- 
cent to require it. Another point was in more immediate need 
of illustration, — namely, why this memorial of national repose 
should be observed weekly, rather than monthly, or yearly ; 
and why on Saturday, rather than on Sunday.* But the 
Israelites were distinctly informed that it was for them a peculiar 
institution {Exod. xxxi. 13), whereby they might know them- 
selves ''set apart," — DDK^ipD (jn'cjadish-kem) — by Jehovah. 
"' It is a sign between Me and you throughout your genera- 
tions:" — "a perpetual covenant f (y. 16:) — declarations ut- 
terly devoid of meaning, if the Sabbath was then of moral and 
''universal obligation !"f It was not any particular ohservance 
— but the " Sabbath" itself— that was the " sign" or token of 
their " separation." {Ezek. xx. 12.) 

But it is urged by J. N.B. {p. 57) that Jesus "came not to 
destroy the law, but to fulfil it;" and that not one jot or tit- 
tle was to pass from the law " till all sJioidd be fulfilled ;" 
not one of the least commandments was to be broken. I an- 
swer that this was true — not only of the Sabbath law, but of 
the sacrificial — and every other Jewish law. Not one tittle of 
any part of the Law could "fail:" (Luke xvi. 16, 17 :) not 
one letter of it could be either "broken" or "destroyed :" but 
" all things must be accomplished." (John xix. 28, 80.) And 
when the Sabbath had been thus accomplished (Col. ii. 14, 

* " Maimonides and other Hebrews" (says Grotius) " well dis- 
tinguish the causes why the rest was ordered, and why this particular 
duT/ : the former cause is assigned in Deuteronomy — because they were 
delivered from a hard servitude, &c., and the latter cause in this place 
[Fxod. XX.] — ^because this day was chosen by God in which to rest," 
&c. (Amiotatio?is on Old Test. Exod. xx.) 

f " If this law had been given to all nations, it could not have been 
a distinguishing ' sign^ of them from others ; nor would it be known 
thereby that God had 'separated' them to himself above all i)eople." 
Gill, [Comment, on Exod. xxxi. 13.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 127 

The Sabbath not " moral" because incorporated in the Decalogue. 

17; ITeh. iv.), then did it pass away forever {lleb. yiii. 13 ; 
ix. 11; John Tiii. 36) — 

"EstaWislied" and completed, — not "made void," 
Its purpose " all fulfilled," but not " destroyed." 

It is still contended that the Sabbath law is moral, because 
incorporated in the Decalogue, {p. 68.) In this J. N. B. re- 
vives the non sequitur he but lately so satisfactorily exposed- 
If no '"incorporation" can make a ceremonzaHaw, equally true 
is it that no ''incorporation" can make a moral law. "The 
seventh day" is incorporated in the Decalogue, and yet my 
friend has labored vigorously to explain it away. " The se- 
venth day of the Decalogue I hold to be a part of the moral 
law of the Sabbath, but not the mere circumstance of its order or 
mode of designation." (p. 59.)* Be it so; at least a u-ee7t-/y Sab- 
bath is by this admitted as an integral part of the law; indeed a 
^'weekly period" is very shortly afterward expressly asserted by 
J. N. B. to be "re^wrrecZby the Decalogue." (p. 60.) And he has 
before informed us that a "weekly Sabbath, rather than one 
oftener or more seldom, is not of itself obvious F' (p. 15.) A 
happy description of his "moral law !" " 3Ioral precepts," says 
Bishop Butler, " are precepts, the reason of which we see. 
Moral duties arise out of the nature of the case itself, prior to 
external command." {Anal. P. ii. ch. 1.) If, as J. N. B. con- 
tends, the Sabbath is obligatory because commanded by the 
Decalogue, then can it by no possibility be a moral law If 

■5^ " I suppose it to be unreasonable to say that although the seventh 
day is not moral, yet that one day is — or at least that some time be 
separate is moral ; for, that one day in seven should be separate can have 
no natural, essential, and congenite reason, any more than one in ten or 
one in six : for as it does not naturally follow that, because God ceased 
from the creation on the seventh day, therefore ice must keep that holy 
day, so neither could we have known it without revelation ; and there- 
fore what follows from hence must be by positive constitution." Bish- 
op Taylor. [Duct. Duhitant. B. ii. ch. 2, rule vi. 51.) 

•j- If I " can set aside the moral nature of the fourth commandment," 



128 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The ceremonial parallel proclaimed by Jesus. 

To the plain intimations I have produced from the teachings 
of Jesus, that the fourth commandment was merely ritual (as 
•where he justified the Sabbath-reaping on the ground of hun- 
ger), J. N. B. replies: "My friend must be hard driven for 
evidence when he infers from the case of David eating the 
shew-bread, a perfect parallel between the two laws." {p. 64.) 
Hard driven indeed is he who attempts to evade the parallel- 
ism directly instituted by Jesus himself ! Its very essence 
was a common character of obligation. To cite the instance 
of an excusable breach of an ordinance, to vindicate a case where 
there was no breach, would truly form a pointless argument. 
No lesson from the Bible can be clearer than that both these 
actions were infractions of the literal statute; (see Levit. xxiv. 
9, xxii. 10; and Fxod. xvi. 23 ; Nch. xiii. 15) — that both were 
occasioned by the same "necessity;" — that both were held 
excusable on the same plea; — that both restrictions, in short, 
were vlolahle, and not moral ordinances. 

If by a strict construction, this "reaping" profaned the Sab- 
bath, so did the very duties of " the priests in the temple pro- 
fane the Sabbath ;"''' if, in obeying the requirements of the 

says J. N> B. [p. 66), " it will be an easy thing, by the same process, 
to set aside the fifth and seventh, not to say the sixth, eighth, ninth, 
and tenth. Facilis descensus Averni .'" 

Fer contra: says Dr. Gill, "The Sabbath law is not of a 'moral' 
nature," — otherwise "it could not have been dispensed with nor abol- 
ished, as it is in ]\Iat(. xii. 1—12 ; and Col. ii. 16, 17." [Body of Divin. 
vol. iii. B. iii. ch. 8.) " The observance of the Sabbath," says Bishop 
Warbubton, "is no more a natural duty than circumcision." [Div. 
Lega. B. iv. sec. 6, note.) " The fourth commandment," says Arch- 
bishop Whately, " is evidently not a 'moral,' but a < positive' precept." 
"The dogma of the 'Assembly of Divines at Westminster,' that the 
observance of the Sabbath is part of the moral law, is to me utterly 
unintelligible !" [E^ssays, v. note A. On the Suhballi.) Dijjicilis co7iscn- 
sus. 

"^ One evidence that the priests "profaned the Sabbath," will be 
seen by comparing Numb, xxviii. 10, with Fxod. xxxv. 3. As in the 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 129 

The Salibiith sidwrdinate to man : and therefore not " moral." 

temple-service, these priests were yet held "blameless/' Jesus 
was "greater than the temple/' and therefore better justified 
the "profanation/' if "mercy" be more acceptable to God 
than "sacrifice/' then is he "guiltless" who places human 
comfort above ritual observance. {Matt. xii. 3 — -7.)* 

But beyond all this, the Sabbath hsuhservientio man,yield- 
inoj to his emergencies : man is not subservient to the Sabbath, 
enchained by its exactions. This constitutes the very distinc- 
tion between moral and positive laws. Man ^s made "for the 
observance of the moral law. On the contrary, all ^positive' 
institutions were madeybr man." 

J. N. B. entitles the argument of Bishop Warburton a 
"specious fallacy" Q;. 65), but he does not venture to assail 
its positions. t He endeavors to obscure the distinction by a 

Cease of Sabbath circumcision, and of every other collision of laws, one 
regulation is necessarily set aside by another. 

* '< He that did ordain the Sabbath day, may also take away the 
Sabbath. And he that ordained the Sabbath, did ordain it for man's 
sake, and not contrariwise — man because of the Sabbath day. It is 
meet therefore that the keeping of the Sabbath day give place to the 
profit and commodity of man." Erasmus. [Paraphrase in loco.) 

f It is a matter for some gratulation to find such logicians as a Bax- 
ter, a Warburton, a Horsley, and a Whately, exactly coinciding in 
this " specious fallacy." Says Baxter : " It seemeth plainly to mean 
that, being but a positive latv, he had power to change it, and dispense 
with it, as well as with other positive and Mosaical laws." (Practical 
Works, vol. iii. On Lord's day. Appendix, ch. i.) Warburton re- 
marks — ^^ X\\ 2)ositive institutions were ' made for man,' for the better 
direction of his conduct in certain situations of life ; the observance of 
which is therefore to be regulated on the end for which they were in- 
stituted: for (contrary to the nature of TMom^ duties) the observance 
of them may, in some cii'cumstances, become hurtful to man for whose 
benefit they were instituted; and whenever this is the case, God and 
nature grant a dispensation." [Div. Leg. B. iv. sec. 6, note " rrrr.") 
Horsley argues upon the text, that " What is aflarraed of the Sabbath 
in these remarkable words, is equally true of all the ordinances of 
external worship .... We have our Lord's authority to say that tho 



130 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A " fallacy." The man ; and the law. A lame construction. 

paralogism, — by an application to the remote analogy of " the 
law of Marriage."* The answer is obvious : just so much of 
this kw as is really "moral" was not "made for man;" but 
man was made for it ; " the end of his creation being for the 
observance of the moral law." Just so much of "the law of 
Marriage" as is " positive" (as the legal form or ceremony, 
&c.) " teas made for man," and, like the Sabbath law, must be 
regulated entirely by circumstances. 

I have adverted to the "sad nonsense" made of this striking 
argument of Jesus, by my friend's previous construction. He 
has attempted to amend it, but with slight success ; and as he 
Bays " I submit to W. B. T. himself, whether there is any want 
of logical connection" in the construction {p. 66), I must in 
all candor say, I think it still a " most lame and impotent 
conclusion." The force of the declaration was not and could 
not be in the universaUtij of its first branch : it lay entirely in 
the antithesis, — in the contrasted subordination of the law and 
the man.f With my friend, I submit our respective exposi- 

observance of them is not itself the end for which man was created : 
man was not made for these. Of natui-al duties we affirm the contrary : 
the acquisition of that virtue which consists in the habitual love and 
practice of them is the very final cause of man's existence. These, 
therefore, are the things for which man was made : they were not made 
for him." [Sermons, serm. xxii. On the Sabbath.) And Whately, com- 
menting on the same sadly perverted. declaration of Jesus, says: " He 
evidently means, that though He made no pretensions to ^ dispensing 
power in respect of moral duties (man being made for them), positive 
ordinances, on the contrary, being 'made for man,' might be dispensed 
with, or abrogated by the same authority which established them ; viz. : 
by the divine authority which he claimed." [Essays, &c. v. A.) 

* '' Marriage,'" says Bishop Warburton, " is of a mixed nature ; in 
part a sacred ordinance, in part a human institution .... This dis- 
tinction is marked out to us by the nature of things ; and confirmed by 
laws divine and human .... It is a contract so virtually circumstanced 
as the laws of Religion ordain ; and &q formally executed as the laws of 
each particular society prescribe." [Sermons, serm. xvii.) 

f An exact translation of the sentence will pei'haps render this even 



L 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 131 

Sabbatarian Pharisees rebuked. The Sabbath's " Lord." Paul's declaration. 

tions to ''every unprejudiced mind.'' " This much perverted 
quotation/' says J. N. B. (modifying my remark), was not 
against " Sabbatarians/' but against "bigoted Pharisees !" — 
Still, as these bigoted Pharisees certainly were not Anti-sah- 
hatarians, its legitimate force was against almost "the straitest 
sect" of Sabbatarians, by my friend's admission ! and "hon- 
esty requires that it should not be employed for an opposite 
purpose." 

But Jesus was "Lord of the Sabbath." These words im- 
port something vastly more significant than that " his authority 
was paramount in settling the construction T' {p. 64.) Thus 
understood, " every trace of their glory vanishes." Jesus 
claimed to be " Lord" — not of the construction, but of the in- 
stituiion! and being its Sovereign, could acknowledge no al- 
legiance to it ! Lord "of a ' strictly ceremonial and Jewish 
institute !' " exclaims J. N. B. incredulously, (p. 67.) Yes, 
my friend, it was of all these ceremonial institutions that Jesus 
was pre-eminently '"'' LordV^ {Epli. ii. 15; Heb. ix. 9 — 11; 
Col. ii. 14.) 

I have quoted the express assertion of Paul, that "the Sab- 
bath days are a shadow;" reminding J. N. B. that he who 
affirms a limitation of its application must clearly prove it. He 
replies: "And I hope clearly to prove it thus. Paul is the 

more apparent ; — if such a thing indeed be possible. To a-ct.QQa.tov Iia 
Toy avQ^otfTTov gj/gveroj ovx^ o ayQ^uTrot 5'tct to a-aCQanv : " The Sabbath for the 
man was made, not the man for the Sabbath." How uttei-l}^ inexcusa- 
ble the version — the Sabbath was "designed, like all other moral laws, 
for the benefit of the whole race!" (p. 66.) To complete my friend's 
paraphrase, he should add — " and not the whole race — for the Sab- 
bath!" For the term "man" must certainly be as comprehensive on' 
the one side of the antithesis as on the other. He must be delighted 
with the following parallel: " Spectacles were made for man; not man 
for spectacles :" whence it is obvious that spectacles " were designed 
for the benefit of — the whoteracer As Gill well observes, "by ' man' 
is 7iot meant all mankind ; for the Sabbath was never appointed for all 
mankind, nor bindinj upon all." [Comment, on Mark ii, 27.) 



132 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A begging of the question. An appropriate self-reflection. 

servant of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ taught the perpetuity 
of the Decalogue, in even the least of its commandments, of 
which the Sabbath is one. This, therefore, was the doctrine 
of Paul!'' (p. 61.) No; — my friend, ?/o?i cannot prove it — 
"thus!" Paul's language directly contradicts your inference ! 
(see also 2 Cor. iii. 7 ; Heb. viii. 13.) Jesus did not teach 
" the perpetuity of the Decalogue ;" he taught exactly the op- 
posite ! {Matt. vii. 29; V. 21, 27; Mark ii. 28; xii. 29, 31; 
John V. 8, 17; 18 ; viii. 5, 7.) The assumption is a petitio 
principii 

Apparently dizzied and excited by the completeness of the 
circle he has traversed, J. N. B. exclaims: ''With what as- 
tonishment would Paul, if he were now among us hodiJy, behold 
an attempt to torture his language into a direct opposition to a 
fundamental doctrine of his Master ! What conceivable form of 
' wresting the Scriptures' could be more painful to his generous 
spirit ?" {p. 61.) Did I delight in declamation, I might per- 
haps make an appropriate application ; but I prefer confining 
myself to the argument. I feel it more agreeable to establish 
such an accusation than to assert it. 

Whenever Jesus, in the course of his teachings, had occasion 
to sum up the great leading principles of the natural or 
moral law {Matt. xix. 18—21 ; Mark x. 19 ; Luke x. 27, 28), 
that institution so venerated by the ritual Pharisees — " ' the 
pearl of da3'S,' the blessing of this world, and the beacon light 
of that which is to come," was always strangely or significantly 
passed by, without a single approving notice; while his very 
method of quotation seemed carefully designed to discredit any 
idea of the Decalogue being the compendium of morality.* 

* "The old custom," says Professor Stuart, "of deducing every 
duty either toward God or toward man, from these ten commandments, 
is unsatisfactory and inexpedient; unsatisfactory, because one must 
strain them beyond measure in order to malce them comprise every 
duty (and must therefore do violence to the laws of exegesis) ; — 
inexpedknt^ because if these ten commandments embrace all duty, then 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 133 

The Sabbath discarded from the moral teachings of Jesus aud the Apostles. 

In that mountain sermon, so remarkable for the comprehen- 
siveness of its moral application, we hear no intimation of the 
necessity of keeping six days less holy than the seventh ! 
In the corresponding summaries we occasionally find in the 
Epistles, there is the same impressive silence concerning that 
*' safeguard of virtue, that glory of religion, that pillar and 
prop of society,' ' — the holy Sabbath ! (^Rom. xiii. 7 — 9 ; 
James i. 27 ; ii. 10, 11); while, on the other hand, in all the 
catalogues of crime and unholiness, we meet with no allusion to 
that dark profanity ^^ Sahhatli-hrealchuj T' (1 Cor. v. 11; vi. 
9, 10; Gal V. 19—21; 1 Tim. i. 9, 10.) What moral law 
has been or could be so neglected throughout the Christian 
Scriptures ? AVhat moral delinquency has been, or could be 
so wholly unrebuked ? (2 Tim. iii. 17.) '' Methinks,'' says 
BuNYAN, " that Christ Jesus and his apostles do plainly 
enough declare this very thing : that when they repeat unto 
the people or expound before them the moral law, they quite 
exclude the seventh-day Sabbath : yea, Paul makes that law 
complete without it !" (^Dis. on tlie Seventli-day Sabbath: 
ques. ii.) 

" I take it for granted,^' says my friend (p. 56), "that two 
men of average intelligence and candor, with the same sources 
of evidence open before them, could not come to such opposite 

is the rest of the Pentateuch which comprises statutes that are a rule 
of duty, either more or less superfluous, and might well be spared. 
The argument that these commands are j^c^pc^ual because they were 
'engraven in stone,' will not weigh much with any one who knows 
that all important laws of ancient times were engraven on stone or 
metal, in order that they might be both a public and a lasting monu- 
ment of what the legislative power required- . . . It is plain 
from a bare inspection of these ten commandments that they comprised, 
and were designed to comprise, only the leading and most important 
maxims of piety and morality. To deduce more from them than thisy 
is to force on them a construction which they will not fairly bear." 
(Hebrew Chresiomalhy, part ii. no. 27, Notes, p. 146,) 

12 



134 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The " moral and ceremonial confounded." Authority — conclusire. 

conclusions on a question like this, unless the question was 
complicated with circumstances that tend to confound moral 
and ceremonial distinctions/^ I think this is clear; and I 
think it equally clear that the ^'negative'' is entitled to "the 
benefit of the doubt/' It is conceivable that persons of the 
highest intelligence and candor should, through the resistless 
influence of early and continuous training, come to consider 
ritual observances as of inviolable obligation (/or this toe some- 
times see) ; — but it is not conceivable that the wise and good 
should ever be led by " some mistaken view of Christian lib- 
erty," to deny a moral obligation ; — for this would be to over- 
throw its fundamental definition. Accordingly " if a thousand 
Christian divines of the highest distinction, with Luther and 
Calvin at their head, were to 'break it and to teach men so,' " I 
claim that this would be decisive as to its "moral" character; — 
that no amount of counteracting evidence could weigh a feather 
in the balance; however clearly it might establish the perpet- 
ual ohligation of the law. Here is an issue, where " authority" 
is final. If therefore I can produce the concurrent sentiment 
of the most venerated and profound of the Christian Fathers* 
— of the most devoted and illustrious of the early reformers 
— of the most popular and brilliant of modern Ecclesiastical 
writers — then have I more than established my " Second 
Proposition," apart from the conclusive testimony I have 
adduced from both the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. 

W. B. T. 

* iKENiEUS [adv. //a?r. lib, iv. c. 30, 31); Tebtullian [de Idolat. 
lib. iii.); Cyprian {ad Quirin. c. 59, and c. 1 de exhort. Martyr.); Origen 
i^Hom. viii. in Ex. lib. 15) ; Augustine {contr. Faust, c. 4, 7); &c., ex- 
pressly afi&rm that the Sabbath law was purely ceremonial and no 
part of the moral law. And such indeed was the pervading opinion 
of all antiquity. "The Fathers," says Calvin, "frequently call it a 
s%adowy commandment, because it contains the external observance of 
the day, which was abolished with the rest of the figures at the advent 
of Christ." {Instit. lib. ii. c. 7.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 135 



A PharLsaic construction" — inadmissible. Contemporary exposition. 



PART III. 

" The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord 
made not this covenant with our fathers, but vriih us — even us, who 
are all of us here alive this day." — Deuteroxomt v. 2 — 15. 

" Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." — 
Jeremiah xxxi. 31. 

<'In that he saith, aneio covenant, he hath made the first old. Now 
that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." — 
Hebrews viii. 13. 



\ 



III. The exemplari/ violation of the Sahhath. 
I MOST fully concur with mj friend in the gravity of the 
"Third Proposition." Most thoroughly do I recognize the 
truth, that its statement, " if not sustained, demands profound 
regret and public retraction !" (p. 68.) Let him rest assured, 
he shall have it ! The Proposition (as correctly announced 
by J. N. B.) " is built upon the construction of the word 
^ work' in the fourth commandment." But when he attempts 
to modify the legal restriction by the word " unnecessary," I 
promptly check him. This "is to adopt a Pharisaic construc- 
tion." Our civil judges, " learned in the law," have not yet 
agreed upon the exact meaning of this term. No such 
standard of interpretation as may be adjusted by the uncertain 
and ever varying judgment of individual expediency, is admis- 
sible here. "We have a more sure word of prophecy;" and 
to the letter and the spirit of the Mosaic law shall I strictly 
confine my friend. 

Of all means of determining the " intent of the lawgiver," 

and consequently the application of the law, contemporary 

exposition has ever been justly held the most decisive. When, 

therefore, we discover the import of the prohibition " in it thou 

• shalt not do any work," — by adjudged cases or illustrative 

~' exhortations (as in Exod. xvi. 23; xxxv. 3; xvi. 29 ; Numb. 



136 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The violation of an explicit command — not to be evaded. 

XV, 32 ', Amos viii. 5 ; IsaL Iviii. 13 ; Jerem. xvii. 21, 22 ; 
JSfeh. X. 31 ; xiii. 19), then have we — so far as these cases ap- 
ply — an authoritative and final decision as to the requirements 
of the fourth commandment. No sophistry can evade it. 

I have shown, by a comparison of John v. 8 with Jer. xvii. 
21, that Jesus ostentatiously violated the fourth commandment. 
The fact stands unshaken and inevitable.* The only evasion 
aUemj^tcdhj J. N. B. is that " the poor man's bed was evidently 
nothing but (Jxrahhatoii) a small portable couch or mattress, 
such as travellers carried about with them !" {p. 64.) When 
my friend discovers " the chapter and verse" by which '' krah- 
hato^ are excepted from the command : '' Thus saith the 
Lord, take heed to yourselves and bear no burden on the 
Sabbath-day," his suggestion will deserve a reply. 

So studiously did Jesus endeavor to wean the Jewish vene- 
ration for the Sabbath, so studiousli/ did he seek occasion 
practically to deny its sanctity, that it would appear most of 
his miraculous cures were performed on that day;f insomuch 
that the synagogue ruler " said unto the people, there are six 
days in which men ought to ' work ;' in them, therefore, come 
and be healed, and not on the Sabbath-day." (LuJce xiii. 14. )J; 
Publicly and studiousif/ did Jesus call attention to the fact of 
his doing " work" on that day : he did not " speak the word," 

* "He requires hun to do that on the Sabbath which was contrary 
to the letter of the Law, to show" that he was a prophet, who by their 
own rules had power to require ivhat was contrary/ to the ceremonial 
rest of the Sabbath." Whitby. [Annotations, in loco.} 

f "Though he frequently judged proper to conceal his miracles," 
says Athanasius, "yet when the miracle was done on the Sabbath, 
then he ' worked' most openly. So that his most wonderful miracles 
seem to have been wrought on the Sabbath-day." 

% Indeed the people themselves appear generally to have been so 
far regardful of the sanctity of the day, as to delay presenting their 
diseased friends to Jesus till the setting sun announced the Sabbath 
fully over. (See Mark i. 32 ; Luke iv. 40.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 137 

The proclamation — " I tvork." Testimony of John — decisive. 

but he " made clay," he '* anointed the eyes," he ordered 
" washing" for the blind. By word and by deed he solemnly 
proclaimed, "I work !" His very claim of being "Lord of 
the Sabbath" fully establishes the fact of its violation. How- 
could he exercise " lordship" over the institution except by 
resisting its control? If his authority were his vindication, 
it certainly could not have been a vindication of his obedience 
to the law ! 

The " surprise" formerly expressed at this " charge" of vio- 
lation has been modified by my friend, to the exclusion of 
those " Pharisaic Jews" — " who had murder in their hearts." 
(p. 67.) He will have to modify it still further. '' That 
disciple whom Jesus loved'^ has expressly asserted that his 
Master "broke the Sabbath !"-" But Jesus answered them, 
* My Father worketh hitherto, and / work !' Therefore the 
Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had 
broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, 
making himself equal with Grod." (John v. 17, 18.) " A 
Pharisaic construction" will not here avail my friend. His 
last refuge is taken away. It was not the false accusation of 
" making himself equal with God -," it was not the false 
accusation of having " broken the Sabbath 3" it was the 
avowed and unquestioned truth, in both cases, that stirred up 
" murder in the hearts" of these Sabbath-keeping Pharisees. 
I trust that this solemn declaration will be received as a satisfac- 
tory answer to the former query : " Can any man in his sober 
senses believe such a proposition ?" (p. 16.) A far more startling 
question presents itself: Where would J. N. B. have been 
found in that day, with his present views of Sabbath obligation ? 
Holding that this law " was certainly binding on the Jews, of 
whom our Lord was one according to the flesh,"* and that 
" every Jew, including Jesus himself, was then bound by it," 

* " Simply as man, Christ himself was ' made under the law.' [Gal. 
iv. 4.) But as the Messiah, who is also son of God, he has power over 

12* 



138 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A solemn consideration. Archbishop Whately's " indorsement." 

I see not how be could possibly escape the conclusion: "This 
man is not of God because he keepeth not the Sabbath-day V 
{John ix. 16.)* In vain would " the Son of man" claim to be 
^' Lord of the Sabbath.'^ By my friend's account, he could 
only be Lord of the construction ! (p. 64.) If so, how sub-' 
versive that construction ! I still expect, however, from the 
candor of my friend, an admission that the Proposition under 
proof is not " calumnious," and that it is not *' false !" 

J. N. B. " acquits" Paley of having indorsed this " Third 
Proposition." (^p. 67.) Considering that this writer does not 
even advert to the subject, this acquittal is very liberal, and 
very — -just ! If, however, my friend attaches any importance 
to the indorsement of so irrefragable a fact, by a "professedly 
Christian writer," I am happy to present him with that of 
" one of the first scholars and soundest thinkers in Great 
Britain" — Archbishop Whately : " It will be plainly seen," 
says he, " on a careful examination of the accounts given by 
the evangelists, that Jesus did decidedly and avowedly violate 
the Sahbatli ; on purpose, as it should seem, to assert in this 
way his divine authority." — {^Essays, No. v. note A. On the 
Sahhath.^ 

IV. Tlte silence of the New Testament Scrij^tures. 

The solitary passage previously quoted by my friend (1 Tim. 
i. 9 — 11), to impeach the " Fourth Proposition," is still re- 
tained, (p. 68.) At his request, I have given the chapter a 
careful and repeated examination, and with the assistance of 

all these outicard ordinances. . . He may say when the 'shadow' 
shall give place to the substance." Trench. {Notes on the 31iracles: 
chap. 19.) 

■^ The syllogism is simple, and invulnerable ! 

Minor premise : — Jesus " not only had broken the Sabbath, but said 
also that God was his Father." (A Bible asserted fact !) 

3Iajor premise : — "If he did thus violate it, he was guilty of sin P^ 
(J. N. B.jP. 16.) 

Conclusion: — Therefore "this man is not of God T 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 139 

Opposite conclusions from 1 Tim. i. The ivhole Law under cli!-~cussion. 

the best expositors within my reach. Still I can see nothing 
in the passage of what appears to J. N. B. so obvious, — a re- 
ference to the Decalogue ; nor anything to warrant his conclu- 
sions : "1. That the Decalogue is recognized as the moral 
standard ;" and " 2. That Sahhath-hreaTcers are certainly in- 
cluded among * the ungodly and profane.' " It is perhaps a 
singular fact } but the more I have considered the text, the 
more directly oppo^te have been my convictions on both these 
points. Still, as I have no wish to deprive my friend of its 
just force, I submit it to the candid and intelligent, without 
argument. I doubt not he has, in this quotation, done the 
best possible ; but I see no reason for modifying my first re- 
ception of it. 

V. Tlie formal Abrogation of the Sahhatli at Jerusalem. 

The original objection to my '' Fifth" conclusion was that 
tlie controversy before the Jerusalem Council was " restricted 
to the Jewish ceremonial law." {p. 18.) The fourth com- 
mandment, being clearly proved to be a '^ Jewish ceremonial 
law," falls necessarily within the admitted consideration of 
the Apostolic convention, and consequently (as before re- 
marked) within the class of observances rejected as unneces- 
sary for the Grentile Christian. 

To meet, however, the entire question involved, and to 
place the investigation on its broadest grounds, I showed, by 
the very proceedings of the council, that the great subject 
presented for adjudication ''was evidently the wliole 'Law of 
Moses,' and the extent of its obligation." My friend, after 
assenting to this by the emphatic "Precisely so" (p. 71), 
seems desirous of excepting " the Decalogue !" {p. 73.) To 
which I simply reply, that the Mosaic law is never once 
alluded to in the New Testament, as excluding the Decalogue.* 

* The application of Bistop Middleton's learned canons of criti- 
cism respecting the use of the Greek article settles this qnestion deci- 
sively. My friend J. N. B. tinds it convenient to his argument some- 
times to wholly exclude the Decalocjue from the " Law of Moses" 



140 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Decalogue — " distinctive of Judaism." 

The texts he has cited (Acts. xxi. 20 — 25; Beh. x. 28) are 

most certainly not exceptions to this statement. 

In the present instance, it may be observed that the prac- 
tical controversy being admitted by J. N. B. to "include 
what was distinctive of Judaism'^ (p. 73), the Decalogue — as 
a code — was actually as ''distinctive" as any other portion of 
the Jewish law.* " Throughout all history, we discover no 
trace of ' the Decalogue,' among the nations of antiquity.^' 
Nay, two of its provisions (the second and fourth command- 
ments) were unknown to the moral law of the Romans. f Of 
these two '' distinctive" precepts, the former was expressly 
enjoined upon the Gentile Church by the Council, while the 
latter was as expressly rejected by its decisive silence. Two 
other prohibitions of the Mosaic law (Exod. xxii. 16; and 
Levit. xvii. 12) were conjoined with this one selected from the 
Decalogue. The " seventh commandment" I do not conceive 
to have been involved in this re-enactment any more than the 
sixth commandment, or the eighth. Of these three require- 
ments, gleaned from the '' wIloIc ' Law of Moses,' " two are 
in modern ethics ''moral" precepts, the other a "positive" one. 
I am " compelled to admit," says J. N. B., " that the obvious 
reason why these two points of the moral law were at all re- 
ferred to, was that they were the only ones likely to be trans- 

(see pp. 18, 73), and at other times to exclude all but the Decalogue! 
(seep. 58.) 

^ " The Decalogue was but part of the Jeivish law, if you consider 
it not as written in Nature, but in tables of stone ; and the Jewish law 
was given as a law to no other people but to them. So that even in 
Moses's days it bound no other nations of the world. Therefore it 
needed not any abrogation to the Gentiles, but a declaration that it 
did not bind them." — (Baxter's Works, vol. iii. On the Lord's Day, 
chap, vii.) 

f Thus, the Roman Emperor .Julian (as has already been noticed) 
expressly mentions these two precepts as peculiar to the Jewish law ; 
and quotes the remaining precepts of the Decalogue as recognized and 
enforced by all nations. (See ante, p. 118.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 141 

No Gentile Sabbath: and no Sabbath imposed by tlio Jerusalem Council. 

gressed by those just emancipated from the Roman Paganism/' — 
" not perceiving that it ruins my argument." (^. 73.) I con- 
fess that this is strictly true. So far from it, I perceive that 
the "admission" is the very hulwark of my argument. It 
was precisely because these "two points" were not enjoined by 
the Fay an moral law that their special enactment was neces- 
sary. Though not probably individually controverted before 
the Jerusalem Council, they were as really an integral ^^ part 
of the Jaw in dispute" (that is, as really " distinctive of 
Judaism" for the persons addressed) as circumcision itself !* 
My friend, as a classical scholar, must be fully aware of this. 

"What then is the relation of the fourth commandment to the 
Gentile Christian ? The perspicuous answer is contained in 
two irrefutable propositions: 1st. The "Sabbath" most cer- 
tainly was not obligatory by any Gentile law (my friend's 
" mistake in fact," notwithstanding), and 2dly, the " Sabbath" 
as certainly was not made obligatory by the Jerusalem edict. 
The Roman converts, after learning that but three things of 
"the law of Mpses" had been enjoined upon them as "neces- 
sary things," would at once have rejected as an absurdity any 
imposition of the 3Iosaic Sabbath upon their consciences. As 
well might the obligation of Circumcision have been asserted. 

A PersiuSj a Martial, or a Seneca would have asked in 
astonishment : " How could the Council possibly omit an 
observance that we regard so peculiarly ' distinctive of Juda- 
ism,' and that was therefore one of the most prominent of 
those in controversy, if it was intended still to be a 'necessary 
thing V " My friend would find it difficult to give a satis- 
factory reply. He has not yet "done with the Fifth Proposi- 

* Grotius {Comment, in Act. xv. 20), CuRCELLiEus [Diatrih. siqyr. 
laud. c. 10), and Salmasius [De trapezit. fcenor.), all agree that the 
reason why these three restrictions and no others, were imposed by 
the apostles, -was that they were the only ones judged necessary for 
observance, which admitted of dispute between the Jews and the 
Gentiles, from the diversity of their systems. 



142 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

An Antinomian objection. Paul's decisive reply. 

tion." (p. 76.) He must either frankly admit its truth, — or, 
as the only alternative, he must point out the " chapter and 
verse" which re-enacts the fourth commandment for Gen- 
tiles ! One of these courses I have a right to demand from a 
candid disputant. 

But it is here advanced by my friend, as a comprehensive 
and conclusive objection, that if the Sabbath law be assumed 
to be abolished, because not included among the " necessary 
things,'' by the same argument, ''all the ten commandments, 
except the first and seventh, are abrogated. That is to say, 
profaneness towards God, disobedience to parents, lying, rob- 
bery, and murder, are no longer sins under the Christian dis- 
pensation ! And this, then, is the ' liberty wherewith Christ 
has made us free !' " {p. 74.) 

I am bound to suppose the objection a candid one, and not 
a mere rhetorical flourish ; though I must confess it is one 
well calculated to surprise. If this appears to J. N. B. a fair 
inference from the premises, I can only lament that, in his 
application of principles which are incontrovertible gospel 
truths^ he should fraternize so marvellously with those Anti- 
nomians, whose doctrines he formerly pronounced " most 
frightful." {p. 18.) To such reasoners, I know of no more 
pertinent nor decisive reply than that of Paul : "What then? 
Shall we sin, because ' loe are not under the Laiv,' but under 
grace ? God forbid ! Know ye not, that to whom ye yield 
yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are, to whom ye 
obey? .... Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become 
dead to the Law — hy the hody of Christ ; that ye should be 
married to another, even to him who is raised/rom the dead." 
" Ye are not under the Law, but under Grace." 

I might remind J. N. B. that the Gentiles already had a 
law more binding than the Decalogue, prohibiting these crimes 
(Eom. ii. 14); and that to re-enact it on an occasion like this, 
when it was not even disputed, would have been a simple ab- 
surdity. I might convict him by his own language, that the 



MR. TAYLOR* S SECOND REPLY. 143 

The repeal of " all the ten commandments" — indififerent. 

burden complained of by the Gentiles " can only include what 
was distinctive of Judaism. It cannot include that law of God 
which He has promised to 'put into the hearts' of his people.'' 
(p. 73.) 

And suppose it were conceded that "all the ten command- 
ments, not excepting the first and seventh, are abrogated !" 
What then ? Can this repeal a law, thousands of years older ? 
Can the absolute destruction of the Mosaic tables disturb "one 
jot or one tittle" of that code inscribed by "the Spirit of the 
living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the 
heart ?" Alas ! " to what absurd results will wrong theories 
lead intelligent men !" Is my friend so hopelessly "entangled 
in the yoke of bondage" to Sinai, that he can see no other 
"stand-point" in the universe excepting "frightful" Anti- 
nomianism ? Has he never read that his vaunted Decalogue 
was a "ministration of death" — "added because of transgres- 
sions, till the Seed should come" — " the mediator of a better 
covenant?" That this covenant of Horeb, so far from being 
"faultless," " made nothing perfect," and, therefore, " decayed" 
and "vanished away" before a grander code, and "the bringing 
in of a better hope ?" Is it necessary to remind one who has 
studied the Bible for " thirty years," that the moral precepts 
of the New Testament include everything valuable in the old, 
and much more? That, there being "made of necessity a 
change of the Law," there is " a disannulling of the command- 
ment going before," and those "no longer under that law," 
are consequently ^' not icithout law to God, but under the 
law to Christ?" That they "are his disciples indeed" — not 
" who desire to be under the law" of Sinai — but who "con- 
tinue in his word," and "keep his commandments?" 

Alas ! how difierent are the conclusions of the apostle, from 
the Antinomian reasonings of J. N. B. ! How irreconcilably 
oj^posite their " stand-points !" My friend appears not yet to 
have learned that. his whole Christian duty is to "fulfil the law 
of Christ;" and that, if the Decalogue "was given by Moses, 



144 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



The Decalogue dead as a " rule of obligation." 



grace and truth came by Jesiis/^ This is " the liberty where- 
with Christ hath made us free;" even a '^perfect law of 
liberty V 

If that ^^ministration of death, written and engraven in 
stones/' however glorious once, is now completely ^^ done awaif^ 
(2 Cor. iii. 7); if "now we are delivered from the law, that 
being rZeac?/" — (even that code which said "Thou shalt not 
covet," Rom. vii. 6, 7) — then has its authority utterly and 
forever ceased. It is not as a " covenant of life" (p. 18), it is 
not as a "ground of justification," that it has become incom- 
petent; for this, Paul tells us, it ever was. {Rom. iii. 20; 
Gal. iii. 11, 21.) It is as a "ride of moral obligation" that 
the Decalogue has become henceforth irrevocably "dead!"* 

* " Now let us adopt the obvious interpretation of the Apostle's 
•words," says Whatbly, "and admit the entire abrogation, according 
to him, of the Mosaic law ; concluding that it was originally designed 
for the Israelites alone, and that its dominion over them ceased when 
the Gospel system commenced ; and we shall find that this concession 
does not go a step towards establishing the Antinomian conclusion, 
that moral conduct is not required of Christians. For it is evident 
that the natural distinctions of right and wrong which conscience 
points out, must remain where they were. These distinctions, not 
having been introduced by the Mosaic law, cannot, it is evident, be 
overthrown by its removal. . . . Before the comiuandments to do no 
murder, and to honor one's parents, had been delivered from Mount 
Sinai, Cain was cursed for killing his brother, and Ham for dishonor- 
ing his father ; which crimes, therefore, could not cease to be such, 
at least as any consequence of the abolition of that law. Nor need 
it be feared that to proclaim an exemption from the Mosaic law should 
leave men without any moral guide, and at a loss to distinguish right 
and wrong ; since, after all, the light of reason is that to which every 
man must be left, in the interpretation of that very law. So far, con- 
sequently, from the moral precepts of the Law being to the Christian 
necessary as a guide to his judgment in determining what is right and 
wrong, on the contrary, this moral judgment is necessary to determine 
what are the moral precepts of Moses. ... It is not because they 
are commandments of the Mosaic law that he is bound to obey them, 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 145 

The Chri.-tian t^tandard. A false issue attempted. 

" Wc are not under the Law." ''Now we know that what 
tbiniis soever the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the 
Law." He, therefore, who, to sustain a Christian duty, is 
driven to some Exod. xx., or Levit. xix., or Deut. v., may 
well suspect himself of being wnse above that which is written. 

J, N. B. has attempted a kind of diversion (p. 76), by cit- 
ing a few Patristic writers (including the apocryphal "Bar- 
nabas"*), to prove that Sunday was commemorated by the 
early Christians. f A single word is sufficient reply : — Wholly 
irrelevant! This point has never been disputed. The ques- 
tion under discussion has no reference whatever to a icorship- 

but because they are moral. Indeed, there are numerous precepts — in 
the laws, for instance, of Solon and Mahomet — from a conformity to 
which no Christian can pretend to exemption ; yet no one would say 
that a part of the Koran is binding on Christians." [Essays on Paul. 
Essay v.) 

■^ Although this Epistle most probably belongs to the second century 
rather than to the first, whatever historical interest or doctrinal 
authority attaches to it, must be claimed decidedly by the Anti-sabba- 
tarian. While there is nothing in it which favors Sabbatarianism (even 
by implication), it contains the following very explicit passage : 
" 'Your new-moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot 
away with ; it is iniquity, even the solemn meetings ; your new-moons 
and appointed feasts my soul hateth.' These things, therefore, hath God 
abolished, that the new law of our Lord .Jesus Christ, which is without 
the yoke of any such necessity, might have the spiritual offering of 
men themselves." Barxab. ii. 8. {Wake's Translation.) 

f " The first Christians assembled for the purposes of divine wor- 
ship, in private houses, in caves, and in vaults. Their meetings were 
on the first day of the week ; and in some places they assembled also 
upon the seventh, which was celebrated by the Jews. Many also 
observed the fourth day of the week, on which Christ was betrayed ; 
and the sixth, which was the day of his crucifixion. The hour of the 
day appointed for holding these religious assemblies varied according 
to different times and circumstances of the church ; but it was ge7ie- 
rally in the evening after sunset, or in the morning before the dawn." 
MosHEiM. [Church History, cent, ii, part ii. chap. iv. sec. 8.) 
13 



146 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

An improper coloring of evidence. Church History— anti-sabhatarian. 

day ; it is the Scriptural authority for a " Sabbath-day/^ — a 
dsLj Dlvineli/ appointed, m which "thou shalt not do any 
workP^^ Why then has my friend ventured upon this false 
issue ? 

When, however, suddenly reverting from this, he drops the 
point really attested, and assuming the true question as there- 
by confirmed, complacently sums up : " The only thing ' burden- 
some' would be to quote all their various expressions of devout 
recognition of the Christian Sabbath" (p. 76), he is chargeable 
with coloring his evidence ! Not one of his witnesses says a 
word in "recognition of the Sabbath;" and almost all of them 
do testify clearly and strongly against the obligation of the 
Sabbath! Let him assume the slight "burden" of quoting 
one of the early " Fathers," recognizing the obligation of the 
fourth commandment, or expressly designating Sunday " the 
Sabbath," and he will have contributed something in support 
of his assumption. Such an appeal he has very prudently 
avoided. Such an authority (in " devout recognition of the 
Sabbath") he will find it a truly " burdensome" task to discover. 

The true " Scriptural view is confirmed in the clearest man- 
ner by Ecclesiastical History." The leading Fathers all 
speak of the fourth commandment as abrogated. As the 
Bishop of Lincoln remarks {Account of Justin Martyr, p, 96, 
97): "The admission of Gentiles into the Church was 
quickly followed by the controversy respecting the necessity of 
observing the Mosaic ritual. . . . One consequence of which 
was that the converts, whether Jew or Gentile, who believed 
that the injunctions of the ceremonial law were no longer ob- 
ligatory, soon ceased to observe the Sabbath." 

EusEBius — the father of Church History — affirms the early 
Christian practice, most decisively : he says that, as the pa- 

■^' "It is evident that, in the lirovisions of the fourth commandment, 
God did not enjoin the exercise of any religious devotion, but merely 
a corporeal rest.'" Spencer. (De Leg. Ilcb. lib. i. cap. iv. sect. 9.) 



MR. Taylor's second RErLY. 147 

EusEBius. Socrates. The Protestant Reformers. 

triarchs "did not regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath, 
neither do ice. . . . Such things as these do not belong to 
Christians," (^Ilist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. 4.) 

The Church historian Socrates Scholasticus, in treating of 
this Jerusalem Council, observes : " Notwithstanding there are 
some who, disregarding this, . . . contend about holy days, as 
if it were for their lives; they invert the commands of God, 
and make laws for themselves, not valuing the decree of the 
Apostles ; nor do they consider that they practise the contrary 
to those things which ^seemed good' to God." (^Ilist. Ecd. lib. 
V. cap. 22.) 

Our most eminent Reformers, Luther, Melancthon, 
Cranmer, Tyndale, Calvin, &c., all agree that the fourth 
commandment is not obligatory upon Christians. In the 
celebrated "Augsburg Confession of Faith," drawn up by 
Luther, Melancthon, and other distinguished " Protestants," 
it is explicitly held: "The Scripture has abrogated the Sah- 
hath, teaching that all Mosaic ceremonies may be omitted since 
the gospel has been preached." Calvin, in his " Institutes," 
equally explicitly announces that the fourth commandment 
" i^rts aholished with the rest of the figures at the advent of 
Christ." It would, indeed, be "burdensome to quote all their 
various expressions of devout rejection of the Sabbath." It 
is clear (as strong-minded Bunyan maintains in his Essay on 
the Sahhath), that, " when the service or shadow and cere- 
monies of the seventh-day Sabbath fell, the seventh-day Sah- 
ia^/t/eZnikewise." (quest, v.)* 

* J. N. B. is evidently reluctant to part company with the illustrious 
author of " The Pilgrim's Progress," and says, with admirable gravity, 
"he really is on my ground, as any one may see who reads him with 
proper attention." [p. 70.) Since Bunyan founds his able argument 
for a Christian worship-day on the unco7iditional abolition of the fourth 
cuinmandmcnt, if " he really is on my friend's ground," I tender .J. N. B. 
my most hearty congratulation on his adoption of the true " Scriptural 
view." I expect him accordingly to indorse the following : " As for 



148 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Spencer. The Epistolary allusions uniformly Anti sahljatarian. 

'^ From all these things/' says Spencer, " it is most clearly 
apparent that the fourth commandment was adapted solely to 
the circumstances of the Mosaic economy, and bound the 
Jews alone, held under the tutorship of the law ; and that 
they are egregiously (I will not say ridiculously) mistaken, 
who maintain that we are bound to a Clivhtlan Sahhath (as it 
is called), wholly devoted to rest and the duties of religion, 
by the authority of the fourth commandment !" (Z^e Leg. 
Ileh. Rit. lib. i. cap. iv. sect. 13.) 

W. B. T. 



PART IV. 

" Tell me, ye that desire to be under ' the Law,' do ye not hear the 
Law ? For it is written that Abraham had two sons ; the one by a 
bond-maid, the other by a free woman." — Galatiaxs iv. 21, 22. 

" Israel, which followed after the Law of righteousness, hath not 
attained to the Law of righteousness." — Romans ix. 31. 

"We which have believed do enter into resty — (Hebrews iv. 3.) 
"For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that 
belicveth." — Romans x. 4. 



VI. The 'provuioRol nature iiniformli/ ascrihed to the Sah- 
hath in the sichsequent Epistles. 

Closely connected with the preceding " Proposition," and 

the seventh-day Sabbath, that, as we see, is gone to its grave with the 

signs and shadows of the Old Testament The first day of the 

week is the Christian's market-day ; that which they so solemnly trade 
in for soul provision for all the week following. This is the day that 
they gather manna in. To be sure, the seventh-day Sabbath is not 
that ; for of old the people of God could never find manna on that 

day I conclude that those Gentile professors that adhei-e 

thereto are Jewified, legalized, and so far gone back from the authority 
of God, who /rom such bondages has set his churches free." — [Essay on 
the Sabbath, ques. v.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 149 

No possible evasion of the Epistle to the Colnssicnis. 

•irresistibly confirming it, is the view taken of the Sabbath in the 
Epistles written after the decision of the Jerusalem Council. 
It is a striking and instructive fact that, while these Scriptures 
repeatedly refer to the Sabbath, they do not once refer to it in 
commendation of its observance or in recognition of its authori- 
ty ; and they do distinctly and uniformly refer to it as a ful- 
filled and evanescent symbol. 

" It may seem a waste of time and strength," says J. N. B., 
^'to examine this last Proposition minutely, after what has 
been said already." (p. 77.) I agree with him in thinking 
that every efibrt to dislodge this last and keystone wedge in 
my fabric of ''Propositions" will indeed prove '' a ivaste of 
time and strength I" From such a conviction, no doubt, he 
has permitted it to stand almost without an attempt to con- 
trovert it. His Reply betrays throughout its conscious weak- 
ness. 

One of the most perspicuous and decisive of these scriptural 
references is that adduced from the Epistle to the Colossians : 
^* Sabbath days are a shadow of things to come ; but the hodi/ is 
of Christ." The " rest" of the fourth commandment (com- 
memorating a release from bondage) was but a " provisional 
type" of the succeedmg dispensation, whose founder embodied 
the true Sabbatism into which believers enter. The resources, 
of evasion are here utterly at fault. No effort " more sub- 
stantial than assertion" has yet been made to show that the 
word " Sabbath" does not here "refer to the Sabbath !" And 
none can he ! The only glance afforded at this stubborn text, 
in my friend's Pteply, is, " We have searched for it [the 'pro- 
visional' character of the Sabbath] in the Epistle to the Colos- 
sians, and it is not there!" {p. 79.) Strange, that the very 
same sight which could so clearly discern " Sabbath" in 1 Tim. 
i. 9, can discover no trace of it in Col. ii. 16 ! Plow inex- 
plicable is the phenomenon of vision ! The Christian Fathers 
saw "Sabbath-symbolism" in this passage; but my friend can- 
not. Luther and Calvin both saw it clearly there ; but to 

13* 



150 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



The literal application, enforced by Milton: Baxter: I>ARRO^Y: Buntan. 



him it is invisible. Paley and Whately saw it there : but 
to him, alas ! " it is not there I" 

Says Milton : "' Whoever denies that under the words of 
the Apostle, ' in respect of an holy day, or of the new-moon, 
or of the Sahhath days,' the Sabbath of the fourth command- 
ment is comprehended, may as well deny that it is spoken of 
in 2 Cliron. ii. 4; or viii. 13; or xxxi. 3; from which pas- 
sages the words of Paul seem to be taken.'' (^Clirist. Doctrine^ 
Book ii. chap. 7.) 

Says Baxter unhesitatingly, this passage ^' meant the 
weekly Jewish Sabbath." {LonVs Daij, chap, v.) And he 
justly reproves those who would presume to except it from the 
apostle's rejection. ''This is to limit it without any proof 
from the word of God. When Grod speaks of 'Sabbaths' in 
general without exception, what is man that he should put ex- 
ceptions without any proof of authority from God ? By such 
boldness we may pervert all his laws. Yea, when it was the 
weekly Sabbath which was then principally known by the 
name of the Sabbath, it is yet greater boldness, without proof 
to exclude the principal part from whence the rest did receive 
the name !" {On the Lord's -Dcij/, chap, vii.) " What violence 
men's own wits must use in denying the 'evidence of so plain 
•a text ! Their reason that he saith not ' Sabbath,' but ' Sab- 
baths,' is against themselves ; the plural number being most 
comprehensive, and other Sabbaths receiving their name from 
this." {Ibid. Ajypendixj ch. i.) 

Says Barrow : " St. Paul himself is express in discharging 
Christians from the observation thereof, and in conjoining it 
with other ceremonial observances, whose nature was merely 
symbolical, and whose design was to continue no longer than 
till the real substance of that which they represented came 
into full force and practice. — Col. ii. 16, 17." {Works, vol. 
i. Exposition of Decalogue.^ 

Says BuNYAN, Paul " distinctly singleth out this Seventh 
day as that which was a noble shadow, a most exact shadow." 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 151 

Macknight. The Fourth Commandment exclusively referred to. 

" As he serveth other holy days, he serveth the Sabbath : he 
gives a liberty to believers to refuse the observation of it, and 
commands that no man should judge against them for their 
so doing. And, as you read, the reason of his so doing is be- 
cause the ' body,' the substance, is come. Christ, saith he, is 
the lodtj. Nor hath the apostle, one would think, left any 
hole out at which men's inventions could get : but man has 
sought out many; and so, many will he use I'"^ (^Essaij on the 
Sahbath, ques. iv.) 

Says Macknigiit, commenting on this text : " The ichoh 
Law of Moses being abrogated by Christ, Christians are under 
no obligation to observe any of the Jewish holidays — not even 
the seventh-day Sabbath." {Com. on Epi&tles, Col. ii. IG.) 

If my friend desires a broader issue than that already pre- 
sented, it may be confidently asserted that the term '' Sabbath 
days" in Col. ii. 16, not only inchules "the Sabbath of the 
Decalogue" (which is all that is necessary to the argument), 
but that it excludes all other Sabbaths if — that it refers to 
" the seventh day" of the fourth commandment, and to nothing 
else ! 1. The word has no other meaning in the New Testa- 
ment. J 2. This is always its meaning when associated with 

* " The passage quoted from Colossians refers not to the Sabbath 
of the Decalogue, but only to the ceremonial fasts and festivals of the 
Jews."— J. N. B. {ly. 18.) 

*« With what astonishment would Paul, if he were now among U3 
bodily, behold an attempt to torture his language into a direct opposi- 
tion to a fiuidamental doctrine of his Master? What conceivable 
form of ' tcrestinff the Scriptures' could be more painful to his generous 
spii'it?" J. N. B. {p. 61.) 

f " Thft Apostle here by 'Sabbaths' does not mean the first and last 
days of the great Jewish feasts, which were by them observed as 
Sabbaths, or the Sabbath of the seventh year, or of the year of 
jubilee ; but only or chiefly the tt-/?c% Sabbaths of the Jews." (Whitby, 
Comment, in loco.) 

J Even in those occasional instances where the word c-a^^aiov is 
used m a secondary sense as including the intervening space between 



152 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

No rebutting text to be found. The Epistle to the Galatians, unassailed. 

*Hhe new-moon/' 3. The weekly Sabbath was the pre-emi- 
nent distinction of the Jew, and therefore necessarily the one 
primarily condemned in Judaizing Christians. "Let no man 
therefore judge you . . . .in respect of an hoJj/ dai/, or of 
the new-moon, or of the Sabbath days." Volumes might be 
written in illustration and enforcement of this great "test 
quotation.'' Volumes could not abate one jot of its signifi- 
cance. 

The very liberal offer has been made to surrender "the 
whole argument icUhout reserve' on the " trifling discovery" 
of one text " half so explicit or unmistakable" on the Sabba- 
tarian side of the controversy. Though J. N. B. very frankly 
admits that he does not "anticipate^ such an unconditional 
surrender" (j9. 80), the confident tone he assumes might al- 
most lead one to hope that he had made the " discovery." If 
so, let him not hesitate to announce it. Let him remember 
that a single text is all that is asked : more than one might 
prove too overwhelming \ 

" Ye observe dai/s and months .'" said Paul, reprovingly, to 
the foolish G-alatians. Ye still regard with superstitious rever- 
ence the Sabbaths and the new-moons ; turning back to these 
" weak and beggarly elements," after being redeemed from 
bondage to the Mosaic law. " I am afraid of you, lest I have 
bestowed upon you labor in vain." In evasion of this, J. N. 
B. has nothing to say. His inventive genius seems para- 
lyzed. '^^ 

Sabbath and Sabbath, and properly translated "week" {Matt, xxviii. 
1 ; Luke xviii. 12, &c.), it is still the hebdomadal period that alone is 
referred to. 

* "The Jews," says Luther, commenting on this passage, "were 
commanded to keep holy the Sabbath day, the new-moons, &c. These 
ceremonies the Galatians were constrained hj false teachers to keep as 
necessary to righteousness." (Co7n. on Gal. in loco.) 

"That these words," observes Barrow, "relate generally to the 
Jewish festivals, the context doth plainly enough show, and there is 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 153 

Presumptive evidence from the H'brcivs. A future life— irrelevant. 

The fourth chapter of Hebrews has been referred to, as an- 
tecedently affording " a strong presumption" in favor of the 
figurative intent and transitory nature of the Sabbath. J. N. 
B., while accepting and approving my general construction, 
denies its main assumption, that the apostle here refers solely 
to an eartlily rest reserved for believers, as shown by the whole 
tenor of the dissertation. " On the contrary,^^ says he, "it is 
with perpetual reference to a future life.'' {p. 78.) He ap- 
pears to have formed " an inadequate conception of the con- 
text." 

It has been noticed that the great theme of this treatise is 
" the Levitical symbolism of the gospel." The natural inquiry 
of even the candid Jewish mind was, " How, if the Mosaic in- 
stitutes were of Divine original — the enactment of an immu- 
table God — could they ever be supplanted ?" And it was to 
meet this constantly recurring perplexity that this elaborate 
exposition was written for the Hebrew Christians. The topics 
of its remark would naturally be those which most required 
elucidation as to their spiritual import. The doctrine of a 
future life and a heavenly Canaan was as confidently received 
among the Essenes and the Pharisees as among the disciples 
of Jesus, and therefore a priori would not be likely to be 
specially illustrated here. It was the eartlihj ritual that 
formed the text; almost necessarily, it was the eartlihj ^-^va.- 
bolism that furnished the comment. Hence the apostle very 
properly declines considering "the resurrection of the dead" 
and the fu+ure award, as foreign to his purpose, {chap, vi.) 
Accordingly we find (just as we should expect to find) the oc- 

good reason to think that they chiefly respect the Sabbath we treat on, 
for which probably these men had the greatest respect and zeal." — 
[Expos, of Decalogue.) 

Indeed, as Gill has well remarked, there is nothing but the weekly 
Sabbath, to which the term "days" can here be with propriety re- 
ferred. {Comment, in loco.) The best expositors are unanimous in 
this application. 



154 ABROGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

A temporal "rest" alone consistent with the writer's design. 

casional allusions to the life hereafter wholly incidental, and 
with no bearing whatever on the train of argument involved. 
Thus the very allusion in cJiap. iv. 14 forms really no part of 
the "context" of the Sabbatism previously discussed. A 
careful analysis of the writer's train of thought will clearly 
show that this verse is a resumption of the disquisition from 
chap. iii. 6: the intermediate digression (iii. 7 — iv. 13) form- 
ing an independent episode in this great argumentative epic. 

This digression, on the supposition of its treating solel?/ of an 
earthly rest reserved for true believers (a cessation from legal 
observance), becomes itself an interesting collateral allegation, 
admirably corroborating the main scope of the discourse — the 
temporary authority of the law. On this construction it is 
peculiarly adapted to its purpose of relieving the doubt or sus- 
taining the faith. On this construction it is strikingly illus- 
trated by the corresponding scriptural representations. {Isat. 
xi. 10; 3Iatt. xi. 28; Col ii. 17; Gal. iv. &c.) On this 
construction alone, the grammatical exegesis is fully satisfied. 
*'We do enter,''* "he that is entered," "he hath ceased," 
"let us labor to enter," "lest you should seem to come short.'' 

But this, says my friend, "lays unwarrantable stress upon 
the tense of the verb. 'For we which believe, do enter into 
rest.' Whereas, the meaning evidently is, heUevers {and tlioy 
only) shall inherit it; not here, but hereafter," (p. 79.) Surely 
J. N. B. docs not call this biblical criticism ! There is no one 
circumstance to support his hypothesis; there is every circum- 
stance to contradict it. 

Not only do the literal construction, the correspondency of 
Scripture, the Televancy and efficiency of the immediate argu- 
ment, and the whole tenor of the dissertation, all concur in es- 
tablishing a jjresent application of the believer's repose, but 

'^ Not they which believe ^^ shall enter," nor , yet, they which did 
believe ^^ have entered;" but they "which have believed do [by that 
very act] enter into rest.'" 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 155 



A spiritual " Sabbatism"' contrasted with the seventh-clay Sabbath. 

the very form of phraseology powerfully strengthens this in- 
terpretation. The apologist, after exalting the authority of 
Jesus above that of Moses, and strongly urging the necessity 
of faith in him as a pre-requisite to the promised " rest/' sud- 
denly drops this word (xatartavai?) in his great conclusion, and 
says emphatically: "There remaineth therefore laa66afioinof\ 
a JSahhafmn -/' or, as our marginal reading has it, " a keeping 
of a Sahhatli.'''^ As he had just before (^verses 4 — 6) ex- 
pressly excluded the Sabbath of the Decalogue from the con- 
templation of the quoted psalm, this very word " Sabbatism'^ 
would to the minds of those addressed, almost inevitably con- 
vey the impression that the Sabbath itself was but the symbol ; 
and that, under the Christian dispensation, it was to be ob- 
served spiritually, in fulfilment of the very point which formed 
to them the difficulty. Such, under the circumstances and 
objects of the treatise, would obviously have been the under- 
standing of its readers; such doubtless was the intent of its 
writer. As Bunyan well says of the " rests" discarded : " It 
is enough that they before, did fail, as always shadows do. 
' There remains, therefore, a rest to the people of God ;' — a 
rest to come, of which the seventh day, in which God rested, 
and the land of Canaan, was a type; which rest begins in 
Christ now, and shall be consummated in glory. And in that 
he saith 'There remains a rest/ referring to that of David, 
what is it, if it signifies not that the other rests remain not? 
There remains, therefore, a rest prefigured by the seventh day 
and by the rest of Canaan, though they are fled and gone." 
{Essay on the Sahhath, ques. iv.) 

"One man esteemeth one day above another; another 
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully per- 
suaded in his own mind." — {Rom. xiv. 5.) " But candidly 

* WiCKLiF translates the passage: " Tlierfore the Sabot h is left 
to tlie people of God ; for lie that is entrid into liise reste, restide of 
Lis werkis as also God of hise ; therefore, haaste we to entre into that 
reste, that no man falle into the same ensample of unbileeue." 



156 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Epistle to the Romans, destructive to Sabbatai'ianism. 

now/' says J. N. B., "what is Paul urging there?'' {p. 80.) 
A " candid" answer to this ingenuous question will leave the 
Sabbatarian no inch of Bible ground to stand upon !* At 
present, space will not permit the critical examination of this 
text which its importance deserves. I only remark, that the 
^'momentous distinction" of my friend is a simple "fancy." 
Holy days and unholy meats are put, by Paul, in exactly the 
same predicament — of observances absolutely indifferent to the 
gospel Christian. f If J. N. B. can reconcile a "Divine 
authority/' enjoining the estimation of the Sabbath above 
other days, with the Divine authority indisputably given in 

* Paul's unqualified language "strikes equally against the Christ- 
ian's 'Lord's day,' as against the Sabbath of the Decalogue. And 
where, then, let me ask, is there any law, or institution for public 
worship in the New Testament?" J, N. B. [p. 19.) 

" The law of the Sabbath being thus repealed, that no particular 
day of worship has been appointed in its place, is evident from the 
same apostle. — Rom. xiv." Milton. (Christ. Doctrine, Book ii, chap. 7.) 

" In the fom-teenth to the Romans, the great patron and champion 
of Christian liberty not obscurely declareth his mind, that Christians 
of strength in judgment did regard no day above another, but es- 
teemed all days (he excepteth none) alike, as to any special obligation 
grounded upon Divine law and right. In subordination to which doc- 
trine, we may add, that this appears, with great evidence, to have 
been the common opinion of the wisest and most orthodox Christians 
in the primitive church — the most constant and stinct adherents to 
Catholic tradition (who, from the Apostle's instruction, best understood 
the purport and limits of the liberty purchased by Christ) — that this 
law, as it was not known or practised before Moses, so it ceased to oblige 
after Christ ; being one of the ' shadows' which the evangelical light 
dispelled — one of the ' burdens' which this law of liberty did take off 
us." Barrow. {Works, vol. i. Exposit. of Decalogue.) 

•j- "He that regardeth [margin — observe th] the day, regardeth it 
unto the Lord ; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth 
not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God 
thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth 
God thanks." Paul. 

"Now mark one momentous distinction!" J. N. B. [p. 81.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 157 

The New Testament entirely Anti-sahbatarian. 

this passage to neglect its observance, and " esteem every day 
alike," he has powers of "accommodation'^ utterly beyond 
what I give him credit for, and utterly beyond my own con- 
ceptions. (^Gal. i. 8.) 

Such, then, is the scriptural presentation of the great "Sab- 
bath Question." Every allusion to the Sabbath (direct or indi- 
rect) contained in the New Testament, clearly establishes Anti- 
sabbatarianism. Not one allusion (direct or indirect) supports 
the Sabbatarian I On the one side of the discussion, we have 
constant dependence on "chapter and verse" — enforced by 
literal interpretation, and the consenting judgment of the 
most learned expositors : on the other side, we have extenua- 
tion and assertion ; a vague appeal to irrelevant authorities. 

Yet weak and unsubstantial as the Sabbatarian doctrine is 
thus shown to be, when tested by the decisive standard of 
" the law and the testimony," there is, perhaps, no single tenet 
of modern sectarianism which has been asserted with a more 
dogmatic assurance, or enforced with a more intolerant aus- 
terity. No terms of adulation are too extravagant in aggran- 
dizement of the popular idol (^Acts xix. 35) ; no epithets of 
opprobrium too severe in reprehension of the presumptuous 
iconoclast, or of the ungodly and profane " Sabbath-hreaker." 
(Ads xix. 26—28.) 

It is remarkable, too, that the very class of Christians who 
most affect to receive the Bible as their " sole rule of faith and 
practice," are they who most strikingly disregard its unmis- 
takable teachings on this subject.* They blindly, but zeal- 
ously, walk "according to the tradition of the elders;" main- 
taining, with bigoted declamation, the obligation of the fourth 
commandment, in the very face of its incontestable abrogation : 

* "All things necessary for man's salvation, faith, and life, are 
either expressly set down in Scripture, or, by necessary consequence, 
may be deduced from Scripture ; unto which nothing at any time is to 
be added — by traditions of men." {Presbyterian Confession of Faith.) 

u 



158 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Scripture nullified by tradition. 

^' making the word of God of none eifect through their tradi- 
tions :" and '' teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
men."* 

I regret that I am not allowed to prosecute my examination 
of this deeply interesting subject so thoroughly as I could 
have desired ; though I must return you my sincere and 
thankful acknowledgments, Messrs. Editors, for the very libe- 
ral allowance of space you have already accorded me. 

To the kindly wishes expressed by my friend J. N. B., I 
most cordially respond. 

Very respectfully, 

W. B. T. 



Note. — At the close of my friend's Argument, he has appended an 
Apologije — "illustrative of his views" of the sanctity of the Decalogue. 
Not to seem unfurnished, I also will " take up my parable ;" which, as 
supplying an important particular entirely omitted by him, I shall 
entitle, in contradistinction to his, 

A Gospel Apologue. 

King Theion had iivo davighters "whom he tenderly loved" (Gal. 
iv, 24 — 31) : and from their both bearing the family name " Eusebia," 
my friend appears either to have confounded the sisters together, or. 
to have wholly forgotten the existence of the younger one. (" The key" 
to this oversight will probably be found in 2 Cor. iii. 15.) 

It was to Paidiska, the "first-born" [Exod. iv. 22), that the pearl 
necklace was presented — long before the birth of the favorite daughter 
Eleuthera ; and the King, in bestowing it, with his own hand en- 
graved legibly on its leading pearl [Exod. xxxi. 18) not only the 
name "Paidiska," but also the date and circumstances of her bu'th. 
{Exod. XX. 2.) 

^ "Those, therefore," says Milton, "who keep holy a Sabbath- 
day, for the consecration of which no divine command can he alleged, 
ought to consider the dangerous tendency of such an example, and 
the consequences with which it is likely to be followed, in the interpre- 
tation of Scripture .... I perceive, also, that several of the best 
divines, as Bucer, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Ursinus, Gomarus, 
and others, concur in the opinions above expressed." [Christian Doc- 
trine, B. ii. ch. 7.) 



MR. Taylor's second reply. 159 

A contrasted " Apologue." 

Apeithos seems to have been essentially a mischief-maker ; for, 
■while the blooming Eleutheba was still quite young, he so ■^^rrought 
on her sensitive nature that he half convinced her that the antique 
necklace (together with other jewelry presented with it), was, in right, 
as much hers as her sister's, and that it should at least be held in 
common. In this harassing uncertainty, she, by the advice of her 
friends, appealed to Prince Christos, to whom she was, indeed, be- 
trothed. (2 Cor. xi. 2.) The Prince, though absent, sent her a co'm- 
munication, deciding that the disputed jewelry was solely her sister^s 
(Acts xxi. 25) ; and reminding her that he himself had already 
given her a necklace of far greater value and more perfect beauty 
(2 Cor. iii. 7—11 ; ffeb. vii. 19 ; viii. 6, 7 ; xii. 18—24; 1 John. iii. 22 
— 24) ; and he further dispatched a shrewd and trusty messenger [Rom. 
i, 1 ; xi. 13) to explain the matter fully, and to thwart the counsels of 
Apeithos. This had the desired eflfect of restoring, for a while, a 
degree of harmony. Eleuthera, in submissive confidence, no longer 
even coveted the necklace ; although it contained one "pearl" that hers 
did not! (Matt. v. vi. vii.) 

For a very long time after the recall of the Prince's skilful ambassa- 
dor, the representations of Apeithos were unheeded by Eleuthera ; 
but, expert in all the arts of rhetoric, the zealous adviser would exer- 
cise his ingenuity — at one time, in showing that the original epistle 
meant differently from its apparent meaning — at another, in extenuat- 
ing or "limiting" the recorded instructions left by the faithful ambas- 
sador — until he well-nigh counteracted the Prince's teachings, even 
while making the unhappy bride's love for her betrothed the main 
element of his injurious influence ! He would so obscure her vision by 
his sophistry, that she often thought her own name was engraven on 
the contested necklace ; — nay, so "lawyer-like was his subtlety," 
that he sometimes made her doubt her own identity ! — almost per- 
suading her that she was indeed the veritable — literal Paidiska ! 

Her most learned and venerable counsellors have, in all ages, 
labored to give her more enlarged views : but still is Eleuthera 
troubled with uneasy doubts (Luke x. 41) ; still does she sometimes 
claim her sister's necklace, while her oivn lies neglected — in its un- 
opened casket ! 

Esto sapientior ! 

Apeithos, we may not judge ; his motives we may not question. 
His benevolence doubtless far exceeded his judgment. (Rom. x. 2 ; 
Gal. iv. 17—22.) 



THE OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



REPLY TO ^'W. B. T." 



PART I. 

" And the servant of the Lord must not striye, but be gentle unto 
all men, apt to teach, patient ; in meekness instructing those that op- 
pose themselves, if God, peradventure, will give them repentance to 
the acknowledging of the truth." — 2 Timothy ii. 24, 25. 



Messrs. Editors : — 

I HAVE patiently waited until my friend W. B. T. has 
finished his examination of my argument, before attempting 
to reply. I did this that I might be put in full possession of 
his views, hoping, thereby, to avoid misunderstandings, and to 
abridge as much as possible the Discussion, of whose length 
some of your readers complain. I am sorry any are weary of 
a Discussion so practical in its bearings — so vital, indeed, to a 
good conscience in regard to the Sabbath. If any agree with 
me in my general views of this subject, I entreat them 
patiently to hear what "VV. B. T. has to say to the contrary. 
He offers his reasons for doubting or rejecting our conclusions. 
How shall we know what those reasons are, that is, what cir- 
cumstances hinder his conviction of the force and consequent 
obligation of the Sabbath Argument on his conscience — unless 
we calmly and kindly hear him through ? 

I shall pass over the texts he has chosen for mottoes, as they 
will come in better hereafter. But I must beg my friend to 
believe that what I have said of his talents, attainments, 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 161 



Moral tendencies, part of the evidence. A good profession. 



research, and earnestness, is simple truth to me. Without a 
single thought of flattery (which I abhor no less than he does), 
I wrote what I felt, what I still feel, what I have uniformly 
said to my friends, and what I still regard as but an honest 
acknowledgment of the gifts which God has conferred on him, 
for good and noble purposes, yet to be revealed. I cordially 
agree with him in wishing that our readers may overlook all 
personal comparisons, and weigh only the merits of the cause, 
that they may see on which side the evidence preponderates. 

In w^eighing that evidence, however, I submit that this is 
one of those practical cases where consequences enter into the 
vitality of the question. They form a part of the subject-mat- 
ter; they make, therefore, a part of the internal evidence, and 
supply an experimental test of the truth of opinions. They 
may indeed be '^postponed," but cannot be overlooked. 
Ye shall know them hy their fruits. Do men gather grapes 
of thorns, or figs of thistles? 

" The point before us" (says my friend justly) is the 
" Scriptural Authority" of the Sabbath. '^ If the view I 
defend," he continues, "be unsustained by the Bible, it will 
doubtless be made manifest, and I shall cheerfully acknowledge 
a new, and consequently firmer belief. If the reverse be the 
case, I sincerely hope — in denying that one man's liberty 
should be ^judged of another man's conscience' — that I shall 
not ' put a stumbling-block in any believer's way,' however 
' weak in the faith' he may be considered. Certainly I shall 
neither presume to ^ judge him,' nor to ' set him at naught.' " 
(p. 87.) This is well said. How well it is fulfilled, will appear 
in the sequel. 

I had said that the good of old were taught of God to "call 
the Sabbath a delight." This is not disputed. But when my 
friend affirms that " the good of the neio dispensation were also 
taught of God to call the Sabbath ' a shadow' — a cancelled 
bond — a blotted handwriting — 'nailed to the Cross,' " (p. 
87;) he assumes the very point in dispute between us. Is this 

14* 



162 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The two Dispensations not contrasted. An acquittal of disingenuoupness. 

consistent with fair reasoning? Does he hope to convince me 
by reaffirming an interpretation which I, at least, believe has 
been set aside, by fair and full examination, in part ii. of my 
Second Reply ? I shall have occasion to recur to this point 
hereafter. I only add here that the same assumption appears 
in his affirming that it is ''a sign of weakness to * esteem one 
day above another.' " Paul nowhere affirms this. It is my 
friend's construction only; and that a wrong one, as was 
shown, I think, clearly, in PART iv. of my Reply. But, as 
Truth, and not mere tilt, is my object in this Discussion, as 
nothing else would tempt me one moment to turn aside from 
other pressing engagements, or to redeem time, as I am com- 
pelled to do, from needful rest, to continue it, — so I shall, in 
its place, give this point a fresh investigation. Only I must 
aim at a wise brevity. May the Holy Spirit of Truth, so in- 
dispensable to lis all, and so often promised to those who seek 
his influence, condescend to guide us into all truth ! 

I. The Day required hij the Sahhath Laiu. 

On his explanation of the object in dropping the last clause 
of his original complex Proposition, I here gladly acquit my 
friend W. B. T. of any artful disingenuousuess. He will for- 
give me, I trust, for saying it was done ingeniously. I was 
struck so strongly with its effect on the argument that I too 
hastily inferred cleshjn. But as I, above all things, deprecate 
in discussion whatever destroys mutual confidence, or a full 
repose in each other's sincerity" and integrity, I here say, once 
for all, that if in any other instance I have been betrayed into a 
like fault, I willingly bear my own solemn and earnest witness 
against it. I only ask of my friend that he judge me, and 
those of my persuasion, in the same spirit with which he would 
himself be judged. I have long believed that no soundness of 
Logic can atone for a breach of Charity. 

One thing alone under this head will require attention. As 
W. B. T. chooses to waive the vital question on the Origin of 
the Sabbath, until the discussion of Proposition II., I shall 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 163 

Saturday enjoined only on the Jeivs, An undue assumption. 

waive my right to discuss it here, and give him all the advan- 
tage of his hypothesis, that the Sabbath was first instituted by 
Moses. On this supposition, then, I will meet him, and try 
the issue without fear. 

^^That Saturday zs 4he Sabbath enjoined in the Decalogue,^ " 
says my friend, ''is as certain as human knowledge can be, 
even concerning the Bible itself (p. 21.) In this I entirely 
differ from him. Had he said " that Saturday is the Sabbath 
enjoined on the Jews, is as certain as human knowledge can 
be," I would have at once agreed with him. But the two pro- 
positions are essentially distinct, and I, at least, can never 
confound them, without shutting the eyes of my understand- 
ing. How is it that my friend is blind to this distinction ? 
His own reasoning against it is like that of some sceptics 
against the reality of " first truths," or self-evident principles, 
on which all reasoning must proceed, — everyichere assuming 
the very point in terms denied. He first asks, " How shall 
we ever ascertain what is the seventh day of the Decalogue?" 
{p. 88.) And then answers, " Clearly not by itself. All 
legal interpretation must ultimately be based on some assump- 
tion without the statute." Suppose I admit this, what 
follows- ? " J. N. B. admits ' that, for the Jews, it was fixed 
to the last day of our iveek. But then it was not fixed hy the 
Decalogue.^ " This, answers my friend W. B. T., " would 
be a simple impossibility." Be it so. But how, then, is it 
fixed? "By adopting," says my friend, "the universal 
designation of a well recognized distinction. The term ' Sun- 
day' is not more precisive in our law than is the term ^ ha- 
shibingi' [translated 'the seventh day'] in that of the He- 
brews. It is applicable to no ' seventh day' but Saturday." 
This last remark is the purest assumption. As it is by no 
means self-evident, I must demand ample proof before I can 
admit its truth. Is the proof found in the " universal designa- 
tion of a well recognized distinction ?" If so, then the infer- 
ence irresistibly follows that the seventh day Sabbath was 



164 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

" The serenth day" determined by the manna. Proportion, and succession. 

universally recognized before the giving of the Decalogue at 
Sinai. But this is coming on to my ground, and abandoning 
his own. To avoid this, will my friend say, the seventh day 
was determined by the giving of the manna? This I under- 
stand him to do, in these words : " ' Saturday is the seventh 
day,' says God, by the manna.'' (p. 89.) But this, again, is 
abandoning his original position, and coming over to mine. 
On this very ground I had said (^9. 59), " the connection [of 
the seventh day of the Decalogue with Saturday'] was fixed by 
statute, only for that people" — meaning by " statute," what 
God said to Moses at the giving of the manna. (^Exodus xvi. 
5, 15, 16, 22 — 31.) See, particularly, verse 26th, where the 
statute of designation is clear as the sun ; and that, too, long 
hefore the giving of the Decalogue. "Then, most certainly, 
the statute itself was ' only for that people.' " So says W. B. 
T. {p. 89), and I am most happy to agree with him. Why 
should I not be, when he^comes over completely to my 
ground ? Would that in all points we could meet as perfectly 
as in this ! 

It follows, from this concession, that the designation of the 
particular day of the week, from a given point of reckoning, is 
no part of the Fourth Commandment. The projyortion of our 
days to be kept holy to the Lord is alone specified. Six days 
being allotted to our ordinary labor (beginning at any point it 
pleases God at any time to designate by proper evidence) 
every seventh in succession is required, by the Fourth Com- 
mandment, to bo set apart to Him as the sole Creator of the 
heavens and the earth. All the terms and reasons of this 
Law are universal; as much so as in any other commandment 
of the Decalogue. " The seventh day" of the Decalogue — as 
far as it is defined by the Decalogue itself — is the seventh in 
succession — no other — no less — no more. "Every word of 
God is pure. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove 
thee, and thou .be found a liar," is a warning that should 
pierce every conscience to the quick. 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 165 

A general designation. The Sabbath — primary : the seventh day — secondary. 

My friend W. B. T. greatly mistakes, if he thinks me in 
any dilemma, by supposing '*that because a miracle has deter- 
mined what the particular thing referred to by the law really is, 
a new miracle may establish a different intent in the very same 
law/' (p. 89.) He knows, quite as well as I do, that if the law 
be of a general description, it is equally applicable to two or 
more specific cases. He may well say, therefore, as he does, 
" Show us, however, the miracle (fixing another ' seventh day'), 
and it sufficeth us." In spite of this sharp irony, that mira- 
cle may in due time appear. 

On my words, " the whole authority of the Sabbath enjoined 
in the Decalogue may, for sufficient reasons, by ' the Lord of 
the Sabbath,' be transferred to the Jirst day of our week," he 
remarks: "This seems to be a new phase in theology. Surely 
ihis, first day cannot still be 'the Sabbath enjoined in the De- 
calogue,' for that is expressly limited to the seventh day of 
the week." {p. 89.) But here he falls into the old mistake, 
by confounding things that differ. The Decalogue says : " Re- 
member the Sabbath day to keep it holy;" not '^ Remember 
the seventh day to keep it holy." What the Sabbath day 
is, i. e. how often it occurs, and what is its order of succession, 
is intimated in what follows. The "seventh day" is not, strictly 
speaking, in the law itself, but in the explanation of the law. 
It is not the text, but the commentary on the text, by the 
Divine Lawgiver; and although of equal authority with it, 
merely settles the general principle, that the Sabbath day is 
of weekly recurrence, as the memorial of the six days' work of 
creation — nothing more. He who would make more of it 
must do so solely by the force of an association of ideas, 
peculiar and proper to a Jew under that dispensation, butper- 
verted and irrational in any other. The time may come, 
when my friend W. B. T. will see this as clearly as I do now ; 
and will wonder at the absurdity of talking about a "contra- 
diction" in the idea of such a transfer of the authority of the 
Sabbath Law from one li^y of the week to another. 



166 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Views of Athanasius ; and Eusebius. Redemption higher than Creation. 

Be that as it may, however, such an idea is not a ^^new 
phase in theology. ''* According to Coleman (^Christian 
Antiquities, p. 430), " Athanasius, in the beginning of the 
third [properly /oi*r^/i] century (a. d. 325), expressly declared 
that ' the Lord changed the Sabbath into the Lord's day.^ " 
Coleman adds : " The account which Eusebius gives of this 
subject is that Hhe Logos, the Word, in the New Testament 
transferred the Sabbath of the Lord Grod unto this day.' The 
day, he also says, was universally observed as strictly as the 
Jewish Sabbath, whilst all feasting, drunkenness, and recrea- 
tion was rebuked as a profanation of the sacred day. — Com- 
ment, in Ps. 92.'' 

I had spoken of a change of the day as demanded by the 
necessity of the case, because the work of redemption is " of 
fiir higher and sweeter import in the esteem of all Christians," 
than the work of creation. On which my friend makes the 
following important concession : '' This consideration may be a 
very sufficient reason for its commemoration," I thank my 
friend most sincerely for this concession. It is too important 
ever to be forgotten by me, or by him. ^^But," he adds, "it is 
no reason whatever, either for superseding the former Divinelj- 
appointed memorial, or for inferring a change in the applica- 
tion of the original command" (p. 90) ; both which positions 
I grant, if he refers merely to human authority. His illustra- 
tion, however, is most unfortunate, for the plain reason that 

* Whether from a misprint in my copy or from a mistake in my 
reading, it seems the word " theology" is here an error. It should 
have been (as in page 89) "a new phase in the alogy ;"" or, as my friend 
regarded it, the illogical conclusion. As to the justice of applying 
this term to my statement, I must leave the reader to judge. As, how- 
ever, the facts suggested by the word "theology" are pertinent to the 
argument, I let them stand. They show that my view was not consid- 
ered absurd or unsound by such distinguished men as Eusebius and 
Athanasius — the greatest men of their age. But I appeal to Common 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 167 

The Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations. Justin Marttr. 

there is no parallelism in the cases. A weekly Sabbath origi- 
nally commemorated the creation of the whole world. {Gen. 
ii. 3 ; Exod. xx. 11.) When the whole world had forsaken 
the worship of the Creator, and a single nation, the Jews, was 
set apart to restore that original worship, the weekly Sabbath 
received a new and additional import peculiar to that nation. 
(^Deut. V. 15.) Afterwards, when the Messiah came out of that 
nation to complete the great work of human redemption by 
his own death and resurrection, a still higher dignity was con- 
ferred upon the weekly Sabbath by connecting it with the 
memory of that grand event — the centre of the Divine works, 
the cynosure of all eyes, the dawn of a new and more glorious 
creation out of the ruins of the first, the prism where every 
attribute of the Infinite Perfection, centering in the soft 
emerald hue of love, is reflected in distinct, yet blended and 
harmonious beauty forever and ever. (1 Tim. i. 11 ; 2 Cor. iv. 
6 ; Ephes. iii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 12 ; 1 John iv. 10.) And an asso- 
ciation of such transcendent import, if made at all, must be 
made by attaching the weekly Sabbath to the very day of the 
Resurrection, and thus giving it a pre-eminent sacredness over 
all the rest. This merely circumstantial change not afi'ecting 
the Law itself, but only giving it a new and appropriate appli- 
cation, at once combining in its weekly rotation the three 
grandest displays of the Divine glory, and establishing the 
real harmony of the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christ- 
ian dispensations, is neither improbable in conception, nor 
contradicted by fact. And although the deliverance from 
Egypt is less prominent in our thoughts as Gentiles, yet so 
early as the days of Justin Martyr we find the other two 
ideas actually in the minds of Christians. For he assigns as 
the reasons for observing the first day of the week, commonly 
called Sunday, as the day of Christian worship, that on this 
day God, having changed the darkness and the elements, 
created the world, and that Jesus our Lord on this day arose 
from the dead. (Col. Chris. Antiq. p. 429.) And if, at the 



168 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



Death, and Resurrection of the Sabbath. 



voice of Joshua, "the sun stood still in the midst of 
heaven/' and "a whole day" was thus dropped in the Jewish 
calendar without affecting the ohligation of the Law of the 
Sabbath (Josh. x. 13), how can its obligation be affected by 
passing over in solemn silence that whole day in which the 
" Lord of the Sabbath'' lay in his lowest humiliation under 
the power of death? Can that "seventh day" ever be the 
peculiar festival of Christians ? Never, never, never ! Its 
aspect is changed by that dread event. In this sense I fully 
agree with Bunyan, "As for the seventh day, that is gone to 
its grave, with the signs and shadows of the Old Testament." 
Yes, it went to its grave in the tomb of Jesus Christ. But 
as the body of our Lord rose from the grave the same sub- 
stance, changed and glorified, yet identical, so was it with the 
Sabbath. With Christ, its Lord and oursj it rose from the 
grave on the first day of the week changed and glorified, yet 
substantially the same, still beaming on us with that Divine 
benignity which shows that " the Sabbath was made for man," 
and, like its Lord, is now living to die no more. 

J. N. B. 



PART II. 

The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." — Mark ii. 28. 



The Sabbath then remains under the Christian Dispen- 
sation, and Christ is its "Lord." This implies that He 
has full power to determine, by His own authority, how it 
shall be observed, and on what day. And we may be sure 
He has determined both points for His own glory, that is, 
in the way which most clearly marks His authority. His wis- 
dom, and His love. True faith will rejoice to confess Him 
before unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, as "Lord of all." {Acts 
X. 36.) 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 169 

- Faith weak in comprehension ; and in consistency. Scepticism general. 

But true Faith may be " weak" — weak in logical compre- 
hension, or in practical consistency, or in both. Faith is weak in 
logical comprehension when it admits a general proposition, yet 
Aowhis particular propositions necessarily included in it. Thus 
the Apostles fully believed that Jesus was the Messiah, yet were 
wholly opposed for a time to the doctrine of His death and resur- 
rection. Thus my seventh-day Baptist friends of the " Sabbath 
Recorder,""^ fully believe in the Perpetuity of the Sabbath, and 
that Christ is its Lord, but deny the change of the day by our 
Lord ; and thus, on the other hand, my friend W. B. T. fully 
believes that Christ, as the "Lord of the Sabbath day,'' has 
full authority over it; but he can see no other meaning in that 
glorious truth than that of a right to annihilate it altogether. 
This is very much as if one should infer, from the words 
of Jehovah to Moses, " I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob," merely that, as their God, he had the right to 
annihilate them at will. How different was the inference de- 
rived from these words by our Saviour, in his dispute with 
the Sadducees, we all know. From this want of full logical 
comprehension, spring a great part of the differences among 
true Christians. And hence too it is often difficult for us (not 
for Christ) to distinguish " weak faith," especially in strong 
minds, from stubborn unbelief. 

It is very striking to observe how much alike is the spirit 
of unbelief in all ages. We find in fact that every revelation 
of tlig.'l)ivine Will, every Dispensation, every Prophet, every 
Doctrine, Precept, and Institution of the Bible, has at some 
time or other been questioned or denied. And sometimes this 
has been done by very good men. The deep root of opposi- 
tion is by nature in us all. It lurks beneath the surface of 
our own consciousness, till some unexpected occasion brings it 
out. Nothing but the love of Christ can cure it. Even 
Peter, the first to profess his assured faith, was the first to yq- 

* A Sabbatarian newspaper published weekly in New York. 
15 



170 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

The strongest CTidence expected : but not always accorded. 

ceive his Lord's rebuke for this '^evil heart of unbelief/' 
{Matt xvi. 16—23.) 

The pretext for unbelief and opposition is always the same 
— want of evidence. " Yea, hath God said T' is the first ar- 
ticulate breath of the Tempter. (Gen. iii. 1.) So when Christ, 
at the beginning of His ministry, had purged the Temple of 
God of its poUutors, the multitude eagerly thronged around 
him, and demanded some sign of His Divine Mission. They 
required some stupendous miracle, like the parting of the Red 
Sea, or the consuming blaze of Mount Sinai, or the national 
support by the morning showers of Manna. How were they 
disappointed! "To their demand," says Milman, "Jesus 
calmly answered by an obscure and somewhat oracular allusion 
to the remote event of His own resurrection, the one great 
' Sign' of Christianity, to which it is remarkable that Christ 
constantly refers, when required to ratify His mission by some 
public miracle." (Ris. Christ, p. 80.) 

The lesson we learn from this is of the deepest import. We 
may be demanding on some points a kind, or degree, of evi- 
dence, which Infinite Wisdom does not see fit to give. If the 
Divine Will is revealed in any way, or by any means, in a 
degree sufficient to guide the sincere inquirer after Truth and 
Duty, while it leaves the caviller unsatisfied, all the purposes 
of our moral probation are fulfilled. " If any man desire to do 
His IV ill," says the Great Teacher, " he shall know of the doc- 
trine, whether it be of God." In every practical question, an 
obedient heart is the first and most indispensable thing. With- 
out this, with all the Prudence, Learning, and Logic of Ga- 
maliel, we shall " stumble at the word, being disobedient." 
(1 Pet. ii. 8.) Our opposition may injure ourselves and others. 
But it cannot alter, in one iota, the Will of God. Even 
" unto them which be disobedient, the Stone which the build- 
ers disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner." 
(1 Pet. ii. 7.) Whoever then may disallow it, Christ our 
Lord " is Lord even of the Sabbath day." 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 171 

Points established. Evidence that Christ changed the day. 

In regard to the day of the Sabbath, I believe my last arti- 
cle vindicated clearly, beyond all contradiction, the following 
points : — 

1. The Sabbath was in existence before the Decalogue was 
given. 

2. The Fourth Commandment, like all the rest, is expressed 
in terms of universal application; having in them nothing 
national, local, or temporary. 

3. The ''seventh day," as defined in the Fourth Command- 
ment, is simply relative to what is said before of the " six days" 
iceehhj devoted to labor, and will equally apply to any day in 
the week on which it may please God to fix the observance of 
the Sabbath. 

4. It pleased God to fix that day/br the Jeics to Saturday, 
by the miracle of the Manna — a miracle entirely 'peculiar to 
the nation — thus making the Saturday Sabbath a &\gji pecu- 
liarly commemorative of their redemption from Egypt. Here 
I agree with my friend W. B. T. 

5. The Saturday Sabbath, being thus a sign of the Mosaic 
national Covenant, expires with that Covenant ; — leaving the 
universal weeMy Sabbath required by the Decalogue in full 
force — like the rest of the Ten Commandments. 

What I propose now to show is that there is ample evidence 
in the Scriptures that Christ, as the sole "Lord of the Sabbath 
day," changed the day of its observance in honor of His own 
Resurrection : — so that now the first day of the week, common- 
ly called Sunday, is " the Lord's day," or Christian Sabbath. 

One fundamental part of that evidence is seen (as I showed 
in my last article) in the nature and necessity of the case — 
that is to say, in the new relations established by the work of 
Christ, and confirmed by His resurrection from the dead on 
that day. For "if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain," 
Christians, " ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which 
are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. But now is Christ 
risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that 



172 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

An open avowal demanded. The Decalogue — universal and perpetual law. 

slept.^' (1 Cor. XV. 17 — 20.) Having briefly presented this 
part of the evidence already, I shall here continue and confirm 
it, and then proceed to that which arises from miracle, pro- 
phecy, the personal sanction of Christ, and the example of His 
inspired Apostles. 

At the very threshold of the Argument, in the name of 
Truth and Honesty, I have a demand to make on W. B. T. 
and on all of his opinions. Come out clearly, and show your 
colors. What do you mean to do with the Decalogue ? Not 
a trace of anything local, temporary, ceremonial, or shadowy, 
is in it. Everything is absolute, universal, perpetual Law — 
the Legislation of the Infinite Creator for men His creatures. 
As such, it is distinctly recognized by Christ and His Apostles. 
It is bound up inseparably as part and parcel of Christianity 
—as the original moral standard. Sin is defined as a trans- 
gression of it. It is the Law of Conscience rewritten by the 
finger of God — more fully and clearly. {3Iatt. v. 17 — 32 ; xix. 
16—19; Eom. vii. 7—14; viii. 4; xiii. 8—10; 2 Cor. iv. 
5—18; 1 Tim. v. 5—11; 1 John. iii. 4—10; Lulce xvi. 17, 
18.) 

Look calmly now at the case before us. Here is the Law 
of the Weekly Sabbath in the Decalogue — moral, positive, 
clear, benign — necessary for man as man, in all regions and 
in all ages. Here it stands before our eyes, the weekly me- 
morial of creation — the natural safeguard against idolatry — 
the grand means of practically uniting the Created with the 
Creator — the perpetual sign of a spiritual covenant between 
them — in a word, the chief moral, social, and religious educator 
of the race. And yet you demand positive proof of its re- 
enactment by Christ in explicit terms — or of an equally explicit 
account of its transfer to the first day, from the seventh of the 
Jewish calendar week. Demands, at once preposterous and 
presumptuous ! By what right do you thus dictate to God 
the mode of His revelation ? Besides, the burden of proof, in 
the first instance, is not on me, but on you. You have first 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 173 

Christ's design, to honoi- the Sabbath, — not to abrogate, it. 

to prove that the Law of the Decalogue is abrogated^ before 
you demand proof of its re-enactment. Till this is done fully 
and fairly, till tlie argument from Matt. v. for example is 
fairly met and set aside (which W. B. T. has not eTen at- 
tempted in his Reply), you have no right to demand proof of 
any kind as to its present obligation. Here is the Sab- 
bath. Look at it. The seal of the world's Creator — of your 
Creator, and of mine — is upon it. Efface it if you can ! At- 
tempt it, if you dare I 

But I love not the lansruap-e of defiance, even in so strong 
a case as this. I prefer the language of earnest deprecation. 
Tell me not that Jesus Christ has come from Heaven to abro- 
gate this Law — in the face of his own express declarations to the 
contrary. That Law was in His heart ! Tell me not that He 
fidfiUed, and by so doing superseded it. He did indeed /m/^? 
it, in His faithful exposition, in his noble vindication, in His 
constant application — in His whole obedient life, and in His 
sin-atoning death, by which He redeemed us from the curse, 
and secured the promise of the holy spirit to write it forever 
in our heart of hearts I But all this was to honor it as imniu- 
tahle — not to abrogate it. In vain will you plead Paul's words 
to the Bomans: *' But now we are delivered from the law — 
that being dead wherein ice were held.^' Paul does not say 
that the Law is " dead," but its curse only, " in which we 
were held" by our guilt. {^Gal. iii. 13.) This curse is now 
'* dead" as to believers — that is, deprived of all power to hurt 
us. And our deliverance, he expressly adds, is, "that we 
might serve in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the let- 
ter." The authority of the Law then remains, vital and intact. 
Indeed Paul had explicitly guarded his meaning before. {Rom. 
iii. 31.) "Do we make void [i. e. abrogate'] the Law through 
faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the Law.'' This is 
Paul's true doctrine, here and everywhere. It is identical 
with that of Christ. Perish the sophistry that would attempt 
to set them at variance ! 

15=^ 



174 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

Change of day — no change of the law. The transfer attested by miracle. 

The way then is clear to look at the real question, the change 
OF THE DAY. This question has nothing to do with any change 
of the Decalogue. This I have proved beyond dispute. It 
concerns merely the Jewish mode of rechonmg the loeeh, fixed 
by the miracle of the Manna, as explained by Moses. {Exodus 
xvi. 22 — 30.) This mode of recJconing was a S2:>ecial statute 
for Israel. It never hound any other people. It is alter able at 
the Divine pleasure. All we want in the case is, evidence 
that God has been pleased to alter it, and thus fix the Sabbath 
to another day. " Show us the miracle," says my friend W. 
B. T., "and it sufficeth us.'^ (p. 89.) I propose now to show 
not only the miracle, but the Divine explanation of the mira- 
cle. I bespeak an earnest attention. 

Let it be remembered, then, that the first explicit declaration 
of faith in Jesus as the Messiah was made at Cassarea Philippi, 
about six months before our Saviour's death. {Matt. xvi. 13 
— 20. — See Townsend's Arrangement.) From that day Jesus 
explicitly announced his approaching Death and Resurrection. 
" After six days," says Matthew (xvii. 1), " about eight days," 
says Luke (ix. 18, 28), was the Transfiguration. Why this 
specification of time, if no special importance was attached to 
it? Both forms of expression indicate a week. The "eighth 
day" of Luke is particularly remarkable, since this very term" 
was used to designate the day after a Jewish Sabbath, the first 
day of the iceek (see Lev. xxv. 22), particularly among the 
early Christians. {John xx. 26.) It is then highly probable, 
to say the least, that the glorious miracle of the Transfigura- 
tion was on that day. But that miracle was connected by 
some secret tie with the miracle of the Resurrection ; for the 
disciples were " strictly charged" not to mention it till after 
Jesus should rise from the dead. The Resurrection we know 
was on the first day of the week. The connection of the two 
miracles is thus fully unfolded by Townsend in a note to his 
Chronological Arrangement of the New Testament. (Seepart 
iv. Mote 22, p. 116.) "The other great purpose of the action 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 175 

Towxsend's Arrangement. Explanation of the Miracle. 

on the mount [of TransJSguration] was to give a figurative sig- 
nification of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, and the com- 
mencement of the Christian Dispensation, upon ivhich it was 
to he established. Moses and Elias, as the representatives of 
the Law and the Prophets, who had successively testified of 
the promised Messiah, it appears to me, were now in their 
glorified state permitted to behold on earth the magnificent 
completion of all their predictions; and by their farewell testi- 
mony to the truth of his Divinity afi'ord to man the most 
powerful evidence that human reason could either receive or 
require. By their testimony thei/ achioicledged the accom- 
plishment of all their prophecies, and that the commencement 
of the Messiah's kingdom was established on the Law and the 
Prophets ; and when the disciples, in an ecstasy of happiness, 
desired to erect three tabernacles, God himself proclaimed, 
* This is my beloved Son ; hear ye him !' Moses and Elias 
instantly disappear, overshadowed by the bright cloud, and 
Christ alone remains the undivided object of all their worship. 
To Him alone are they to build their altars ; to Him alone are 
they to look for happiness and glory ] and He shall come again 
with His holy angels, and ten thousand times ten thousand 
shall stand before Him.'' 

So much for the Miracle. Now for the Divine explanation 
of the Miracle, which fixes the first day of the week, or the 
day of Christ's Resurrection as the Sabbath of the Christian 
Dispensation. 

1. It is the Resurrection of ^Uhe Lord of the Sabbath.'* 
He had then all authority to change the day, so as to distin- 
guish the new dispensation from the old. And to honor this 
day as His own chosen day. He met His assembled disciples 
on it, and said, Peace be unto you. Not till a full week 
afterwards was accomplished, did he meet with them again. 
{John XX. 26.) Was there no significance in this ? Why 
did He not meet them sooner ? Why not on the Jewish Sab- 
bath ? 



176 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

The day of the Resurrection— the Christian Sabbath. 

2. It is the Resurrection of tlie Son of God to immortal 
life in Heaven. It is for this reason the day is beautifully 
called His Birthday. (^Ps. ii. 7.) "I will declare the decree; 
the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son ; this day have 
I begotten tliee.^' Shall the kings of the earth command their 
birthdays to be observed by their subjects, and not the King 
of Zion ? Well might John Bunyan say : " Shall God as 
with his finger point, and that in the face of the world, at this 
day, saying. Thou art my Son, this day, &c., and shall not 
Christians fear, and awake from their employments, to worship 
the Lord on this day ? If God remembers it, well may I ! 
If God says, and that with all gladness of heart, Thou art my 
Son, this day have I begotten thee ! may not, ought not, I 
also to set this day apart to sing the songs of my redemption 
in ? This day my redemption was finished. This day my 
dear Jesus revived. This day He was declared to be the Son 
of God with power. ^ This day' — after this day was come, 
God never, that we read of, made mention with delight of the 
old seventh-day Sabbath more.'^ 

3. It is the Resurrection of the Lord of Angels. Hence 
the day was honored by their adoration. ^' Again, when He 
bringeth in the first begotten into the world \_i. e. by raising 
Him from the dead], He saith, and let all the angels of God 
worship him." (//c6. i. 6.) And shall not men, as well as 
angels, worship him too ? '' Kiss [i. e. adore] the Son, lest 
He be angry, and ye perish from the way when His wrath is 
kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust 
in Him." (/^s. ii. 12.) 

4. It is the Resurrection of tlie Head of the Church. And 
hence the day consecrated by this glorious event is given us 
for our weekly Christian Festival. (A\ cxviii. 24.) W. B. T. 
indeed objects to my interpretation of this passage on two 
grounds: 1. That a day of Christian worship is not equivalent 
to a Sahbath. 2. That the text proves only the establishment 
of a new era of joy, not of a new iceel'ly festival founded on 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 177 

" The day which the Lord hath made." The appointed Christian festival. 

the Messiah's exaltation, (p. 91.) As to the first, I will con- 
cede to him that a day of devotional rest, divinely appointed, 
and of weekly recurrence, is essential to the idea of a Sahhath. 
And as to the second, I will now try to convince him that such 
a "day'^ is really intended in Ps. cxviii. 22 — 24, by a closer 
examination of that interesting prophecy. 

The passage reads thus : " The Stone which the builder 
refused, is become the head-stone of the corner. — This is 
THE DAY which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be 
glad in it." I remark, 1. The sense of Scripture is no more 
arbitrary than in other books, and therefore the word " day" 
must here have a determinate meaning. 2. This must be its 
literal meaning, unless sufficient reasons can be given to show 
the contrary. 3. The literal meaning of the word in question 
is a period of twenty-four hours ( Gen. i. 5, 8) ; and W. B. T. 
has shown no reasons for giving it here the tropical meaning 
of era. 4. This Psalm was actually sung on the occasion of 
our Lord's triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, which was on 
the first clay of the iceek (the week in which He died) ; and 
the prophecy was thus applied to that day, with His own most 
explicit and emphatic sanction. For when some of the Pha- 
risees said unto Him : Master, rebuke thy disciples, He an- 
swered and said unto them : " I tell you that if these should 
hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." 
The passage is quoted six times in the New Testament in 
reference to Christ. No prophecy then has a more determinate 
meaning, or fixed application. By the authority of the Lord 
the day is " made." How " made ?" This word can have 
no distinct meaning, unless it signifies here " made sacred ;'^ 
and to agree with the foregoing verse, it must mean " made 
sacred to Christ," in honor of His exaltation as " the head of 
the corner." And that this sacredness is to be recognized by 
the Church, is clear from the following words: '' AVe will 
exult and be glad in it." It is then made sacred by Divine 
authority as the distiiujuishing festival of the Christian Church. 



178 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Baptism, the Supper, and the Sabbath. Decisive authority. 

But if this new day be established, it follows that the day 
formerly fixed for the Jews is by the same authority now 
made void. For so the Apostle Paul reasons in a like case, 
as to the force of Ps. ex. 4 ; a passage by the way whose bear- 
ing was before as little understood, even by Christians, as the 
one now under discussion. 

It remains, therefore, I think, a sound conclusion from the 
premises, that the first day of the week is appointed the Sab- 
bath of the Christian Dispensation. For, if the passage was 
originally applied to the day of our Lord's public manifestation 
as the King of Zion, how much more to the same day of the 
week (Just one week after this), when His high claim was 
forever demonstrated by his triumphant resurrection from the 
dead ? It is worthy of remark that both Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper were appointed by our Lord before His death, 
and confirmed after His resurrection as perpetual ordinances 
in His Church. Why not also the distinguishing " stated 
day'^ of Christian Worship ? Analogy would lead us to ex- 
pect this. All the facts of the case confirm it. It is the true 
key to all the subsequent history — as I shall hereafter show. 
''This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice 
and be glad in it." Such, with slight exceptions (according 
to this prophecy), has been the consenting language of the 
whole Christian Church, from that day to this. And such, I 
cannot doubt, it will continue to be, in despite of all " mur- 
murers and complainers" like the Pharisees of that age, so 
long as the love of a crucified and risen Saviour shall continue 
to warm the bosoms of redeemed and regenerated men. Not 
ahsolutely, indeed (as W. B. T. perversely understands me, — 
p. 92), but comparatively, will the wonders of the original 
creation " cease to be remembered and come into mind." 
(^Isaiah Ixv. 17, 18.) 

My friend asks for '^ decisive authority." What more 
decisive authority could be desired ? Here is the greatest of 
miracles, and a Divine explanation of its meaning in fixing 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 179 

The " Lord's day" a legacy of the Church. The inheritance questioned. 

the "Lord's day." The Resurrection of Christ is the centre- 
point of Christianity. Everything dear to a Christian's soul 
is attached to it, and revolves around it. It is the grand 
unmistakable " sign" of the Divine authority of our Lord. 
And as sure as He is our Lord, He " is Lord also of the 
Sabbath day." 

As you, Messrs. Editors, see fit to limit me to one more 
short article, I will endeavor to comprise in it what I think 
most essential, in order to bring this protracted Discussion to 
a close. May a blessing attend it, even to my friend W. B. T. ! 

J. N. B. 



PART III. 

" This is the day which the Lord hath made ; we will rejoice and 
be glad in it." — Ps.\lms cxviii. 24. 

" I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." — Revelation i. 10. 



The "Lord's day," or the Christian Sabbath, has been for 
eighteen hundred years in the peaceful possession of the 
Christian Church. She claims it as a legacy from her risen 
and ascended Lord. She attaches to it for His sake a pecu- 
liar value, independent of all its inherent advantages, phy- 
sical, moral, social, intellectual, and religious. Yet at this 
day, it seems there are men who from some cause, worthy or 
unworthy, dispute her title to this rich inheritance. My 
friend W. B. T., in so doing, evidently thinks that he is 
"doing God service," and ridding Christianity of "a burden." 
But let him look well to his work; lest a voice unmistakable 
arrest him with the startling interrogation that once smote 
Saul of Tarsus to the soul ! 

I would warn, not threaten. Men belonging to Religious 
Establishments, and believing in the power of the Civil 
Government over religious affairs, may easily satisfy them- 



180 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Religious Establishments. Divine Authority — necessary. 

.selves with a Sabbath '^as by law established/' and think 
little of the need of Scriptural Authority. This was the 
case with Luther and Calvin, Warburton and Paley, 
Whately and Neander. And possibly even in this He- 
public, where a Religious Establishment is wisely forbidden 
by the Constitution, my friend may think "law and wont'' 
of sufficient force to maintain the weekly Sabbath in all its 
beneficent operations, without the belief in its divine au- 
thority. He is not very explicit, it is true, on this point; 
but this is the most charitable view of the matter. To suppose 
he wishes to see the Sabbath practically abolished, is to sepa- 
rate him at once from the company of the great men whom he 
loves to quote. If he has read them thoroughly, he is aware 
that their aim was not to subvert the JSabbath, but to rescue 
the principle and manner of its observance from Pharisaic 
sophistry, bigotry, and superstition. But the position of 
antagonism is not usually favorable to the full discovery of 
truth, or to its exact expression in language. Reformers are 
sometimes innovators. Earnest minds often, like pendulums, 
obey unconsciously the law of oscillation. Reaction is equal 
to action. And hence the injurious extremes and perplex- 
ing inconsistencies of the distinguished men just named — 
some of which I may have occasion to expose. 

But in this point, they are not models for American 
Christians. Whatever be true in other countries and times, 
HUMAN authority, neither legal nor ecclesiastical, will 
satisfy freeborn Americans. No man's conscience will be 
bound here by anything short of divine authority — real 
or supposed. Let the opinions of W. B. T. (as put forth with 
such rash confidence, and defended so zealously) generally 
prevail in this country, and no man could thereafter observe 
the Sabbath, but as a matter of "will-worship," or at best of 
political morality. But this in motive, in tendency, and in 
ultimate effect, is to abolish the Sabbath. What man of in- 
tellectual independence would consent for one moment to the 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 181 

Consequences, entirely overlooked. Grave charges — unbecomingly made. 

degradation of upholding a mere human invention of this kind ? 
What man of enlightened conscience but would recoil from 
so presumptuous a claim of sanctity? What man of real piety 
could any longer observe the day " as unto the Lord ?" — 
''The Lord's day" would in fact be no more ! 

IMy friend, indeed, as if this were not a practical question, 
where every man, woman, and child must necessarily take a 
side, would waive all regard to consequences. He does not 
seem to think that " the tree is known by its fruits." He 
can give up the Sabbath as coolly as the false mother of old 
consented to the division of the living child. To him Truth 
is Truth, alike whether she carries the balm of life, or the 
weapon of death. He never seems to suspect that Truth is 
modest, and Error brazen. If Truth veils her countenance, 
and shrinks from the careless eye, he pronounces her to be 
Deceit, or an Apparition from the land of " shadows." And 
yet my friend is an earnest man. And much as I differ with 
him, I would fain by the force of evidence convince him, and 
embrace him as a brother still. 

He has, indeed (in closing his part iv. — p. 157) become an 
''accuser of the brethren." He has brought against me, and 
my brethren also, charges of the gravest kind. From him, 
certainly, they come with an ill grace, even were they true. 
But they are not. The full refutation of them will be found, 
I trust, in my Reply. If he hear me, I have gained my 
brother. 

If my friend felt himself crippled for want of space to de- 
velop his Argument fully, I more. His minutest as well as 
main objections plight be fairly removed seriatim were space 
allowed me.* But, shut up to a single concluding article, I 

* For example, W. B. T. calls my argument on Gen. ii. 3, in proof 
of the Origin of the Sabbath at the Creation, ^^ etymological [p. 104), 
when it is exegetical: being founded, not on etymology, but on establish- 
ed usage. It is therefore perfectly impregnable. His attempted reply, on 
16 



182 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The root of all the errors. The day temporary, — not the Sdbhath. 

can only treat of the most vital points. And I find these fair- 
ly involved in the very first " Proposition," on the Day op 
THE Sabbath. On this, therefore, I have chosen to concen- 
trate my strength. 

All difficulties arise from radical mistakes here. All the 
other five Propositions of W. B. T. are but branching errors 
which logically grow out of this single root, and live or die 
with it. If the Fourth Commandment, like the rest of the 
Decalogue, is a universal and perpetual Law, and the 
actual designation of the day op the week to be observed 
as the Sabbath is fixed by a separate temporary statute 
(as I have fully shown and confirmed by the unwilling con- 
cession of W. B. T. himself), then it follows irresistibly that 
the Sabbath is not what W. B. T. supposes, " a merely ceremo- 
nial and Jewish institution" — that it was not '^ repeatedly and 
studiously violated" by our Lord, and that it was not set aside 
by the "decree" of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem. 

Again, if the temporary Jewish statute, by which the 
Sabbath was fixed to Saturday under that preparatory dis- 
pensation, was abrogated with that dispensation, and the 
FIRST DAY OP THE WEEK was established thenceforward as 
the Sabbath (or, which is the same thing, "the Lord's 
day"), then all the real force of what W. B. T. has advanced, 
under the other Propositions, is seen to strike merely against 
the observance of the Jewish Saturday Salhath by Gentile 

the other hand, is purely ''etymological." So that he has actually 
charged on me a fault which is exclusively his own ! This misrepre- 
sentation, if designed, is dishonest; if (as I think), not designed, is 
distressing. 

Again. He charges me with making an unreal distinction between the 
offices of the logician and the interpreter, [p. 102.) If the distinction is 
unreal, or if it is more nice than wise, he must impute it, not to me, but 
to his favorite author. Dr. Whatkly. (See Whately's Logic, passim.) 
It depends entirely upon his restricted view of the province of Logic. 
W. B. T. cannot deny the distinction without in the same proportion 
derogating from Dr. Whately's general soundness of judgment. Either 
way, it is immaterial to my argument. 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 183 

A " .summary" treatment. Saturday observed till the Resurrection. 

Christians under the new economy ; and to have no possible 
force against the Christian Sabbath, or ''the Lord's day." 
On this broad Scriptural view, the conflicting opinions of all 
Christendom may be, and, I have no doubt, ultimately will 
be, happily harmonized, and their practice also, to the end of 
the world. 

That the Scriptural basis of this future harmony was laid at 
the same time that " the Stone disallowed of men was made 
the head of the corner," I think I have fully demonstrated in 
my last, — from the necessity of the case, the new relations 
created by redeeming love, the grand miracle of Christ's 
nesurrection, and the concurrent voice of prophecy, explained 
and sanctioned by our Lord as '' Lord of the Sabbath day." 
I have said, further, that this is the true key to the subse- 
quent history of the Apostolic Church. And this I now 
proceed to prove, by applying it successively to every word of 
that history. 

My friend W. B. T. makes very light of this branch of 
the evidence. The texts referred to by me are disposed of 
''summarily" indeed! (j9. 98.) He concludes that "there is 
no shadow of evidence that Jesus or his apostles changed the 
Sabbath day." (p. 95.) I am not surprised at this. It is clear 
that he has not studied the facts closely, so as to perceive their 
force as connected links in a chain of circumstantial evidence 
— practically and irresistibly confirming the fact of such a 
change, as I have proved by other evidence already. 

For, mark the connection. When the body of our Lord 
was laid in the tomb on Friday afternoon, the disciples who, 
in their blind love, had prepared to embalm it, were unable 
to do so because the Jewish "Sabbath drew on." {Luke xxiii. 
54.) They therefore left it with the spices {John xix. 40), 
"and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment." 
(^Luke xxiii. 56.) Here is proof that, up to that time, the 
Saturday Sabbath was held sacred by Christ's disciples — 
notwithstanding W. B. T., like the malicious Jews, tries so 



184 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Assembly of the disciples on the frst day of the -n-eek. 

hard to prove that our Lord " broke the Sabbath/' and 
"taught men so." Early on Sunday morning, "while it was 
yet dark/' they hastened to complete their intended task, 
and were overwhelmed with astonishment to learn from attend- 
ing angels the glorious fact of His Resurrection — a fact which, 
though foretold in Prophecy, and often by Christ himself, 
they had never (such is the blinding power of prejudice) till 
that moment understood. (John xx. 9.) No wonder then that 
they did not yet understand the change of the Sabbath 
day. Hence two of them, "that same day," walked out to 
Emmaus (about eight miles west of Jerusalem), and were 
joined by Jesus. (Luke xxiv. 13 — 32.) Their testimony on 
their return was scarcely credited by the Eleven. (Mark xvi. 
13.) Then '' the same day, at evening," says John (xx. 19 — 
23), "being the first day of the week (notice the em- 
phasis), when the doors were shut where the disciples luere as- 
sembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the 
midst, and saith unto them, — Peace be unto you. And 
when he had so said, he showed them his hands and his side. 
Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord." Up 
to this moment " they believed not for joy and wonder." 
{Luke xxiv. 41.) Now every doubt and fear was dispelled ; 
their Apostolic commission was renewed, and the Holy Ghost 
breathed on them, in anticipation of the mightier miracle of 
Pentecost. Now therefore for the first time did they under- 
stand the full import of the words in Ps. cxviii. 14 — 26, espe- 
cially of verse 24, which I have so fully explained in my last. 
Now, of this FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK they could sing with 
understanding, " This is the day which the Lord hath 

MADE ; WE WILL REJOICE AND BE GLAD IN IT." 

That they did then understand that the first day of the 
WEEK was henceforth to be the " Lord's day," and to be ob- 
served by Christians as such, is evident from the fact next 
recorded. {John xx. 26 — 29.) " And after eight days, again 
his disci];>les were ivitJiin, and Thomas [who was before absent] 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 185 

The " day of rejoicing" understood. The " eighth" day. Townsend's comment. 

witli them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and 
stood in the midst, and said, peace be unto you." The 
phrase " after eight days," is supposed by W. B. T. to 
designate one more day than a week. (p. 93.) But this is 
contrary to Jewish usage, as well as Christian. As well might 
he object to Christ's resurrection on the third day, from the 
phrase " after three days I will rise again." [Matt, xxvii. 63, 
64.) Yet the Jews themselves understood by this phrase 
^' the third day," and not the fourth, as we would be apt to 
do. The truth isj in such phrases, a part of the day preceding 
the point of reckoning is included. The "eighth day" is a 
well-known proverbial expression for the day following the 
Jewish Sabbath, that is, for the first day of the week. So 
this text has been understood from the beginning, unless I am 
deceived. So Hammond, G-ill, Doddridge, and others un- 
derstood it. Townsend, the learned Harmonist, says on this 
passage ; " The first appearances of our Lord to his Apostles 
appear to have taken place uniformly on the first day of the 
week ; and from their consequent observance of that day, ori- 
ginated the Christian Sabbath." Such, also, is the opinion of 
John Bunyan. But the context greatly strengthens this 
opinion. It clearly indicates that Jesus did not appear after 
the day of His resurrection until this da}^, and then chiefly to 
remove the doubts of Thomas. But ichy wa.it a fidl week to 
do this, unless to honor the weekly Sabbath, and to establish 
the change of the day to commemorate His resurrection ? 
This supposition, and this alone, harmonizes with all the 
previous evidence to the same point. On this First day, He 
rode as King into Jerusalem ; on the First day. He rose from 
the dead ; on the First day, He removed the last doubt from 
the mind of His most incredulous Apostle. Thus was the 
day made sacred. 

But a higher honor still was in store for this day. The day 
of Pentecost, it is well known, was always on the First day of 
the week. {Lev. xxiii. 15 — 21.) To this day, the ascended 

10* 



186 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The day of Pentecost— the first day. Jewish feelings respected. 

Saviour reserved the final, public, decisive proof of His being 
in possession of His throne of Glory. (John vii. 39, xvi. 7 — 
15.) On this day, therefore, and not till it was " fully come,^^ 
the disciples at Jerusalem ^^ assembled with one accord in one 
place.'' Why not on the Jewish Sabbath, which was always 
the day before the Pentecost ? Should any choose to say they 
met daily, both before and after, that only heightens the dis- 
tinguishing glory put on this FIRST day of the week by the 
Saviour; for this, and no other. He certainly selected, on 
which to bestow the richest baptism of His spirit, and the 
richest harvest of regenerated souls that was ever gathered in 
one day into His Church. When God established the Jeioish 
Sabbath {Exod. xvi. 27), no manna fell on the seventh day, 
because it was the day of Holy Rest ; but, on the First day, 
from the Pentecost onward, what showers of spiritual manna 
have fallen on the Church of Christ ! The blessing of God 
originally rested on the seventh day. Beyond all dispute, the 
day has been charigedj and the Divine blessing has since rested 
071 the First Day, in every age, onward to our oion. It is worthy 
of remark, too, that the day of Pentecost was always a second 
Sabbath to the Jews, a day of holy convocation, and rest from 
servile work. How fit a day of public transition to the 
Christian Sabbath ! How inoffensive, how smooth, how beau- 
tiful a transition ! How worthy of the condescending love 
and admirable wisdom of our ascended Lord, that the Christian 
*' Lord's day" should thus begin, amid the most glorious and 
unmistakable tokens of His power ! For forty years after, 
as long as Jerusalem stood, no wanton wound was ever inflicted 
on Jewish feeling by refusing to observe the old abrogated 
day ; but everywhere advantage was taken of it by the Apos- 
tles to introduce in the Jewish Synagogues the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ. It was only when Gentile Christians weakly 
conformed to it as a part of the Jewish ritual necessary to sal- 
vation, thus sacrificing the substance of the Gospel to the 
shadow, that Paul lifted up the voice of warning and remon- 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 187 

The first day, in the Corinthian Church. Paul at Troas, on Sunday. 

strance. This last fact fully explains the meaning of those 
texts so often quoted, and so sadly perverted by W. B. T., and 
on which he bases his unwarranted attack upon the Christian 
Sabbath. {Gal iv. 9—11; i?om. xiv. 5—9; Col ii. 10—16.) 

It is worthy of attention that, a few months before writing 
his Epistle to the Komans, Paul wrote his first to the Corinth- 
ians, in which (xvi. 1 — 4) he gives order for the observance 
of the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, as the day sacred to Christian 
Charity. According to the views of W. B. T. on Rom. xiv. 
5 — 9, Paul at the same time, as it were in the same breath, 
designates this day, and destroys it — abrogates and honors it. 
According to my view, Paul recognizes it as the " Lord's day,^' 
by saying that "he that observes it, observes it unto the 
Lorcl.^' For, since it is clear from the context that the day 
in question is observed unto Christ, as " Lord both of the 
dead and of the living,'' how could such a thing be possible, 
but on the supposition that Christ has set apart the day as His 
own? Hence it follows that he who doubts this, like my 
friend W. B. T., is the one who is "weak in faith." 

This will appear still more evident from Acts xx. 6, 7. 
" And o?i the First Day of the loeek, when the discij)Jes came 
together to break Ircad, Paul preached unto them." This pas- 
sage is so decisive of the custom of the Gentile churches, under 
the eye and sanction of the inspired Apostles, as to startle 
even W. B. T. himself. But he attempts to evade it by sup- 
posing, contrary to the express words of the text, that this 
meeting was held on Saturday evening, and that Paul had so 
little regard to the First day of the week as to purpose re- 
commencing his journey on that day ! (p. 94, — note.) A more 
gratuitous and glaring perversion of a plain text I never met 
with. As the glory of this new discovery is all his own, he 
may safely be left " alone in his glory." Few, I think, will 
covet to share it with him. I will only observe that the pre- 
ceding verse shows that Paid had waited a whole iceek at 
Troasj to enjoy the opportunity of meeting his assembled 



188 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

Positive proof. Paul, and John. " The Lord's day" — a Divine ordinance. | 

brethren on their "stated day'^ of worship, and this day is ex- 
pressly designated as "the FIRST day op the week." Why 
was this day so observed by the church, if not appointed by 
her Head ? All " will-worship," all subjection to "ordinances 
after the commandments and doctrines of men," was sternly 
denounced by Paul. {Col. ii. 20 — 22.) His practice, then, at 
Troas, is positive proof that he regarded the first day of the 
week as the Christian Sabbath. But if Paul thus practically 
turns against W. B, T., our friend's whole foundation sinks 
under him, for on Paul he has (in fancy) been building his 
entire argument. 

But if Paul is against W. B. T., still more explicitly is 
" the disciple whom Jesus loved." For in the very last book 
of the New Testament, John assures us, " I was in the 
Spirit 071 the Lord's drnj^ This text, says W. B. T., per- 
fectly confounded, " proves — nothing at all !" (p. 94.) Just 
so, once at Damascus, dazzled by a glory too bright for his 
weak vision, an enemy of Christ, for a season, was struck 
blind. What can be meant by "the Lord's day," here, but 
a day dedicated to the Lord, and that too hy His own author- 
ity? What is meant by "the Lord's supper" (1 Cor. xi. 
20) but the Supper observed in the Christian church, by His 
own authority, in memory of Him ? No mortal ever doubted 
the meaning of the latter phrase of designation. Equally 
clear and certain is the former. The " Lord's day" cannot 
here mean the day of judgment. Neither can it mean the 
Jewish Sabbath ] for that, as W. B. T. himself contends, was 
abrogated, and of course could be "the Lord's day" no long- 
er. But here is "the Lord's day" in the Christian church, 
at the close of the Apostolic age, as such, too well known to 
need explanation, sanctioned by the last of the Apostles of 
Christ, and by Christ himself, indeed, with the last vision of 
His glory accorded to man on earth. If no one (the " Friends" 
excepted) pretends to doubt that the " Lord's table," " the 
Lord's cup," and " the Lord's Supper" (1 Cor. xi.) prove the 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 189 

Objections urged against a substitution of the Lord's day. 

existence of an Ordinance of universal and perpetual obliga- 
tion under the Christian Dispensation, how idle is such a doubt 
in reference to " the Lord's day." Honest men should 
blush to own such a doubt. The truth is, my friend is in a 
dilemma like that of the Jews, when Jesus demanded of them 
the origin of the Baptism of John. And they said : "We can- 
not tell." So my perplexed friend says : "This text proves — 
nothing !" From my heart I pity him. " Whosoever shall 
fall on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall 
fall, it will grind him to powder." {3IaU. xxi. 44.) 

My friend does indeed apparently concede, with Dr. Whate- 
LY, "that there are sufficiently plain marks of the early 
Christians having observed ^the Lord's day' as a religious 
festival." But that it was substituted as " the Sabbath" of 
the Christian dispensation, he denies, on the following grounds : 
1. The " vital word" Sahhath is wanting, (p. 93.) 2. The first 
disciples met on other days also for Christian worship, {p. 94.) 
3. "All of them who were Jews actually continued themselves 
to observe the Mosaic Sabbath." (p. 95.) 4. The early Christian 
writers among the Gentiles exhort Christians not to keep the 
Sabbath, but the Lord's day, on which Christ our Life arose 
from the dead. 5. "It was not till erroneous views of the day 
of Christian worship began to be entertained, that it was ever 
supposed to ^ absorb into itself the authority of the original 
law' — the fourth commandment." (p. 99, — note.') And 6. 
These views are sustained by several distinguished moderns, — 
as Luther, Melancthon, Cranmer, Calvin, Wiiately, 
and Neander. 

I give my friend credit for great acuteness and exten- 
sive research — on one side of this question. For the sake of 
his own investigations, as well as of his great authorities, I acquit 
him of any wilful rejection of the Lord's day, as the Christian 
Sabbath. I sympathize with him, indeed, as a man once like 
tempted. I feel the force of the old saying : " He that never 
doubted, never believed." 



190 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

Human opinions, of no account. Wai-ds not "vital," — but things. 

But I live now for Truth and Right. I would not be 
deceived even by illustrious names. All the great men he 
quotes have erred, as my friend will concede, on such points 
as Infant Baptism, and the Union of Church and State. 
They may then have erred as to this point. If is a practical 
question. Vast consequences, individual and social, hang on the 
decision. For our personal judgment and its practical influ- 
ence, on this very subject, I am admonished, both by Christ 
and his Apostle, that " every one of us shall give account of 
himself to God.'' (3Iatt. v. 19 ; Eom. xiv. 12.) Human opinions 
really decide nothing here. Names equally illustrious, if not 
more numerous, are found arrayed on the other side — that is, 
in favor of the moral and perpetual obligation of the Sabbath. 
EusEBius and Athanasius among the ancients : among the 
moderns, Knox, Beza, even Calvin himself, the Westmin- 
ster divines, Owen, Bunyan, Watts, Doddridge, Edwards, 
Pearson, Horsley, Wilson, Chalmers, Wardlaw, Wood, 
DwiGHT, Alexander, Beecher, Kitto, Wayland. 

Leaving then human authorities, let us look all the real 
evidence calmly in the face. I ask, then. What is the real 
force of the objections urged by my friend ? 

1. Is there anything ^Wital" in the word " Sabbath,' * 
that its absence should decide the question? True vitality 
belongs to things, not words. If we find the thing — the weekly 
day of religious rest and convocation, established by Divine 
Authority in the Christian Church on "the first day of the 
week" — is it not the merest verbal trifling to dispute about 
the name ? If my friend prefers, with the Apostle, to call it 
" the Lord's day," and as such admits its obligation, I will be 
the last man to quarrel with him. If he refuses to do this, I 
must class him with the Jesuit, who, in a debate with me, de- 
nied the sufficiency of the Scriptures, because the word was 
wanting in 2 Tim. iii. 15 — 17. But I am persuaded better 
things of my friend than this Jesuitic quibbling. • He is at 



MR. brown's third REPLY. 191 

Other objections unimportant. A Tanishing dx-eam. 

least a manly foe. I hope he will yet be a cordial^ Christian 
friend. 

2. If the first disciples did also meet on other days, what 
boots it to this argument ? So now do ice. 

3. If the Apostles and Jewish Christians continued to observe 
the Jewish Sabbath also, among their own countrymen, what 
does it prove but their kindness, their devout spirit, and their 
readiness to seize every occasion of doing good ? So would 
any Christian Missionary among the Jews do now. So have I 
done with pleasure among conscientious Seventh-day Baptists 
— some of whom I regard as among " the excellent of the 
earth." 

4. If the early Christian writers " exhort Gentile Christ- 
ians not to observe the Jewish Sabbath, but the Lord's day," 
it is but to check this condescension from degenerating into 
conformity and superstition. If they represent that Sabbath 
as part of a sliadowy and superseded Dispensation, what is that 
to the Argument ? Do ice not say the same ? 

5. This statement of my friend requires no answer. It is 
a mere hegging of the question. 

6. The argument from Human Authority I have answered 
already. 

And now is this all my friend has to urge in the shape of 
objection to the Scriptural, comprehensive, all-harmonizing 
view which I have advocated ? Yes, this is all — absolutely all. 
And each of these objections, when approached and examined 
calmly, in succession, comes to nothing ! It vanishes " like a 
dream when one awaketh," and leaves '^ the Lord's day" in 
full force, from the day of His resurrection to the end of the 
world, as the true Christian Sabbath. The Church still sings, 
as in the days of her youth, '' This is the day which the Lord 
has made ; we will rejoice and be glad in it." May we, vrith 
all her true members, always be "in the spirit on the Lord's 
day." 

The only exception to this are painful ones. Our Lord 



192 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Lax views of Luther and Melancthon. " Fruits." Doctrine of Calvin. 

intimates, in Matt. v. 19, that lax views of the Ten Command- 
ments, or some of them at least, might be embraced and pro- 
pagated by some Ministers of the Gospel. My friend has 
chosen on this point the ungracious task of Ham to Noah. 
Lax views of the Fourth Commandment by Luther and 
Melancthon have borne tlieir natural fruit in Germany. 
What that fruit is may be learned from Dr. Robinson, in the 
Biblical Repository, vol. i. pp. 440 — 446. I will quote a 
single sentence from this impartial witness, written after long 
residence in the land of Luther. " To an American it is 
a striking and painful sight to enter the house of God, and find 
it almost uniformhj destitute of worshippers. The preacher is 
there ; the services are there ; the voice of song rises from 
the Choir and Organ ; but a worshipping assemhly can hardly 
be said to be there !" Can any one doubt, after this, whose 
opinions of the Sabbath are right ? '^ Ye shall know them 
hy their fruits.^' 

My friend has quoted a lax opinion from Calvin. Yet 
Calvin's general doctrine and that of his school was sound. 
The incontrovertible evidence of this is now before me, in the 
^' Propositions and Principles of Divinity, propounded 
and disputed [discussed] in the University of Geneva, under 
M. Theodore Beza, and M. Anthonie Faius, Professors 
of Divinity. Translated out of Latin into English. Edin- 
burgh, 1591." I will quote from this rare book their well- 
weighed conclusion {pp. 80, 81): "We may, therefore, 
justly affirm that the Apostles, by the direction of the 
Holy Ghost, instead of that seventh day observed under 
the Law, did appoint that day which was the first in the 
creation of the former world ) yet not therefore because it was 
the first in that work of the creation, but because that Christ 
by His resurrection upon that day did bring forth that new and 
eternal light of another world ; and therefore this day hath 
been named the Lord's day, ever since the time of the Apos- 
tles." — '' The observance of the Lord's day doth not forbid 



193 

Principles held by Beza, and Faius. Tartial quotations. 

sermons or prayers to be on other days ; but rather commandeth 
a certain peculiar and a solemn profession of the external wor- 
ship of God upon that day in the public congregation. The 
Lord herein dealing most mercifully with us, in that He 
granteth us six days to bestow ourselves in a holy sort in our 
worldly business, and requireth no more to Himself but one 
of seven. The recollection of which seven days, being 
fetched from the creation of the world, doth remain the length 
of all ages and times." 

Whatever then were the private opinions of Calvin (who 
died in 1564), these were the principles publicly taught, 
(and defended against all disputants), after his death, in his 
favorite University, under Beza his bosom friend, biographer, 
and successor. If Calvin really meant to stigmatize them 
as " the dreams of false prophets,'^ this fact of their subse- 
quent vindication and triumph is one of the most instructive 
facts in the History of Christian Doctrine or Morals. How 
fine an illustration of an American Poet's prophetic song ! — 

*' Truth crushed to earth, -will rise again! 
The eternal years of God are hers ; 
But error, wounded, writhes in pain, 
And dies amid her worshippers." 

I have done. The Sabbath of my God is vindicated. One 
word in vindication of myself, and I shall gladly lay down my 
pen. 

The last paragraph of my friend W. B. T. (in part i. of 
his Reply, — j?. 101) requires notice before I close. It touches 
my honor and my heart. Let me then say distinctly that I do 
not impute to him any intention of making unfair quotations, or 
of giving them a wrong coloring. I believe him as incapable 
of this injustice as myself. Yet such an ajjpearance is often 
inseparable from partial extracts, like those he has made from 
Calvin and Bunyan. With regard to Calvin, the fact may 
be verified in a few moments by reading, in Vol. 1. of his In- 
17 



194 OBLIGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

An extract from Buntan. Conclusion. 

stitutes, the single section on the Fourth Commandment. And 
as to BuNYAN, the ^^ Epistle to the Reader," prefixed to his 
Treatise on the Sabbath, will make the matter clear. I quote 
a sentence or two : " Some may think it strange, since God's 
church has always been well furnished with sound grounds 
and reasons by so many wise and godly men, for proof that 
the First day of the weeh is eur true Christian Sabbath that 
I should now offer this small treatise upon the same account.'' 
Again, Bunyan says explicitly : " A Sabbath for holy worship 
is moral ; but this or that day appointed for that service is 
sanctified by precept, or approved example. The timing then 
of a Sabbath for us lies in God, not man : — Grod always 
reserving to Himself a power to alter, and change both time 
and modes of worship according to his own will." 

Now, in whatever details I differ from Bunyan or Calvin, 
it is clear that our fundamental j^ositions are the same. I 
commend this fact to my friend W. B. T. But whether we 
agree or differ with these eminent men on this subject, God 
grant that we may emulate their practical virtues, their 
devoted piety, their unwearied labors for the salvation and 
welfare of their fellow-men. May crowns as bright be ours 
in the day of the Lord's coming ! 

J. N. B. 



THE ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



REPLY TO ^'J. N. B; 



PART I. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE SABBATH LAW. 

*'"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt 
not add thereto, nor diminish from it!" . . . . "But the seventh day 
is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." — Deuteroxomy xii. 32 ; and v. 14. 

"Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, 
and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of 
heaven." — (Matthew v. 19.) " For whosoever shall keep the whole 
Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." — James ii. 10. 

" Thou that makest thy boast of the Law, through breaking the 
Law dishonorest thou God ?" — Romans ii. 23. 

" How do ye say, We are wise, and the Law of the Lord i^ tcith us?" 
— Jeremiah viii. 8. 

" Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep 
your own tradition." — Mark vii. 9. 



Without intending to prejudge tlie resources of Sabbata- 
rianism, or to depreciate the arguments my friend has advanced 
in its support, I am constrained to think that the effort he has 
expended in his last Reply ver}^ much exceeds the execution 
he has effected. I regret that he has seen proper to waive the 
consideration of the five main "Propositions," and restrict 
himself to the introductory one ; since my earnest desire has 
been to elicit all the important points vriiich could readily be 
suggested on either side, satisfied that such a presentation 



196 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A specific " day" enjoined : and that day — Saturday. 

would in itself be sufficient to establish (in tlie minds * of the 
reflecting) the cause of Scripture and of Right, of Reason 
and of Truth. 

J. N. B. remarks, in part hi. of his Reply : ^' All the 
other five Propositions of W. B. T, are but branching errors, 
which logically grow out of this single root, and live or die 
with it.^' (p. 182.) So be it ! I am content to accept the 
issue. In his former Reply, however (p. 55), he considered 
that "the main strength and sole hope of my friend, W. B. T., 
lies in the Second of the ' Six Propositions' he defends." 
It is encouramno; to find that J. N. B. now feels his weakest 
point to be at the very outset of his task. " Shut up to a 
single concluding article," says he, " I can only treat of the 
most vital points. And I find these fairly involved in the very 
first Proposition, on the Day of the Sabbath. On this, there- 
fore, I have chosen to concentrate my strength." (p. 182.) 

The Discussion then is narrowed down by my friend to the 
single point — The Day required hy the Sahhath laic. What 
is the intent and requirement of the fourth commandment ? 
Does it indicate any exclusive portion of time as its especial 
object? And if so, have we the means of determining what 
that exclusive portion of time is ? Both these queries have 
already been answered affirmatively. The commandment not 
only explicitly designates a particular "day" for sanctification, 
but "that Saturday is the Sabbath enjoined in the Decalogue, 
is as certain as human knowledge can be, even concerning the 
Bible itself." 

In reply to this statement, J. N. B. says : "In this I 
entirely differ from him. Had he said : ^ that Saturday is the 
Sabbath enjoined on the Jews, is as certain as human know- 
ledge can be,' I would have at once agreed with him." {p. 163.) 
The futility of this distinction will be apparent presently. 
Meanwhile, I am gratified with the frank admission of my 
friend that " Saturday is the Sabbath enjoined on the Jews," 
and as there is no record, within or without the Scriptures, of 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 197 

The universal and exclusive designation of the day. 

the Sabbath having ever been "enjoined" on any people, ex- 
cepting "on the Jews" (and those sojourning "within their 
gates"), the obligation of Saturday, under the law, is clearly 
commensurate with the obligation of the institution. 

But how is Saturdai/ "enjoined on the Jews?" Simply, 
as I before remarked, " by adopting the universal designation 
of a well-recognized distinction." If the word " seven," 
having been in familiar use long before the Sabbath law, 
required no legal definition, so " the seventh day" of the week, 
having been long antecedently established, as little stood in 
need of explanation. Hence, in the very outset of the Sab- 
batic regulation, we find no hint of any date of computation. 
{Exod. xvi. 5.) It would have been superfluous. As ration- 
ally might the word " day" have been defined. It requires, 
then, no very profound research, or legal acumen, to discover 
with precision, in this case, the meaning of the lawgiver and 
the application of the law. Both in the Decalogue and in 
the preparatory enactment just preceding (^Exod. xx. 10; and 
"Xvi. 26), the language is most explicit: X^^^ Q^' {yom lia- 
shihingi) "day 'the seventh' is the Sabbath." To all who 
understood the language, misconception and equivocation were 
alike impossible. The law appointed a specific " day" in the 
most perspicuous manner possible ] it described the day in- 
tended by using the appropriate name of that day, and the 
onlij name that day had ! As I expressed myself in my 
former Reply (p. 88) : " The term ' Sunday' is not more 
precisive in our law than is the term ^ ha-shibinrji^ in that of 
the Hebrews. It is applicable to no ' seventh day' but 
SaturdayJ^ 

But, says my friend, in reply : " This last remark is the 
purest assumption. As it is by no means self-evident, I must 
demand ample proof before I can admit its truth. Is the proof 
found in ' the universal designation of a well-recognized dis- 
tinction V If so, then the inference irresistibly follows that 
the seventh-day Sabbath [!] was universally recognized he fore 

17* 



198 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The designation, long antecedent to the Sabbath law. 

the giving of the Decalogue at Sinai. But this is coming on to 
my ground^ and abandoning his own. To avoid this, will my 
friend say the seventh day was determined by the giving of 
the manna ? This I understand him to do in these words : 
^ Saturday is the seventh day says God by the manna.' But 
this again is abandoning his original position, and coming over 
to mine." (p. 163.) Not quite so fast. It by no means so 
" irresistibly follows that the seventh-day Sahhath was uni- 
versally recognized" previously, because " the seventh clai/^' 
was so recognized ; any more than it follows that the seventh 
day Sabbath is now universally recognized because " the 
seventh day" is. The Egyptians long previously had the 
week and "the seventh day," but they certainly had not the 
" Sabbath." As little does it follow that " the seventh day 
was determined by the manna," because God said by the 
manna, "Saturday is the 'seventh day'" of the law. The 
seventh day was not "determined by the manna." It had 
been "determined" centuries before. It was determined when 
i\\Q loeek was instituted; and without this " determination," 
there never could have been the " week." As to the "ample 
proof" demanded for my previous assertion (p. 88), it is found 
in the fact that only one day of the week either was or could 
be, yom ha-shihingi, " day the seventh." Day Ha-Shihingi 
was indisputably much older than the Jewish Sabbath law, 
and, therefore, this law, in using the term, was necessarily re- 
stricted to the well-established meaning of that term; just as 
our own law in using the term " Sunday" necessarily desig- 
nates the first day of the week; or just as an appointment of 
^' seventh day" for any purpose b}^ the society of " Friends" 
could not possibly intend any day but Saturday. J. N. B. 
is perfectly right, therefore, when he agrees with me that, as 
certainly as man can know, " Saturday is the Sabbath enjoined 
on the Jews." He is as clearly wrong when he denies that 
it is "enjoined in the Decalogue." 

lie attempts to uphold the distinction, by contending that 



MR. Taylor's tuird reply. 199 

The day, no more temporary than the law. 

Saturday was " fixed by a temporary statute/^ Then clearly 
the whole law was '' a teniporary statute," the very point for 
which I am battling. If " the seventh day'^ observance was 
intended only for the Jews, it follows, as I maintained before 
{p. 89), that '^ the statute itself was only for that people.'^ 
J. N". B. explains that, in formerly saying the statute was onli/ 
for the Jews {p. 59), he meant " by ' statute,' what God 
said to Moses at the giving of the manna. {Exod. xvi. 5, 15, 
16, 22 — 31.) See particularly verse 26th, where the statute 
of designation is clear as the sun } and that, too, long he/ore^ 
the giving of the Decalogue." (p. 164.) This 26th verse is as 
follows : " Six days ye shall gather it : but on the seventh da?/, 
which is the Sahhath, in it there shall be none." Now it so 
happens that the fourth commandment repeats this " designa- 
tion" almost verbatim. "Six days shalt thou labor, and do 
all thy work : but the seventh day is the Sahhath of the Lord 
thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." {^Exod. xx. 10.) 
If the former of these texts constitutes a " statute of desig- 
nation" enjoining Saturday upon the Jews, then it " is clear 
as the sun" that the fourth commandment is equally "a sta- 
tute of designation" enjoining Saturday upon them. Was the 
designation limited to them? "'Then most certainly, the 
statute itself was only for that people.' So says W. B. T., 
and I am most happy to agree with him," adds J. N. B. (p. 

* My friend's epithets are not always strictly appropriate. The 
circumstance above referred to as having been " long before the giving 
of the Decalogue," took place not quite three weeks before ! Two 
Sabbaths only intervened between the first imperfect enactment of a 
Sabbath law, and the formal establishment of it in the fourth com- 
mandment ; so that the two occasions may very properly be considered 
but the same transaction. The Israelites arrived at the wilderness of 
Sin on the middle of one month [Exod. xvi. 1), and at Sinai on the 
next month [ib. xix. 1) ; three days after which (xix. 11, 16), the 
Decalogue was orally proclaimed from the Mount (xx. 1, 18). Forty 
days afterward, the Decalogue had been written on the tables of stone. 
{Dent. ix. 9—11.) 



200 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A " concession" refuted. The same day uniformly required. 

164.) " Wlij should I not be, when he comes over completely 
to my ground ? Would that in all points we could meet as 
perfectly as in this V If our agreement is real, our cause for 
congratulation is mutual. I am afraid, however, that my 
friend's sophisms have carried him somewhat into a fog : for I 
notice that, in afterwards recurring to this point (p. 182), he 
says : " The actual designation of the day of the week to be 
observed as the Sabbath is fixed by a separate temporary 
statute, (as I have fully shown, and confirmed hy the unwilling 
concession of W. B. T. himself ly^ J. N. B. is mistaken : 
douhly mistaken. First, he unjustly mistakes in using the 
epithet "unwilling,'' for my admissions never shall be so. I 
assure him I love the truth too well to pay it a reluctant 
homage ; and if I make a " concession," it shall be with the 
exultation due to the discovery of a new and unfamiliar truth. 
But my friend again mistakes, in claiming as a *' concession'^ 
what I have decisively refuted! The designation of the day 
of the week to be observed is not "fixed by a separate statute." 

In my very first Reply {p. 21), I showed that " in every 
variety, and on every occasion of its enunciation, the law per- 
tinaciously requires a particular day." We find that " the 
actual designation of the day of the week to be observed as 
the Sabbath" is as explicit in the Decalogue as it is in Exod. 
xvi. 26. It " is fixed by a separate temporary statute," no 
otherwise than as the imperfect Sabbath law at Sin was, pre- 
paratory to its more precise and impressive re-enactment at 
Sinai. " I am most happy to agree with my friend" that 
the seventh day Sabbath was established " by a temforary 
statute." " Why should I not be, when he comes over com- 
pletely to my ground ?" 

"It follows," proceeds J. N. B., "that the designation of the 
particular day of the week from a given point of reckoning 
is no part of the Fourth Commandment. The proportion of 

our days to be kept holy to the Lord is alone specified 

^ The seventh day' of the Decalogue, as fur as it is defined by 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 201 

No •' proportion of days" specified by the fourth commandment. 

the Decalogue itself [?], is the seventh in succession — no 
other — no less — no more. ' Every word of God is pure. 
Add thou not unto His words, lest lie reprove thee, cand thou 
be found a liar/ is a warning that should pierce every con- 
science to the quick. '^ (j;. 164.) 

My friend is still in the fog. "The proportion of our days 
to be kept holy" is not specified at all in the fourth command- 
ment ! There is not one syllable of the kind in it.* This is 
an " addition unto His words I" The command is not to keep 
a seventh '^proportion" of time; but to ''remember the 
Sabbath day, which is \j/om ha-shihingi'] 'day the seventh/ ^^ 
the day in which God rested; the onli/ day that can be "the 
Sabbath o/the Lord thy God/' as the Bible tells not that He 
ever kept any other "Sabbath." (^Gen. ii. 3; JohnY. 17.) 
" ' The seventh day' of the Decalogue, as far as it is defined 
hy the Decalogue itself," is NOT " the seventh in succession," 
nor anything else. The idea is a chimera, utterly unworthy 
" a sober logician." " As far as it is defined by the Decalogue 
itself," the expression yom ha-shihingi might be " day of the 
new moon," or " all-fools day." The Biblical interpreter 
should know that "definitions" are derived from the traditions 
of language, and the comparisons of application. 

J. N. B. tells us that "the Decalogue says : 'Bemember 
the Sahhath day to keep it holy,' not 'Remember the seventh 

* " The proportion of days to be kept holy to the Lord" is a much 
larger one than J. N. B. has been pleased to assume. If he will turn 
to Levit. xxiii. he will find in this one chapter no less than eight diflereut 
"Sabbaths" enjoined. 1. The weekly Sabbath {verse 3); 2. The 
first of unleavened bread [v. 7) ; 3. The seventh of imleavened bread 
{v. 8) ; 4. The Pentecost {y. 21) ; 5. The Sabbath of trumpets {v. 24) ; 6. 
The day of atonement {v. 32) ; 7. The first of tabernacles {v. 35) ; 8. The 
seventh of tabernacles (y. 36). In no single instance, however, is any 
"proportion" of time "specified." This can only be discovered by 
computation. The requirement of the law is, in every case, a well- 
determined " day," — no other — no less — no more. 



202 ABROGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

A useless distinction. " The seventh day," required by the Law. 

day to keep it holy.' What the Sabbath day is, i. e., how 
often it occurs, and what is its order of succession, is intimated 
in what follows. The ' seventh day' is not, strictly speaking, 
in the law itself, but in the explanation of the law." (jo. 165.) 
Were it not for my friend's previous declaration, '^ Truth, 
and not mere tilt, is my object in this Discussion'' {p. 162), I 
should have thought this quibbling. Will J. N. B. in candor 
say that his latter form : ^' Remember the seventh day to keep 
it holy," would be one jot more explicit, unequivocal, or 
authoritative, — one jot more removed beyond the reach of 
subterfuge, than the existing form : " Remember the Sab- 
bath day ... but the seventh day is the Sabbath ?" If he 
will not say so, his distinction is disingenuous, and the " day" 
is admitted to have all the obligation the laiu can give it ; if 
he will say so (as consistency with his comment requires), I 
can only wonder at the consorted weakness and boldness of 
expedient to which ^^ wrong theories lead intelligent men.'^ 
With far more plausibility may it be said that what Pro- 
testants call the ^' second" commandment is not properly a 
^'law itself," but only an ^^explanation of the law f' for in 
point of fact, it is indeed obviously included in the ^' first" 
commandment. Is it, therefore, in any respect snhordinate ? 
The notion is most untenable. The extended specifications of 
a statute are as really an integral part "of the law itself" 
as its first general provision. They demand the same implicit 
obedience, or require the same decisive repeal. J. N. B. 
appears to be fully aware of this, for even while contending 
that the seventh day " is not the text, but the commentary on 
the text, by the Divine Lawgiver," he admits that it is of 
"equal antliority with it." The distinction is therefore wholly 
irrelevant to the point under discussion — the reqidrement of the 
fourth commandment. "The law itself" expressly enacts that 
" day the seventh is the Sabbath" {Exod. xx. 10) ; and the 
intent of the lawgiver is unmistakable and undisputed. The 
subsequent administration of the law, no less than the ante- 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 203 

No commutution permitted. The Sabbath law, specific. 

cedent suspension of the manna, places it beyond question that 
" day the seventh" indicated Saturday, and no other day ; and 
so rigidly was this provision insisted on that even in the case 
of its most trivial infraction, no commutation of '^ day'' was 
allowable, no, not to save the offender's life. (Mimb, xv. 32 — 
36.) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy!" It 
was the "day" that was likely to be forgotten, not "the Sab- 
bath." 

In my friend's former Reply (p. 47), it was contended that 
if a miracle had originally determined the application of the 
law in regard to the day, a subsequent miracle might change 
its application. To which I objected (p. 89) that this would 
be to allow one miraculous interpretation to be set aside by 
another one. In rejoinder to this, J. N. B. says : " He knows, 
quite as well as I do, that if the law be of a general descrip- 
tion, it is equally applicable to two or more specific cases." 
(p. 165.) 

"Your if," says Shakspeare, "is the only peacemaker: 
much virtue in if." The fourth commandment is not " gene- 
ral" in description : it is as specific as language can make it. 
It designates a particular day by its proper name, and hy the 
only name it had! ^'Day Ha-Shihingi is the Sabbath!" 
Frequently as the Sabbath law is repeated, in no single in- 
stance does it describe a seventh portion of time, or even a 
"seventh day" as its object: "day the seventh" is its inexo- 
rable demand. (See Exod. xvi. 26, 29, xx. 10, xxiii. 12, xxxi. 
15, xxxiv. 21, XXXV. 2 ; Lcvit. xxiii. 3 ; Deut. v. 14.) And 
if a miracle has confirmed the letter of the precept, by mark- 
ing Saturday the last day of the week as that " day the se- 
venth" of the law — that day of the series corresponding to the 
one on which God rested from all his work — no other miracle 
is competent to prove a different day to be that "day the 
seventh." A miracle may repeal a law; it cannot be allowed 
to contradict another miracle ! 

"Willing to give my friend the benefit of the utmost latitude 



204 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A Miracle; and tlie " explanation." No change in the computation. 

of concession, and curious to see to wtat his assumptions would 
conduct him, I said, " Show us however the miracle (fixing 
another ^seventh day'), and it sufiiceth us." {p. 89.) Says 
J. N. B., ^' In spite of this sharp irony, that miracle may, in 
due time, appear." {p. 165.) And he afterwards resumes {p. 
174), " I propose now to show not only the miracle, but the 
Divine explanation of the miracle. I bespeak an earnest at- 
tention. Let it be remembered, then, that the first explicit de- 
claration of faith in Jesus as the Messiah was made at Csesa- 
rea Philippi, about six months before our Saviour's death. 
(Matt. xvi. 13 — 20.) . . . ' After six days,' says Matthew 
(xvii. 1), ' about eight days,' says Luke (ix. 18, 28), was the 
Transfiguration. . . . But that miracle was connected by 

some secret tie with the miracle of the Resurrection 

So much for the Miracle. [!] Now for the Divine explanation 
of the Miracle, which fixes the first day of the week, or the 
day of Christ's Resurrection, as the Sabbath of the Christian 
Dispensation." (p. 175.) This " Divine explanation" is so ab- 
struse as to require the remainder of this PART of his Reply 
(pp. 175 — 179) for its development. 

And what have we in all this inexplicable '' explanation," 
bearing on the computation of the week? Not the first sylla- 
ble ! " The Resurrection," says J. N. B., ^' we know was, on 
the first day of the week ;" and he thinks it '' highly probable, 
to say the least, that the glorious miracle of the Transfigura- 
tion was on that day.'^ (p. 174.) Therefore — Sunday is " day 
Ua-Sldhingif" Is it so ? Have we any intimation, either 
in the New Testament, or in the whole range of history, that 
Sunday ever became the seventh day — that it was ever any- 
thing else but ^^ the first day ?" Not a hint ! How then does 
the miracle " fix another ' seventh day V " My friend has 
completely lost his reckoning. 

But he says the Divine explanation of the miracle " fixes 
the first day of the week as the Sabbath of the Christian Dis- 
pensation." Here is a s^2'^'*'^"^' -^ '^ Remember the Sabbath 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 205 

The " seventh day" not peculiar to the Jews ; but universally recognized. 

day . . . but the seventh day is not the Sabbath I" J. 
N. B. undertook to show that "the seventh day" had been 
miraculously changed, and, instead of doing so, endeavors to 
make it appear that the application of the law has been modi- 
fied. " A new phase in the alogy," truly. 

Conscious of the insecurity of his footing, he says, with 
some anxiety : " This question has nothing to do with any 
change of the Decalogue. This I have proved beyond dispute. 
It concerns merely the Jeioish mode of reckoning the iceek, 
fixed by the miracle of the Manna, as explained by Moses. 
{Exod. xvi. 22 — 30.) This mode of reckoning was a special 
statute for Israel." (p. 174.) The hurry of my friend's forced 
march has here driven him into a " serious blunder." In the 
first place, the Jewish mode of reckoning the week was not 
"fixed by the miracle of the Manna" (see Gen. 1. 10; Job ii. 
13 ; Exod. xvi. 5); and secondly, if it had been, still it is 
"beyond dispute," that "this mode of reckoning" was not 
peculiar to Israel ; for it is identical with ours. It never has 
been changed! Saturday is still " the seventh day," as cer- 
tainly as it was in the Wilderness, three thousand years ago. 
The very miracle of the Resurrection, which J. N. B. adduced 
to show a change of reckoning, completely overthrows him : 
for by the Record, the miracle occurred on " the first day of 
the week," and on that same "Jirst day" is it still commemo- 
rated ! And that no change took place before the miracle, he 
honestly concedes from the account in Luke xxiii. 56. " Here 
is proof," says he, " that iq? to that time, the Saturday Sabbath 
was held sacred." (p. 183.) 

My friend has the misfortune to be impaled on a dilemma 
of his own contrivance; and, I fear, will have to ride both 
horns, for the moment he is fairly upon one, he finds it neces- 
sary to grasp at the other for support. Whether it is the day 
of the week, or the day of the law, that has been changed, he 
is not right clear. There is obviously considerable delicacy 
reqiiired in the statement of the question^ since his theory com- 
18 



206 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

No change made in the week : and none in the law. 

pels him to be extremely sensitive with regard to any modifica- 
tion of the Decalogue. But, however tenderly he may shift his 
uneasy seat, the ultimate practical point to be proved by him 
is that the observance of the ^rs^ day of the week is required 
by the fourth commandment. He admits that it is as certain 
as human knowledge can be, ^' that Saturday/ is the Sabbath 
enjoined on the Jews." How then did Sunday ever become 
obligatory ?* The question can have nothing to do with any 
change of the weeh, since, *^ non est,^' there has been none ; and 
J. N. B. thinks he has ^' proved beyond dispute" that it '^ has 
nothing to do with any change of the Decalogue.'* So, upon 
the whole, it appears not to have much to do loith anything ! 
Still, somehow or other, and somewhere or other, J. N. B. is 
pretty sure that there has been " a change." " Beyond all 
dispute," says he, " the day has been changed, and the Divine 
blessing has since rested on the First Day, in every age, onward 
to our own." (p. 186.) The Scriptural authority for this 
change is the important question before us. 

" What I now propose to show," says J. N. B., " is that 
there is ample evidence in the Scriptures that Christ, as the 
sole ^ Lord of the Sabbath day,'f changed the day of its ob- 
servance in honor of His own Resurrection." (p. 171.) Ex- 
cellent ! — " Highly important — if true I" — " Yea, hath God 

* It may perhaps be encouraging to reflect that "the 'seventh 
day' is not, strictly speaking, in the law itself, but in the explanation 
of the law." So that, by adhering strictly to "the law itself," and 
merely anatomizing exuberances (such as the words "seventh" — 
"Egypt," &c.), we shall still be enabled to retain a very respectable 
skeleton of the immortal " Decalogue." 

f What Jesus did as " Lord of the Sabbath day," is recorded in 

Matt. xii. 1 8 ; 3Iark ii. 23 — 28 ; and John v. 17. It will be found 

to be something very diflferent from ''changing the day of its observance !'* 
Strangely enough, there is not a hint there afforded my friend of any 
such "change!" Whence could he have dreamed so "pure a fancy?" 
Ilis appUcatic» of the title is unmeaning and ridiculous. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 207 

No Scriptural authority for a transfer. No Sabbatarian text to be found. 

said?'' — At last then we may hope for some little scrap of this 
'* ample evidence" — so patiently awaited, so anxiously desired. 
" One fundamental part of that evidence is seen (as I showed 
in my last article) in the nature and necessity of the case — that 
is to say, in the new relations established by the work of Christ, 
and confirmed by His resurrection from the dead on that day." 
[p. 171.) Alas ! We are promised '^bread :" behold " a stone." 
The only ^'fundamental" part of the evidence is " chapter and 
verse," my friend ! Has your laborious search proved un- 
availing ? — Why not candidly avow it ? Has the " ample evi- 
dence in the Scriptures" been adduced ? Where is it to be 
found ? The thirsting eye trudges through barren paragraphs, 
but the promised well-spring is not there. Assumptions — 
"explanations" — rhetorical episodes — these instead must we 
accept, and not " too curiously consider." I have challenged 
the production of one single text from the New Testament to 
countenance Sabbatarianism ; one single text, but half as ex- 
plicit as Col. ii. 16, on the J./i<i-sabbatarian side; and have 
pledged myself to surrender " the whole argument toithout re- 
serve." (p. 40.) My appeal remains unanswered. I charge 
upon my friend, that the text does not exist, upon whose naked 
strength, he himself will dare to rest the decision of any 07ie 
of our issues. 

"Look calmly, now," says he, "at the case before us. Here 
is the Law of the Weekly Sabbath in the Decalogue, — moral,* 
positive, clear, benign," &c. &c. " And yet you demand posi- 
tive proof of its re-enactment by Christ in explicit terms, or of 
an equally explicit account of its transfer to the first day, from 
the seventh of the Jewish calendar week. [Exactly. You 
know ' there is ample evidence in the Scriptures,' if ice could 
hut find it."] Demands at once preposterous and presumptuous ! 

* " A weekly Sabbath ... is not of itself obvious !" (J. N. B. /?. 15.) 
" The law of observing the seventh-day Sabbath is not of a moral 
nature." Dr. Gill. [Body of Divinity, vol. iii. b. iii. eh. 8.) 



208 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

" A kind of evidence which Infinite Wisdom does not see fit to give." 

By what right do you thus dictate to God [!] the mode of his 
revelation r' {p. 172.) 

However closely pressed my friend may feel himself, by the 
demand, he should still " look calmly at the case/' and by all 
means avoid dogmatism. By exercising a cool discrimination, 
he will discover that the "dictation'^ reaches at present no 
higher than himself 3 and, "by the right'' of controversial 
honesty, I dictate thus : Dare not to tell us, if you value truth, 
that a Scriptural "mode of revelation" has transferred the 
Sabbath, unless you are prepared to furnish the evidence of 
that " mode !" However " presumptuous" the demand, I shall 
not easily be frowned from it. It is no doubt highly "prepos- 
terous" to drive J. N. B. into so narrow a corner, but a frank 
acknowledgment of error affords an honorable escape, and pity 
would be weakness. 

In a preceding passage (p. 170), he remarks, with equal justice 
and moderation, that " a lesson of deep import," learned from 
the calm answers and demeanor of Jesus, is, that " we may be 
demanding on some points a kind or degree of evidence which 
Infinite Wisdom does not see fit to give." I thank him for so 
fair a statement. My sole business, under the " First Propo- 
sition," is to show that Scriptural authority for a modification 
of the Sabbath law is " a hind or degree of evidence which In- 
finite Wisdom has not seen fit to give." And the satisfactory 
reason why no modification of the law has been thus revealed 
is, because the Scriptural authority for its total abrogation is 
" ample," unqualified, decisive.* Though we search the New 

* " The Jewish Sabbath being abrogated, the Christian liberty, like 
the sun after the dispersion of the clouds, appeared in its full splendor, 
and then the division of days ceased, and one day was not more holy 
than another, as St. Paul disputes in his Epistle to the Galatians (and 
from him St. Jerome, in loco.) ; and when St. Paul reproved the Corin- 
thians for going to law before unbelievers who kept their court-days 
upon the first day of the week, he would not have omitted to reprove 
them by so great and weighty a circumstance as the profaning ' the 



MR. TAYLOR^ S THIRD REPLY. 209 

The word " Sabbath" Tital, because the only appropriate designation. 

Testament with microscopic diligence, we can find no syllable 
to whisper '^a transfer of the day." Granting to J. N. B. the 
full benefit of his own forced constructions of all the passages 
of Scripture he has been able to collect, he is just as far from 
the establishment of his assumption — a change in the applica- 
tion of the fourth commandment — as ever. The vital word 
'' Sabbath" (as I before remarked, — p. 93), unfortunately, 
^Miad to be omitted from all his decisive ^ facts,' built on 
'chapter and verse !' " 

But, replies J. N. B. {p. 190) : " Is there anything ' vital' 
in the ivord ' Sabbath,' that its absence should decide the ques- 
tion ? True vitality belongs to things, not ivords. If we find 
the thinj — the weekly day of religious rest and convocation, 
established by Divine Authority in the Christian Church on 
' the first day of the week,' is it not the merest verbal trifling 
to dispute about the name? If my friend prefers, with the 
Apostle, to call it ' the Lord's day,' and as such admits its obli- 
gation, I will be the last man to quarrel with him." 

I answer, "words" are " vital," as the exponents of "things." 
Pre-eminently "vital" are they in theological discussion; and 
my friend well knows that long and bitter battles have been 
waged on the orthodoxy of a Greek diphthong. The word 
"Sabbath" is vital here, as being the appropriate, and the only 
appropriate, designation of the subject in dispute. If J. N. B. can 
"find the thiuf//' why should he hesitate to call it by its proper 
name ? If, in a single text of those he has presented, a day of 
worldly rest is inculcated, under lohatever "name" — a day in 
which it is commanded " thou shalt not do any work" — how 
happens it that in summing up his "four distinct /acifs," with 
all the latitude of liberal paraphrase and "forced construction," 
he could not once lug in " the vital word" on which our con- 
Lord's day,' in case it had been then a holy day, either of divine or 
apostolical institution." Jeremy Taylor. [Duct. Dub. b. ii. ch. 11. 
rule 6, 54.) 

18* 



210 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The " Lord's day" not here in controversy. 

troversy turns ? If the true reason is, because he dared not, 
the charge of verbal trifling recoils on him who, driven from 
all his defences, seeks refuge in artifice, and endeavors to veil 
defeat beneath a juggle of ivords. 

" If I prefer to call it ^ the Lord's day,' '^ my friend will not 
^' quarrel with me !" Unequalled complaisance ! If I should 
feel disposed to change the issue, he will not object : — if I sur- 
render my castle, I am welcome to his wigwam ! I " prefer'^ 
to remind J. N. B., once more, that our present subject of dis- 
cussion is " the Scriptural authority of the Sabbath;" in other 
words, the obligation of the fourth commandment. When this 
is disposed of, I will cheerfully investigate with him whatever 
other subject he may propose. 

W. B. T. 



PART II. 

INTIMATIONS OP A TRANSFER OF THE SABBATH. 

" Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read." — Isaiah xxxiv. 16. 

"And he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. 
What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord." — Jeremiah xxiii. 28. 

"For my people have committed two evils ; they have forsaken — the 
fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, 
that can hold no water," — Jeremiah ii. 13. 

" To the Law, and to the testimony : if they speak not according to 
this word, it is because there is no light in them." — Isaiah viii. 20. 

*' There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the coun- 
sel of the Lord, — that shall stand," — Proverbs xix. 21. 

"Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be 
rooted up !" — Matthew xv. 13. 



Although the Bible admittedly contains no "positive 
proof" of any Christian enactment of the Sabbath, nor any 
" explicit account of its transfer to the first day from the se- 
venth," yet the persistency of my friend's reliance on supposed 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 211 

Psalms cxviii. — No relation whateyer to the fourth commandment. 

Scriptural intimations of some such change requires that I 
should more fully consider his texts and his inferences. I 
shall therefore review the passages adduced — seriatim; glean- 
ing, with the patient care due to the importance of the subject, 
whatever has been urged in their support, solicitous that no 
straw, or semblance of a straw, escape the garner. These refer- 
ences, I believe, amount to twelve, and are all included in part 
I. of his former Reply {pp. 51, 52). 

I. Intimations from PropJiecy. 

1. The first text urged to indicate a change of day is from 
Psahns cxviii. 24 : " This is the day which the Lord hath made; 
we will rejoice and be glad in it." Upon which J. N. B. re- 
marks (p. 177) : '' How 'made?' This word can have no dis- 
tinct meaning, unless it signifies here ' made sacred ;' and to 
agree with the foregoing verse, it must mean ' made sacred to 
Christ,' in honor of his exaltation as the 'head of the corner.' 
And that this sacredness is to be recognized by the Church is 
clear from the following words : ' We will rejoice and be glad 
in it.'" Ergo, ''Thou shalt not do any work" on Sunday : ergo, 
the Jewish Sabbath has been " transferred." Quite an impos- 
ing hypothetical sorites. If " macW signifies here " made 
sacred,'' and if this signifies "made sacred to Christ," and if 
this signifies "made sacred from labor," why then it is not im- 
possible that a "Sabbath" may here be intended. And, in the 
second place, if the word "day" signifies here a time of weekly 
recurrence, and if that time is Sunday, and if to " be glad in 
it" means to worship) on it, and if to worship on it means to 
"rest" on it, why then perhaps Sunday is a " Sabbath." 

To blow upon this paper building would be a superfluous 
effort of breath ; and were I to assist my friend in supporting 
his tottering pile, it would really benefit him nothing. " The 
thing" required, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, is 
just as foreign to the text as is its "name." But it is too clear 
for illustration, that "the day" here spoken of by the Psalmist, 



212 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

No reference made to the wcel; more than to the year. 

is distinguished as the glorious dawning, '' not of a loeek, but 
of a dispensatwn."* It has no more relation to an hebdomadal 
period, than it has to a montlili/, a yearly, or a centennial one. 
J. N. B. informs us that the import of the word ^^ must he its 
literal meaning, unless sufficient reasons can be given to show 
the contrary. The literal meaning of the word in question is, 
a period of twenty-four hours." (p. 177.) This absolutely 
excludes the hypothesis of a weekly return ! If the " Messiah's 
exaltation" took place on a " literal day,^' it certainly did not 
again take place on that day week, any more than it did on 
that day year If 

* Dr. Gill, the commentator, after stating the various applications 
of the word " day" here, to *' Resurrection-day," " Lord's day," &c., 
thinks it is "rather the whole Gospel dispensation, made a bright day 
by the sun of righteousness, and which is the now present day of sal- 
vation." (^Comme7itary, in loco.) 

Prof. J. A. Alexander, of Princeton, remarks upon the passage, 
**By the 'day' we are here to understand the happier times which 
Israel, through God's grace, was permitted to enjoy. This day he is 
said, as the author of this blessed revolution, to have made — created. 
Some understand by day the festival or celebration at which the psalm 
was intended to be sung. The day, in this sense, God is said to have 
made or instituted, not so much by positive appointment as by having 
providentially aflForded the occasion for it. In a still higher sense, the 
words may be applied to the new dispensation, as a glorious change in 
the condition of the church, compared with which the restoration from 
captivity was nothing, except as a preliminary to it, and a preparation 
for it. There is no allusion to the weekly Sabbath, except so far as it was 
meant to be a type of the rest of the church from the heavy burdens of 
the old dispensation." {^The Psalms translated and ezplabied: — in loco.) 

f Bishop HoRNE, indeed, commenting on this text, observes : "Easter 
day is in a peculiar manner consecrated to Him who by his resurrection 
triumphed over death and hell. On that day, through faith, we triumph 
with him; we rejoice and are glad in his salvation." (^Commentary on 
Psalms, in loco.) I hope this application will not frighten my friend 
out of consistency ; for the passage is really just as appropriate to the 
annual as to the hebdomadal festival. " This is the day which the Lord 
hath made." 



213 

Isaiah Ixv. — Modified. The text ^n<i-sabbatarian ; and prospective. 

2. The second text is from the prophecy of Isaiah (Ixv. 17, 
&c.) : " For behold I create new heavens and a new earth; and 
the former shall not he remembered, nor come into mind. But 
be ye glad, and rejoice forever in that which I create : for be- 
hold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy ; 
and I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and 
the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the 
voice of crying. . . . The wolf and the lamb shall feed to- 
gether, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock." From 
all which it ought to be apparent to any one not blinded by 
" an evil heart of unbelief,'^ that the Sabbath law has been 
changed, and that now the first day " is the Sabbath of the 
Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.'^ Unfortu- 
nately, J. N. B. is not — himself altogether satisfied with the 
passage, and wishes to modify it. ^^ Not absolutely ^ indeed (as 
"W. B. T. perversely understands me), but comparatively j will 
the wonders of the original creation ^ cease to be remembered 
and come into mind.' '^ (p. 178.) How "perverse'^ in W. 
B. T. to be so literal! And how provoking that Isaiah forgot 
so trivial a qualification as the word " comparatively !" But, 
alas ! the passage contains (as I have already noticed, — p. 92) a 
clear annihilation of the fourth commandment. '' Remember 
not the Sabbath-day" of creation ! No periodic intervals shall 
measure your rejoicings,* Even supposing, as before, I grant 
to the uttermost my friend's own reading, where is '' the 
thing — the vital thing .?" It cannot be found! It is from here 
*^ As far removed, as from the centre thrice to th' utmost pole \" 
Strong and unequivocal, however, as is the Anti-sabbatarianism 
of this passage, I decline employing it in evidence. My cause 
is too strong to accept incompetent support. J. N. B. knows 

* As Grotius well observes of the strong and spiritual Christian : 
*' He esteems every day alike holy, serving God from new moon to new 
moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, according to the prophecy of Isaiah." 
{Annotations on N. Test, in Rom. xiv. 5.) 



214 ABROGATION OP THE SABBATH. 

John XX. Matthew xxviii. Luke xxiv. " The thing" — wanting. 

as well as I do that this grand prophecy has never been ful- 
filled.* It can therefore have no kind of application to the 
case before us. 

II. Intimations from the example of Jesus. 

3. The third text of my friend brings us to the legitimate 
field of inquiry — the New Testament. It is John xx. 16 : 
" Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith 
unto him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master.^^ Whence we 
may conjecture that the day on which this was said was pro- 
bably a " Sabbath," and consequently that the law was here 
changed. " The thing^' is not here ! — nor the ghost of the 
'' thing." 

4. The fourth text is Matthew xxviii. 9 — 11 : " And as they 
went to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them, saying, All 
hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and wor- 
shipped him. Then said Jesus unto them. Be not afraid : go 
tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they 
see me. Now when they were going, behold some of the watch 
came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the 
things that were done." " The thinf is not here ! 

5. The fifth text is Luhe xxiv. 80 — 40 : "And it came to 
pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread and blessed it 
and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and 
they knew him ; and he vanished out of their sight," &c. &c. 

* LowTH remarks concerning it: " The conversion of the Jews will 
be in the last times of this world: and then will follow the 'new heavens 
and earth,' which are to commence after the dissolution of this world." 
(Com. in loco.) 

Clakke says of it: " Some Jews and some Christians understand it 
literally. Some refer it to what they call the Millennium ; others, to a 
glorious state of religion ; others, to the re-creation of the earth after 
it shall have been destroyed by fire. I think it refers to the full con- 
version of the Jews ultimately, and primarily to the deliverance from 
the Babylonish captivity." [Com. in loco.) 



215 

The disciples unconscious of a transfer. An auxiliary testimony. 

Well, ^'the thing^* is not liere ! J. N. B. appears to be some- 
what aware of this, for, in adverting to the preceding occur- 
rences of this same day, he acknowledges that up to this time 
the disciples were evidently unconscious of any modification of 
the fourth commandment ; and he very candidly thinks it ^'no 
wonder that they did not yet understand the change of the Sab- 
bath day.* Hence, two of them ^ that same day' walked out 
to Emmaus (about eight miles west of Jerusalem), and were 
joined by Jesus. — Luhe xxiv. 13 — 32. '^ {p. 184.) 

An important link in my friend's '^ chain" of evidence has 
here been unfortunately dropped, perhaps through the careless- 
ness of the early transcribers of the Gospels. The following 
passage (omitted by the Council of Nice) finds an appropriate 
connection in the last chapter of Luke, immediately after the 
29th verse : — 

[" 30 And when they were entered into the house, Jesus 
continued talking and expounding the Scriptures unto them. 
31 And before the lights were brought, for it was not yet 
dark, he said unto them. Wist ye not that it behooved Christ 
to rise again from the dead on the third day ? 32 And be- 
hold this day hath been the first day of the week : henceforth 
therefore it shall be a Sabbath, unto you; for the Son of man 
is Lord even of the Sabbath day. 33 Therefore ye shall keep 
the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath, throughout your genera- 
tions. It shall be a sign unto you forever. 34 From the 
second day of the week, even unto the end of the seventh day, 
may ye labor, and do all your work : but the first day is 
the Sabbath of the Lord your God ] for it is written, He rested 
on the seventh day from all his work which he had made j 
wherefore the Lord hath blessed the first day and hath hal- 
lowed it. 35 Behold now ye have walked hither from Jeru- 
salem these threescore furlongs. This ought ye not to have 
done. 36 But I wot that through ignorance ye did it, not 
having understanding to discern the day which the Lord hath 
made : go henceforth, and sin no more. 37 Verily I say unto 
you, on the first day of the week, hereafter ye shall not do any 

* A "wonder," indeed, would it have been, if they Aac/ understood it I 



216 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A valuable connecting link. John xx. — No hint of a Sabbath. 

work. Tarry here, therefore, and rest until the day be fully 
past, and then go straightway and tell the disciples what ye 
have heard, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever ye 
have been commanded. 38 And it came to pass, when he 
had made an end of speaking, the two disciples marvelled 
greatly within themselves if this were indeed Jesus who was 
risen from the dead ; for he spake as one having authority : 
howbeit they knew not his voice. 39 Then the disciple whose 
name was Cleopas answered and said unto him, Lo, now speak- 
est thou plainly, and speakest no parable ; now we understand 
that of a surety the first day of the week is the holy Sabbath 
of rest.''] (^MS. Interpolatum, cap. xxiv.) 

^^ That they did then understand," says my friend, ^^ that 
the^rs^ day of the iveeh was henceforth to be the Lord's day, 
and to be observed by Christians as such, is evident from the 
fact next recorded. — John xx. 26 — 29." (p. 184.) As a con- 
necting link, the value of this interesting though uncanonical 
fragment cannot be too highly appreciated. It furnishes at 
once the explicit confirmation of a hypothetical precept, and 
the triumphant refutation of ^^ ungodly and profane" Anti- 
sabbatarianism. Striking as is the fortunate coincidence of 
discovery which has rewarded our respective researches, I can- 
not for a moment contest with J. N. B. the merit of priority. 

6. The sixth text is John xx. 19, 20 : " Then the same 
day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors 
were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the 
Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, 
Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed 
unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples 
glad when they saw the Lord." Therefore, argues my friend, 
" Thou shalt not do any work" on the first day ; and as a 
necessary inference " the seventh day" is not the Sabbath ! 

Can any one not blessed with '' second-sight," or with the 
faculty of seeing in the dark, discover a cobweb of connection 
between this incident, and any requirement of the fourth com- 
mandment ? "Can any one in his sober senses" seriously main- 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 217 

No connection whaterer between the Resurrection, and the Sabbath. 

tain such a connection ? It seems incredible. The whole 
narrative contains neither precept nor example for any " observ- 
ance'' whatever ! " The thing" is not here I And yet J. N. 
B. thinks " My friend W. B. T. makes very light of this 
branch of the evidence. The texts referred to by me are dis- 
posed of ' summarily' indeed !" He adds : '' I am not surprised 
at this. It is clear that he has not studied the facts closely, 
so as to perceive their force as connected linls in a chain of 
circumstantial evidence — practically and irresistibly confirming 
the fact of such a change, as I have proved by other evidence 
[!] already." {p. 183.) That is, I presume, " from the nature 
of the case V 

And what is the force of these texts '^ as connected links ?" 
Why, that the fii'st day of the week was Resurrection-day, in 
consequence of which Jesus paid repeated visits to his disciples 
on " the same day." And will it be asserted that this has 
anything to do with the duty either of working or of resting 
from work ? Will my friend confirm the charge of " verbal 
trifling" by venturing to intimate that " Besurrection-day" is 
but another name for " Sabbath-day ?" I fear he cannot escape 
it. The miracle, he tells us (jp. 175), " fixes the first day of 
the week — as the Sahhath of the Christian Dispensation," be- 
cause, ''1. It is the Besurrectiou of * the Lord of the Sah- 
hath: " ''2. It is the Resurrection of the Son of God." 
"3. It is the Resurrection of the Lord of Angels." '^4, It 
is the Resurrection of the Head of the Church." Well, and 
what possible connection is there between the resurrection of 
all these characters, and the fourth commandment?* Does 

* The following remarkable assertion occurs in pakt i. of my 
friend's Reply [p. 167) : "When the Messiah came out of that nation, 
to complete the great work of human redemption by his own death and 
resurrection, a still higher dignity was conferred upon the weekly 
Sahhath by connecting it with the memory of that grand event!" 

Can my friend's utmost stretch of ingenuity discover in what way 
" the weekly Sabbath" is connected with either the "death or the 
19 



218 ABROGATION Or THE SABBATH. 

A logical conclusion ! The true bearing of the text — overlooked. 

the statute say anything about a " resurrection ?" Does the 
Bible anywhere — from Genesis to Revelation — give us a hint 
of any relation between the two ? No whisper of it ! We do 
read indeed that the Sabbath law was connected with the 
Crucifixion (see Col. ii. 14, 16) ; — but with the Resurrection 
— NEVER ! " It remains, therefore, I think,'^ says J. N. B. 
(p. 178), ^' a sound conclusion from the premises, that the first 
day of the week is appointed the Sahhatli of the Christian 
Dispensation !" Quod erat demonstrandum. 

But, on the other hand, granting the monstrous absurdity 
that the appearance of Jesus to his disciples constituted the 
day, ipso facto, a " Sabbath," it appears to have been entirely 
overlooked by J. N. B. that his present text, so far from sup- 
porting the claim of Sunday to that character, establishes 
Monday as a " day of rest." It is familiar to every theolo- 
gical tyro, and will be questioned by no one, that the " day" 
of the Bible, and of the Hebrews, began with the evening. 
(Exod. xii. 18 ; Levit. xxiii. 32 ; Neh. xiii. 19, &c. ; Mark xv. 
42.) The setting of the sun formed the division point between 
the termination of one day, and the introduction of the next. 
(^Deut. xvi. 6.) The " first day" of the week commenced on 

resurrection ?" Chapter and verse for that ! Can his utmost diligence 
of scrutiny find it out? He knows — fully and indubitably knoics — 
that neither of these " grand events" occurred on " the weekly Sab- 
bath:" how then can either of them be " connected" v^ith it "i What 
means this " turning aside unto vain jangling ?" The Sabbath is memo- 
rable only for the rest of Jesus in the grave ! and knowing, as J. N. B. 
does, that during "that whole day" he " lay in his lowest humiliation 
under the power of death" {p. 168), while his mourning disciples 
•' rested the Sabbath-da.7/ according to the commandment," how pre- 
sumes he to tell us that " a still higher dignity was conferred upon the 
weekly Sabbath" by the consummation of "the great work of human 
redemption?" In what Testament did he read it ? " Yea, hath God 
said ?" Is it wheat, or is it chaff? — Search the Scriptures ! " Every 
plant which the heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted 
up!" 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 219 

The second day of the week indicated ; and not the first day. 

Saturday evening at sunset {Mark i. 32 ; Luke iv. 40), and 
terminated at the sunset of Sunday, when the " second day'' 
commenced. The '^evening" spoken of in JoJin xx. 19 was 
therefore the beginning of the second day. And even allow- 
ing my friend the latitude of construction, that would under- 
stand the word " evening" as not being here used in its strictest 
sense, but as merely expressing that ^4t was toward even- 
ing, and the day was far spent" {Luke xxiv. 29), when the 
disciples came together, still the important fact remains incon- 
trovertible, that the great incident of the assembly took place 
some time after dark.* It was already late in the afternoon, 
when Jesus went in with the two disciples at Emmaus " to 
tarri/ with them :" — with them he there partook his evening 
meal {Luke xxiv. 29 — 31) ; after which the two disciples re- 
turned to Jerusalem (a tico Jiours^ journey), in order to com- 
municate the joyful tidings to the apostles. (/5. 33 — 43.) And 
not till after their arrival — not till after a full interchange of 
news, did Jesus himself come " and stand in the midst.'' {John 
XX. 19 — 23.) It is certain, therefore, that this appearance — so 
important to the theory of J. N. B. in his own estimation — ac- 
tually occurred on Monday, instead of Sunday. 

* I have met with a pamphlet which attempts to evade this con- 
sideration by urging that, as the word "evening had two meanings 
among the Jews," the time here spoken of might have been the early 
evening commencing at three o'clock. The suggestion is entirely gra- 
tuitous. That the true " evening" is intended, is apparent from all the 
circumstances ; especially from the evening meal at the distant village 
of Emmaus. 

I find it stated in Hokne's "■Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,''^ 
that " the Jews reckoned two evenings : the former began at the ninth 
hour of the natural day, or three o'clock in the afternoon ; and the 
latter at the eleventh." {Introduct. vol. iii. part ii. chap. 4, sec. 2.) 
In this last particular, Horne is contradicted by all reliable authority. 
(See JosEPHus, Jeicish War, Book iv. ch. ix. sec. 12. See also Wil- 
son's ^^ Archceological Dictionary," art. "Day.") The second or true 
evening did not begin at five o'clock, but at sunset. (Mark i. 32 ; 
Nehem. xiii. 19.) 



220 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A careless translation corrected. John xx. — No Sabbath suggested. 

But "notice the emphasis/' says J. N. B. {p. 184) : "Then 
tlie same dai/y at evening, being the first day of the 
WEEK.'' His " emphasis" is purely fanciful : " being the 
first day," is not in the original. It is a careless translation. 
The true reading is : " It being evening." This was the hisfo- 
rianJs " emphasis." The passage is as follows : OvGr^ ow o^taj 
*'? W^C^ EXf ti'j; TfTj fjLia tciv 6o.68o.'tuv : which, literally rendered, 
is : " It being then evening to that day — the first of the week." 
The word ^ta (the " first" day) has no grammatical construc- 
tion whatever with the word 04.10$ (" evening") ] it is solely in 
apposition with rnxt^o. (that " day"). This is very different 
from saying, with our version, that the evening was " the ^irs^ 
day" or "the same day." It was "evening" on to that day. 

In vain will it be said that to us who adopt the Roman 
division of the day, the evening belongs to Sunday : this is 
altogether foreign to the purpose. All who were present on 
that occasion were Jeios ; and to them, the evening on Sunday 
was as much " the second day" as the noon of Monday. It 
was impossible, therefore, that the disciples could have under- 
stood the presence of Jesus at that time as an intentional 
distinction of " the first day." 

7. The seventh text is JoJm xx. 26, 29 : " And after eight 
days, again his disciples were within, aiid Thomas loitJi them : 
then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, 
and said. Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, 
Beach hither thy finger, and behold my hands ; and reach 
hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side ; and be not faith- 
less, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, 
My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because 
thou hast seen me, thou hast believed : blessed are they that 
have not seen, and yet have believed." This day, in conse- 
quence of having been thus distinguished as one on which an 
apostle's incredulity was dissipated by the irresistible evidence 
of sense, may be assumed to be a day of rest ; from which it 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 221 

An unwarrantable suggestion of motive. " Chosen day" — of visiting. 

is of course obvious to every one that the Sabbath day has 
been changed! 

Once more, my friend, ^^ the thing'' is not here ! "What 
possible exercise of verbal legerdemain can " explain" or tor- 
ture this narrative into Sabbatarianism ? Is anything com- 
manded by it ? " Reach hither thy finger I" Is anything 
practically recommended by it ? ^' Blessed are they that have 
not seen, and yet have believed !" What can the ingenuity 
of J. N. B. contrive to make out of it ? " To honor this day'' 
says he, " as his own chosen day, he met his assembled disci- 
ples on it, and said. Peace be unto you. Not till a full week 
afterwards was accomplished, did he meet with them again. 
Was there no significance in this ? Why did he not meet them 
sooner ?" (p. 175.) The " why" has not been revealed ; I sup- 
pose it was even so, because it seemed good in his sight. And if 
my friend is not satisfied with this, I at least am not satisfied to 
accept his gratuitous guess that its significance was to change 
the Sabbath! (p. 185.) We have nothing " official" to sug- 
gest so extraordinary a stretch of " fancy." Had such been 
the intention of Jesus, he would doubtless have said so ; and 
had he said so, it certainly would have been recorded. " 'Add 
thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be 
found a liar,' is a warning that should pierce every conscience 
to the quick." (p. 164.) " Thine own mouth condemneth thee, 
and not I : yea, thine own lips testify against thee !" 

The coyness of expression employed above by J. N. B. 
should not be overlooked : honoring it "as his own chosen 
day I" Day chosen for what ? — " His own chosen day" of 
rest.^ Even an earnest Sabbatarian apologist dared not 
venture to announce so glaring an absurdity : — day "chosen" 
to meet his assembled disciples ? What then ? This would 
simply be a precedent for visiting on that day. Alas, the day 
was not even "honored" thus: for more "appearances" ai'e 
recorded, not on Sunday, than upoti it! The sole object of 
this last appearance, so far as we are instructed by the New 

19* 



222 ABROaATION OP THE SABBATH. 

An unproved construction. The time referred to, very uncertain. 

Testament, was to gratify and confirm a previously absent 
apostle. It was because " Thomas was with them" after eight 
days, that the presence of Jesus was thought worthy of a 
special notice; not because it happened to be on one day rather 
than another. And after the general salutation, it was to 
Thomas that the conversation of Jesus was addressed. 

But " why wait a full week to do this, unless to honor the 
weekly Sabbath, [!] and to establish the change of the day to 
commemorate his resurrection V (p. 185.) Such questionings 
are too trivial for answer : they are self-destructive. A more 
pertinent inquiry would be, why, after ^^ waiting a full week to 
do this," did he not do it ? Why give no hint of a design 
'^ to honor the weekly JSahbath/' had such a design existed? 

It has been assumed, all along, that '^ after eight days" from 
the previous appearance, denoted exactly the interval of a 
week. However unanimous Sunday Sabbatarians may have 
been in taking this for granted, it is a point which never has 
been proved. It is at least quite as probable that the latter 
appearance occurred ^'after^' a week and a day from the former 
one, as upon that day week.* There is no necessity whatever 
(excepting that of contributing an iinagmary straw to a drown- 
ing cause) for the stereotype construction. Even were it 
highly probable that the construction is correct, is my friend 
satisfied to rest so important a question as the Divine obliga- 
tion of a day on a " highly probable" conjecture ? Where is 
his protestantism ? The very uncertainty of the expression 
should be sufficient evidence to every unbiassed mind, that a 
specification of time was not here the writer's object, and 
could not have been a vital part of this account. Had it been, 
it would have been written in letters of light, the first day of 
the loeek is " His own chosen day" of rest. 

But J. N. B. is not alone in this conjecture ! He notices 
that "TowNSEND, the learned Harmonist, says on this passage : 

* See Note A, at the end of this Reply. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 223 

A " learned Harmonist's" error. " The third" appearance of Jesus. 

^ The first appearances of our Lord to his Apostles appear to 
have ttiten place uniformJi/ on the first day of the week/^' 
(p. 185.) Indeed ! — "Wot ye not what the Scripture saith?'' 
"After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the dis- 
cijjlcs at the sea of Tiberias. . . And he said unto them, Cast 
the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. . . This 
is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disci- 
ples, after that he was risen from the dead." {John xxi. 1, 6, 
14.) Here, remarkably enough, we have an actual precept; 
and since my friend has labored so long and fruitlessly to find 
a warrant of example, I hope he will seize upon it with eager 
gratitude. I hope that forthwith collecting a chosen few upon 
some pleasant Sunday, he will say, with Simon Peter of old, 
"I go a fishing ! — not as a ^fisher of men,' but with literal 
net, and in literal boat.'' — " We also go with thee." We shall 
have the gratifying encouragement, that "the first appearances" 
of Jesus " took place uniformly on the first day of the iceeh /"* 
On that agreeable occasion, J. N. B. will have merited at least 
the praise of consistency, and will have vindicated the sincerity 
of his regard for apostolic precedent. The writer he has so 
approvingly quoted will hardly acknowledge himself guilty of 
such " verbal trifiing" as to apply the strong term "uniform- 
ly" to tico appearances ! Alas, that a " learned Harmonist" 
(like the supercilious Sadducee) should so egregiously " err^ 
not knowing the Scriptures /" 

But, granting that the first appearance of Jesus to Thomas 
did occur just one week after the preceding appearance to the 
eleven, what will it prove? That appearance, as we have seen, 
was certainly upon the Jewish " second day" of the week : 
whence my friend's hypothesis inevitably establishes this one 

* " Even supposing, however, that it had been so, still the assigning 
this as a reason for the institution of a new Sabbath is matter solely of 
human inference ; since no commandment on this subject, nor any 
reason for such institution is found in all Scripture." Mjllton. [Chris- 
tian JDoctrine, Book ii. chap. 7.) 



224 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

No one day more " honored" than another. Five appearances. 

on the same day. He cannot fail " to perceive their force as 
connected links." So Sunday Sabbatarianism is swimming 
famously in the gospel waters ! 

Such, then, is the whole amount of Bible evidence (supposed 
to indicate any recognition of a new " Sabbath,'' by the per- 
sonal example of Jesus) which the diligence of J. N. B. has 
been able to collect. 

The relevancy of the passages quoted to the question at issue 
depends, in his opinion, on their connection as " links in a 
chain of circumstantial evidence;" and from them he deduces 
two assumptions : first, that Jesus ^' honored" a particular day 
by his presence with his disciples ; and, secondly, that in so 
doing he designed to establish that day as "the Sahhatli of the 
Christian Dispensation." Both of these assumptions are, how- 
ever, singularly deficient in proof. No particular day was dis- 
tinguished by any special " appearances," and least of all can 
we find in these appearances any indications whatever of a 
Sahhatic distinction. 

a. Of the five specified apparitions of Jesus to his disciples, 
after his resurrection (neglecting the indeterminate instances 
recorded in 1 Cor. xv. 6 — 8), but a single one ivas certainly 
on the first day of the week ! and that one comprised the various 
presentations (all casual, individual, and unexpected) necessa- 
rily occurring on the day of the resurrection ! {Matt, xxviii. 
9; Hark xvi. 9—12; LuJce xxiv. 15—31; John xx. 14.) 

j3. The next appearance (if so I may venture to call what 
the last evangelist, from its continuity, naturally associates 
with the preceding) occurred on the eve of Monday. {Mark 
xvi. 14 ; Luke xxiv. 36 ; John xx. 19.) 

y. The next appearance, if it took place " after eight days" 
from the foregoing, was on the eve of Wednesday; if seven 
days after, was on Monday; and, on either supposition, was 
certainly not on '' the first day." (John xx. 26.) 

8. The following appearance also was certainly not on Sun- 
day (the learned Harmonist's " uniformity''^ notwithstanding), 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 225 

Xot one appearance to the assembled disciples, — on Sunday ! 

since the preceding day (occupied in fishing) could not possibly 
have been the Sabbath. (John xxi. 3, 4.)* 

s. And the last and most remarkable appearance of all took 
place on Thursday, forty days after the resurrection. {Acts i. 
3 — 9; Mark xvi. 19 ; Luke xxiv. 51.} 

It thus appears that not a solitary instance is recorded of 
Jesus having appeared to his assembled disciples on the first 
day of the week ! My friend's " chain of circumstance" is as 
visionary and disjointedf as his dependent hypotheses are ex- 
travagant and illogical. His premises are absolutely false, and, 
even if true, they would tend in no wise to establish his con- 
clusion ! 

An argument, apparently designed to corroborate his texts, 
is sufficiently curious and original to claim here a moment's 
notice. ^^ It is worthy of remark,^' says he (p. 178), ''that 
both Baptism and the Lord's Supper were appointed by our 
Lord before his death, and confirmed, after his resurrection, as 

* Although "the Sabbath" was virtually cancelled hj the. crucifixion 
(Col. ii. 14), yet, like circumcision, it was not formally abrogated till 
twenty years afterward (and even then ostensibly only for the Gentile 
Christians, — Acts xxi. 25), and its observance was retained in the primi- 
tive Church at Jerusalem as long as the Christian Metropolis had ex- 
istence. Hence the force of the prophetic warning, when it was said, 
" There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be 
thrown down." . . " Pray ye, that your flight be not — on the Sabbath 
day!" {3Iatt. xxiv. 2, 20.) As well from the habits of the apostles 
(Acts xvi. 13 ; xvii. 2 ; xviii. 4, &c.), as from the controlling prejudices 
of their countrymen, it was morally impossible that they could have 
been pursuing their ordinary avocations on the "Sabbath," although 
they might not hesitate at lighter violations. [3Iark ii. 23 — 28.) 

f The " chain" is astonishingly short, even on my friend's own show- 
ing. He actually cZa/ms but two " appearances" for Sunday. {John 
XX. 14 — 25 ; and xx. 26.) And two appearances he will admit were not 
on Sunday. [John xxi. 1 — 14; and Acts i. 4.) So that, after yielding 
him everything he asks, even his two "links" are just pulled out of 
Bight by two other counter links ! 



226 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The a priori argument. Acts ii. — A distinction of Pentecost-day. 

perpetual ordinances in his Church. Why not also the distin- 
guishing ^stated day' of Christian worship?" Sure enough! 
'' Why not?" And why not a "stated day'' of Christian rest^ 
as well? Tioo positive institutions are expressly enjoined upon 
Christians, and if the New Testament only contained a precept 
for a Christian Sabbath, why then we should have three "per- 
petual ordinances." Surely, then, it is as clear as can be that 
such a precept ought, at least, to be found in the New Testament ! 
"Analogy would lead us to expect this." {p. 178.) And if 
not somewhere in the texts which have been presented, where 
else, in the name of sense, is it to be found, we should like to 
know? This, I suppose, is the a priori argument, or, as my 
friend J. N. B. would perhaps entitle it, " the evidence from 
the nature of the case;" and fully acknowledging the difficulty 
of a suitable reply, I am compelled to pass it. 

III. Intimations from Apostolic practice. 

Having gone through all the passages which appear to J. N. 
B. to indicate a command of Jesus to observe a Sabbath, jive 
more texts remain to be considered, designed to show the con- 
sequent tendency of apostolical practice. It is important to 
"study the facts closely, so as to perceive their force as con- 
nected links in the chain of" sand already examined; since, 
without the closest inspection, the connection will be "invisible 
to the naked eye." 

8. The eighth text is Acts ii. 1 — 4: "And when the day of 
Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one 
place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, 
as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where 
they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven 
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And 
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 

As a miraculous effusion of the Spirit is recorded to have 
taken place on this day, and as this communicated the power of 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 227 

The day of the week, not even mentioned. 

speaking in previously unknown languages, we may plausibly 
conjecture that this day either was, or (d priori) "ought" to 
have been a ''Sabbath.'' And if we grant this, by a very 
slight extension of the presumption, we may infer that no other 
day could possibly be the one required by the fourth com- 
mandment ! 

We read that the apostles "were all with one accord in one 
place." Now, "why not on the Jewish Sabbath?" asks J. N. 
B., with his accustomed pungency, {p. 186.) Well, why not? 
It is very probable they were. Why not on Ascension-day, or 
Thursday? Why not on Crucifixion-day, or Friday? Why 
not on any day, or all days ? All that a rational criticism can 
gather from the text is, that the apostles were together on this 
occasion because it was Pentecost-day^ not because it was 
Ascension-day, or Crucifixion-day, or Sabbath-day, or Resur- 
rection-day. This was no part of the essence of the narrative. 
It was so utterly indifferent, in the estimation of the evangelist, 
that he has not even taken the trouble to notice the day of the 
week on which Pentecost fell that year, and we can only infer 
it by calculation ! Now, admitting that the day icas Sunday, 
where can lie concealed a prop for my friend's theory of a 
"transfer" of the day of rest? After the "closest study," I 
cannot discover it. What hint is there of the Christian duty, 
or of the apostolic intention, of making this day a Sahhath? 
"The thing'' is not here! 

Whatever be the fact, it was not " the first day of the week" 
that was thus distinguished " by the rich harvest of regenerated 
souls" {p. 186) ; it was " the day of Pentecost:' J. N. B. has 
here, as usual, very illogically mistaken the accident for the 
essence. Whatever sanction he imagines he can here find for 
celebrating in any manner a particular day, it can have no force 
in sustaining any weekly festival : it can only encourage the 
observance of Pentecost .'* 

* In the opinion of some learned expositors, the text will not even 
warrant this. Gbotius remarks on the passage, that the 8yriac and 



228 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

An alternative presented. Acts xx. — No Sabbath. 

We are presented then with the following alternative. If 
this day of Pentecost happened on Sunday, this Sunday could 
not possibly have been a Christian " Sabbath/^ or Luke would 
have given some intimation of it. He could not have avoided 
it. It was a matter altogether too important to the Church 
to entirely escape remark. His silence is an overwhelming 
battery against J. N. B. — a most decisive refutation of his con- 
jecture. On the other hand, if the day did not happen on Sun- 
day, his aerial fabric has not even the sand to rest upon.* 

9. The ninth text is Acts xx. 6, 7 : "And we sailed away 
from Philippi, after the days of unleavened bread, and came 
unto them to Troas in five days ; where we abode seven days. 
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came 
together to break bread, Paul preached unto them (ready to 
depart on the morrow), and continued his speech until mid- 
night." Upon which my friend remarks : " This passage is 
so decisive of the custom of the Gentile churches, under the 
eye and sanction of the inspired Apostles, as to startle even W. 
B. T. himself. [!] But he attempts to evade it by siip2^osingj 
contrary to the express words of the text, that this meeting 
was held on Saturday evening, and that Paul had so little re- 
gard to the First day of the week as to purpose recommencing 
his journey on that day ! A more gratuitous and glaring per- 
version of a plain text, I never met with. As the glory of this 
new discovery is all his own, he may safely be left ' alone in 
his glory.' '' (p. 187.) 

That I was "startled'' (*. e. that I ^^ ougM^ to have been 
startled) was probably gathered "from the nature of the case:" 

Latin versions excellently [optime) read it — " When the days of Pente- 
cost were accomplished." WiCKL IF renders it in the same manner: 
*' Whanne the dales of Pentecoste weren fillid." That is, not when the 
Pentecost " was come," but when the Pentecost was " over and gone !" 
Upon such slender cobwebs are suspended even the postulates of Sun- 
day Sabbatarianism ! 

■^ See Note B, at the end of this Ptcply. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 229 

" Evasion," unnecessary. Paul's evening discourse — on Saturdaj/. 

but if so formerly, — d fortiori how much ought I to be startled 
now, at that peculiar system of exposition which supposes vague 
and reckless assertion will be accepted by the intelligent, as a 
substitute for Biblical criticism. 

My friend is in error in thinking that I have " attempted to 
evade" his text : it is not at all in my way. And to perform 
so unnecessary a task, would indeed be "love's labor lost.'' 
However J. N. B. may twist the passage, or however he may 
squeeze it, he can wring from it no prohibition o/icork on Sun- 
day. Least of all, can he find any possible connection between 
it and the fourth commandment ! Still returns the echo " the 
thing' ^ is not here! 

Unnecessary as it may appear, I shall however here endeavor 
to justify my former suggestive criticism (p. 94, — note) ; and as 
a superfluous '^ labor of love," examine " closely" the passage 
before us. We are told in it, that Paul preached " upon the 
first of the week, . . . and continued his speech until 
midnight." It is impossible for any candid mind (unwarped 
by theoretic prejudices) not to understand that this nocturnal 
discourse was delivered on the night of the first day of the week; 
and it is equally impossible for any instructed mind (acquainted 
with the Jewish religion) not to know that the night of the first 
day of the week must be Saturday night, and can he nothing 
else! J. N. B. knows as well as I do, that the first day of the 
week terminated at the sunset of Sunday. And yet a con- 
struction — natural — obvious — rendered necessary by the cir- 
cumstances, he has had the hardihood to stigmatize as " con- 
trary to the express words of the text I" If he supposes the 
address was on any other night than Saturday night, I retort 
the accusation : I charge that the record itself contains nothing 
to either warrant or favor his guess ! I charge that he is the 
one guilty of " siqjposing, contrary to the express words of the 
text" — " upon the first day of the week," Paul *^ continued 
his speech until midnight." " If any man speak, let him speak 
as the oracles of God !" 
20 



230 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Assemblies of the early Christians. Paul's departure — on Sunda]/. 

Fortunately for the cause of truth, we have an extraneous 
evidence strongly corroborating the literal and obvious inter- 
pretation of this passage. The earliest Christian writers more 
than once refer to the evening meetings of the primitive disci- 
ples ; and I have already quoted the unexceptionable testimony 
of MosiiEiM (compiled from these sources), that the first 
Christians assembled on different days of the week, and '' ge- 
?ier«% in the evening after sunset,^' (p. 145, — note.) If Paul 
met with the disciples at the close of the Sabbath, *' in the 
evening after sunset,^ ^ on the first day of the week,* and dis- 
coursed till midnight, is it not simply prejJos^eroKS to " sup- 
pose," for the especial benefit of J. N. B., that this " protracted 
meeting'^ continued for twenty-four hours longer? — nay, not 
only to the midnight of ''the second day," but to the day- 
break of Monday ? My friend's magisterial '' supposition" 
finds no support from the narrative : it is fairly contradicted 
It/ it! "A more gratuitous and glaring perversion of a plain 
text," will not often be met with. 

But Paul discoursed — " ready to depart on the morrow." 
^' Ay, there's the rub ! — There's the respect" that makes my 
friend so indignantly reject the literal reading ! To think 
" that Paul had so little regard to the first day of the week, as 
to propose recommencing his journey on that day !" (p. 187.) 
And ^' wh^ not f'— to use a familiar question. There is no- 
thing in the world in Paul's way, but the modern exhalation 
of a most unsubstantial tlieory. Not long before this, " Paul 
had so little regard" for dai/s, that, writing to the Romans in 
conciliation of their disputes on the question of " esteeming 

* An able English writer, discussing this p.assage, remarks : "It ia 
not at all probable, and it cannot be assumed, that the meeting took 
place sooner tlian in the evening, and if not till the evening, then not 
till the working hours of the day were over." [An Examinalion of I he 
Six Texts, &c., chap, ii., London, 1849.) The writer is attempting 
(vex-y unnecessarily) to show that the text is in no sense Sabbatarian ; 
and, in doing so, misses its more vital bearing. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 231 

Paul, no observer of clays. '' His practice at Troas" — >ln</-sabbatarian. 

one day above another," he urged upon them the mutual exer- 
cise of the most perfect and tolerant discretion : assuring them 
that those who venerated 3l particular day, and those who "es- 
teemed every day alike," could, with equal acceptance, practise 
their respective persuasions '' unto the Lord." A few years 
previously, this same " Paul had so little regard to the first 
[or any other] day of the week," that he strongly condemned 
the Sabbatizing Galatians for their foolishness in continuiog to 
"observe days" as holy, after he had carefully instructed them 
to avoid the bondage of these " weak and beggarly elements ;" 
and in terms of cutting reproof, he expressed himself fearful 
"lest he had bestowed upon them labor m vain." "Why 
should it be thought a thing incredible," then, that Paul should 
on this occasion maintain the independence and consistency of 
his character ? Think you that " wherein he judged another, 
he condemned himself?" Think you that lie could "observe 
days" — doing the same thing he so warmly rebuked ? Think 
you that " a guide of the blind, and a light of them which were 
in darkness," he could invite the Romans to retort upon him 
the taunt — " thou which teachest another, teachest thou not 
thyself?" Impossihle! " For if I build again," says he, " the 
things which I destroyed, I make myself 2i transgressor." (^Gal. 
ii. 18.) 

But all this makes the text contradict the very purpose for 
which it was adduced ! Yes, truly ! my friend. Your battery 
is turned against yourself with destructive energy. I shall not 
permit it to be silenced. I shall endeavor to justify the high 
praise, "Truth is Truth, alike whether she carries the balm of 
life, or the weapon of death." (p. 181.) " Hast thou appealed 
unto Caesar ? Unto Caesar shalt thou go !" Will you tell us 
concerning " the inspired Apostle," that " his practice at Troas 
is positive proof that he regarded the first daj^ of the week as 
the Christian Sahhathr' (p. 188.) What ! " attempt to evade 
the text by supposing :" Where is your warrant ? "By 
what authority doest thou these things?" — "Yea, hath God 



232 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The assembly not a religious one. An argumentative conversation. 

said?" Paul's '^practice at Troas" is positive proof that he 
regarded the first day as anything else than a " Sabbath!" It 
was a day to labor in — " from even unto even." Your fancied 
" chain" is but a slip-noose, pinching the hand that held it. 
It is too conclusive for legitimate controversy, it is too clear 
for hopeful evasion, that Paul met with the disciples of Troas 
on the eve of " the Jirst day;" that he discoursed with them till 
the daybreak of " the Jirst day;" that on the morning of " the 
Jirst day" he departed. Dare you plead Paul's ^' practice ?" — ■ 
" Go and do thou likewise." 

Let us still more thoroughly cross-examine this invaluable 
witness of Sunday Sabbatarianism. It is a remarkable circum- 
stance that the more " closely we study" the narrative the less 
evidence does it present, even of a religious assemblage, in the 
modern acceptation of the phrase. 

But, it is said, ^'Tsiul preached," (verse 7;) and ''was long 
preaching." (verse 9.) Not so ! If we turn to the language 
in which Luke lorote, we shall find that he says, IlavXos Si^xsy* f o 
avroij: literally, "Paul reasoned with them," "discoursed" 
with them, "had a controversy" with them.* The same word 
occurs just before (Acts xvii. 2): "Paul, as his manner was 
[SifXfyET'o aurois], reasoned with them." Again, in verse 17, 
AifXEyfto, "he disputed" with the Jews. In the next chapter 
(xviii. 4), AuXfytfo, "he reasoned" in the synagogue. In the 
next chapter (xix. 8, 9) we twice find hio.'Ksyoy.tvoi, ^UUsputing." 
Not long afterward (xxiv. 12) we have again Bta^tyoixsvov, ^'dis- 
puting;" and, in verse 25, iiLia^syoixsvov avtov, "as he reasoned" 
of righteousness, &c. The translation of the word is general. 
But why "come together" on this occasion merely to have 
a " discussion ?" Another "not so!" The historian says ex- 
pressly, "the disciples came together to break bread." The 

* WiCKLiF (a. d. 1380) translates the passage: "Poule disputid 
with hem." The translation of Rheinis, two centuries later (a. d. 
1582), renders it in the same manner: "Paul disputed with them ;" — 
in the Vulgate, " disputabat cum eis." 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 233 

A social assembly of the disciples : — To " break bread." 

discussion was incidental. Yes, but "to break bread" means 
"to celebrate the Lord's Supper.'' Wholly unproved! The 
phrase "breaking bread" was the universal and familiar desig- 
nation of partaking an ordinary meal.* There is no tittle of 
evidence that anything else is intended here. On the contrary, 
during this very same meeting, Paul, after midnight, exhausted 
by his long and doubtless earnest conversation, again "broke 
bread" and eat (xx. 11) ;t rendering it extremely probable 
that the whole affair was a convivial farewell party of the dis- 
ciples. They "came together to ^ break their bread,' " and for 
no other purpose that is assigned by the evangelist. 

But, says J. N. B., "Paul had waited a tchole iceek at 
Troas to enjoy the opportunity of meeting his assembled 
brethren on their 'stated daij of loorsliipr^ {j). 187.) What 
a pity that Luke forgot to tell us so I When shall the anxious 
public be gratified by the appearance of my friend's "first 
edition" of the Supplementary Testament ? It will doubtless 
be an accession to Biblical literature beyond valuation ! If 

* See Luke xxiv. 30, 35, where Jesus was recognized in "breaking 
of bread," that is, at the supper table (probably in consequence of 
lights being just brought in) ; also. Acts ii. 46 : "breaking bread [that 
is, eating their meals] from house to house," for they "had all things 
in common." Again, Acts xxvii. 35, Paul having persuaded the sailors 
to eat, took bread and "broke it." The popular acceptation of the 
phrase is familiar to every scholar. In Vaxpy's Greek Testament there 
is the following comment on this passage: "In the Jewish way of 
speaking, says Bishop Pearce, to 'break bread' is the same as to make 
a meal ; and the meal here meant \_Acts xx. 7] seems to have been one 
of those which were called ayifjrai, agapce, love-feasts." 

Chbtsostom thinks it "an ordinary meal." 

As Milton well says upon this text: "Who shall determine with 
certainty whether this was a periodical meeting, or only held occasion- 
ally and of their own accord ; whether it was a religious festival, or a 
fraternal meal?" [Christian Doctrine, b. ii, ch. 7.) 

I Did Paul again "celebrate the Lord's Supper?" or had the disci- 
ples indeed delayed thejprme object of their assembly till after midnight ? 

20* 



234 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The narrative disembellished. Acts xxi.— No observance stated. 

Paul really did " wait a wJiole weeh'' to meet with his brethren 
for worship, he possessed a much smaller degree of zeal than 
is generally attributed to him. I suppose that he abode one 
"whole week" at Troas just as he "abode three months" in 
Greece, because the spirit moved him. And a probable reason 
why he stayed no longer was, that he was in somewhat of a 
hurry to get back to Jerusalem. 

Stripped, then, of all the cumbrous though flimsy scaffolding 
which J. N. B. has so liberally piled around the text, and 
viewed in its own simplicity, how different are its proper fea- 
tures and proportions. All that we can certainly gather from 
Luke's journal is, that Paul and his travelling companions, 
being about to leave Troas after a week's sojourn, collected 
with their friends in a third-story chamber, for the purpose of 
partaking their social meal (the Sabbath being past, and it 
being then "the first day of the week"), that an earnest con- 
versation or argumentation ensued,* continuing, with some 
interruption, till the daybreak of "the morrow," when Paul 
started on his journey, broad Sunday though it was ! 

10. The tenth text is Acts xxi. 4, 5 : "And finding disciples, 
we tarried there seven days : who said to Paul, through the 
Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem. And when we 
had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way ; 
and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, 
till we were out of the city : and we kneeled down on the shore 
and prayed." 

It is unnecessary to waste further time by criticizing this 
passage. Simply, "the thing," which has so constantly eluded 

* An incident which, though trivial in itself, has yet an interest as 
probably going to illustrate the absorbing interest of "the inspired 
Apostle" in the subjects of that long-continued discussion, and the ab- 
straction of his mind from all minor matters, is left us in the circum- 
stance of his having forgotten his cloak and books, leaving them behind 
Ht Troas. (2 Tim. iv. 13.) By Lardner's computation, this second 
letter to Timothy was written but a few months after the visit referred to. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 235 

A day of worship, and " work." 1 Corinthians xvi. — A day of " Charity." 

our grasp, is not here. J. N. B. himself can hardly derive an 
evidence of Sabbath observance from the natural circumstance 
of Jews measuring their time by weeks! How frequently do 
we ourselves find our movements unconsciously regulated by 
the "week," even when no reference whatever is had to an in- 
tervening Sabbath. It is unavoidable. In the case before us 
we may safely grant, however, that, if any day of the week 
was distinguished as a Christian Sabbath, it most probably oc- 
curred some time during the short sojourn of Paul and Luke 
with the disciples of Tyre ! Unfortunately for my friend, the 
only act of worship hinted at in his text occurred on the day 
of departure. This day might have been, as before, "the first 
of the week;" it certainly was not a "Sabbath." 

11. The eleventh text is 1 Corinthians xvi. 1, 2: "Now 
concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order 
to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day 
of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God 
hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 

And what is the important "fact" which my friend^s highly 
refractive vision discovers in this passage, bearing on the institu- 
tion or sanctification of the Sabbath P He informs us (p. 187) 
that Paul here "gives order for the observance of the first day 
of the week, as the day sacred to — Christian Charity F' And 
consequently Sunday must be the day required by the fourth 
commandment! \s this, i\iQ sequitur ? This is "transubstan- 
tiation" with a witness! If J. N. B. can establish these three 
assumptions, — 1, that "Charity" is one of the things exacted by 
the statute; 2, that a "day of Christian Charity" is necessa- 
rily a day in which "thou shalt not do any work;" and 3, that 
this in any way excludes "the seventh day" from the appro- 
priate operation of the Decalogue, — I will freely assent to the 
"consequence." Till he does, I tell him, with emphatic and 
defiant assurance, "the thing" is not here! A day of Christian 
charity should be a ijcorhing day. Will J. N. B. prove it to 
be a resting day? "Giving my friend the benefit of the most 



236 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

No reference made to any assembly. The day observed — " at Jwme.'" 

liberal concession he can claim/' that ''Sunday assemblies" 
were by this time (the middle of the first century) widely and 
familiarly established among various of the primitive churches, 
it would leave the true question, the sin/ulness of LABOR on 
'*the first day" wlioUy untouclied! 

But are we fairly entitled to infer even the irrelevant fact of 
"Sunday assemblies" from this text? Let us give it a mo- 
ment's attention. The injunction is : Ixaato^ vixcov rta^' lavfco 
tcOsTfoi, ^Tjaav^i^oiv u -ti av fvoSwfat: literally, ''let each one of 
you lay up with himself, storing as he may prosper;" or, as it 
may with equal propriety be rendered, "let everyone, treasur- 
ing up what he may gain, reserve it at home." Two important 
circumstances are disclosed by a critical analysis of the passage. 
First, that these "collections" were not to be made (as Sunday 
Sabbatarians very unanimously assume) in "Sunday assem- 
blies" of the Galatian and Corinthian churches, but each indi- 
vidual was to set apart from his weekly gains, privately — Tta^' 
la-vtM (in the Vulgate, '^ ajmd se"), by himself — "at his own 
home."* And secondly, that these "gatherings" had no rela- 
tion to any assemhlies whatever, since each member was ex- 
pressly enjoined not only to reserve a portion of his earnings, 
but to continue separately lioardhig these appropriations. The 
only possible antecedent subject of ^j^cyav^t^oi' is the separative 
axasto^, "each one of you treasuring up" as he has been suc- 

* So, in John xx. 10, the disciples went away — w^oj kavTovQ — "unto 
their own home." See, also, Greenfield's Lexicon, Bloomfield's 
Greek Testament, in loco, and Valpy's do. The old Syriac version ren- 
ders this passage : ''Let every one lay aside iin^ preserve at Ms otvn 
house." Erasmus (a. d. 1520) paraphi'ases it: "Upon the first day 
of the week (that is to say, in the Sunday) let every one of you set 
aside at home and lay up as much as he for this purpose thinketh 
meet." (^Paraphrase, in loco.) Tyndale translates it (a. d. 1534): 
"Upon some Sunday [sondaye] let every one of you put aside at home 
and lay up whatsoever he thinketh meet, that there be no gatherings 
when I come." The Geneva translation (a. d. 1557) is similar: "Every 
first day of the week let every one of you put aside at home,'' &c. 



MR. TAYLOR S THIRD REPLY. 



The text — ,4n^('-sabbatarian. No " holy cla.y," in all Paul's writings. 

cessful in his business; an impossibility by the Sabbatarian 
construction. The literal explicit text absolutely contradicts 
this favorite perversion.* *'It is clear that J. N. B. has not 
studied the facts closely, so as to perceive their force!" 

So far, therefore, from lending even a shadow of support to 
the fondly cherished hypothesis of a " stated day,'^ and any 
particular establishment of '^Sunday assemblies,'' the passage 
indirectly but not indecisively overthrows the fancy. If the 
''first day of the week" had been pre-eminently a "stated day 
of public worship," it does not appear to have been the best 
time for counting up and laying aside gains ^^ at homej" and 
vice versa. My friend's artillery kicks hackioard much more 
disastrously than it discharges forward. I am indebted to him 
for the munition. And, as if to deprive him of all hope of 
recovering from this mischance, he has no ordnance in store 
to substitute. For, most unaccountably, throughout the volu- 
minous writings of Paul, we cannot find a single notice of what 
J. N. B. claims ''as a legacy from the church's risen and 
ascended Lord," a "stated day," holier than other days! We 
cannot trace one meagre hint of such a thing. So glaring an 
omission in the great doctrinal expounder must occasion my 
friend a degree of concern scarcely exceeded by his surprise. 

* "The inference deduced from 1 Cor. xvi. 2," says Milton, "is 
equally unsatisfactory [with that deduced from Acts xxi.] ; for what 
the apostle is here enjoining is not the celebration of the Lord's day, 
but that on the first day of the week (if this be the true interpretation 
of xena. fjusa aa^tnTon, per unam sahbathorum) each should lay by him, 
that is at home, for the relief of the poor ; no mention being made of any 
public assembly, or of any collection at such assembly, on that day." 
[Christ. Doctrine, b. ii. ch. 7.) 

From the last clause of the verse it has been urged, says Whitby, 
that for each "to lay by in store" must signify "to put into a common 
box his charity; because, if they had kept it 'at home,' there would 
have been need of gathering it when the apostle came. But," he justly 
replies, "the expression ixao-rof Tra^' iavrtu TiSsnn), 'let every one place 
it u-ith himself,' admits not this sense." (Annotations, in loco.) 



288 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Constant reproliation of •' holy days." A jiidifious selection of time. 

Nay, yet to transcend the marvel, tlie apostle does now and 
then say a thing or two, which laborious ingenuity has vainly 
endeavored to reconcile with that precious "legacy," a holt/ 
dai/ ! 80 that, " according to the views of [J. N. B,] Paul, at 
the same time, as it were in the same breath, designates this 
day, and destroys it,— -abrogates, and honors it !" (p. 187.) 
Most unfortunate of theorists ! (^Gal. ii. 18.) 

"It is worthy of attention," says he (p. 187), " that a few 
months before writing his Epistle to the Romans, Paul wrote 
his first to the Corinthians, in which (xvi. 1-^4) he gives order 
for the observance of the first day of the week as the day 
sacred to Christian Charity !" It will not answer. Corinthian 
Paul will not abate one jot of Roman Paul. In Corinth, " the 
observance of the first day of the week," so far as the text 
shows, was fxafjT'o^ Tta^' tavtio — -"a^ Jiovie." In Rome, "let 
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" whether he 
will "esteem 07ie day above another," or "every day alike !" 
" This is Paul's true doctrine, here and everywhere. It is identi- 
cal with that of Christ. Perish the sophistry that would at- 
tempt to set them at variance!" (p. 173.) 

But why should Paul have selected this particular time ? 
Why direct these charitable contributions to be made on "the- 
first day of the week ?" The answer is obvious : because no 
other time could be so proper for the object. Will the last day 
of the week be suggested ? It would have favored neither Jew 
nor Gentile. To the Jewish believer the occupation of casting 
up accounts, considering gains, and appropriating funds, would 
not have seemed the most literal requirement of the fourth com- 
mandment, "Christian Charity" though it were; and to him 
who observed not the Sabbath it would have been no less 
inopportune, since his labors for the week would not have yet 
been over. The Christian communities to whom these appeals 
for the mother Church were made were composed chiefly of the 
poorer classes, — of those least likely and least able to exercise 
a judicious providence. How natural, then, the thoughtful 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 239 

EireJatiott i. — A proof — ••' of nothing.'' Nocturnnl si.ght. 

specification (as if incidentally) : Kara fiiav oaSSattov — "at the 
beginning of the week." What more suitable time conceivable, 
for the purpose of ascertaining how much of the past week's 
earnings could be set apart, than the completion of that week, 
after the Sabbath was over, and Saturday evening "was fully 
come,'' ushering in "the first day of the week ?" {Luke iv. 
40.) Rather, what other time could have been specified? And 
what other i\mQ could have been — Jess a ^^ Scihhathf' My 
friend's castle vanishes at the approach, "into thin air." 

12. The twelfth and last text is Revelation i. 10 : "I was 
in the Spirit on the Lord's clay, and heard behind me a great 
voice as of a trumpet." A fitting climax to the pyramid of 
quicksand my friend has so industriously struggled to heap 
together. Admirable valediction of Sunday Sabbatarian vaga- 
ries, which, built on bottomless assumption, end in unfathom- 
able mysticism. ""Finis coronal ojmsl" To the initiated, to 
those who " knoiv of the doctrine," it must be overwhelmingly 
perspicuous that a day in which a trumpet-voice is heard, and 
a rapt prophet is "in the Spirit," can be nothing else than the 
"Sabbath day" of the fourth commandment! 

" ' This text,' says W. B. T., perfectly confounded, ^proves — 
nothing at all!' Just so, once at Damascus, dazzled by a glory 
too bright for his weak vision, an enemy of Christ for a season 
was struck blind. . . . So my perplexed friend says, ^ this text 
proves — nothing I' From my heart I pity him." {pp. 188, 
189.) 

If lam not exactly " perplexed" and "perfectly confounded," 
cl priori, I "ought" to have been; and this, in my friend's 
logic, is pretty much the same thing. Beaming upon us with 
the efi'ulgence of the sun at midnight, no doubt this nebulous 
text "ought" to settle the question, and confound forever all 
weak eyes. I cannot pretend to rival my friend in seeing. 
Those not gifted with phosphorescent vision are all unconscious 
of the "glory" apparent to those more favored individuals who 
distinguish best by darkness, because their own eyes furnish 
the illumination whereby they see. 



240 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A Sabbatarian Pharisee " at Damascus." Unwarranted assumptions. 

I am reminded that there was one of Tarsus, who, " after 
the most straitest sect of his religion, lived a Pharisee," and 
kept the Sabbath : but dazzled by a sudden splendor, — the illu- 
minating baptism of a clearer and a freer faith, — when the short 
season of his "blindness" passed, steadfastly repudiated his 
venerated law for its "weakness and unprofitableness;" and 
" putting away the childish things" of "meats, and drinks, 
and HOLY DAYS," thenceforward " after the way which they 
called ' heresy' — worshipped the Grod of his fathers." Unlike 
Saul, " the enemy of Christ," I have not been " exceedingly 
zealous of the traditions of my fathers :" like Paul, the adher- 
ent of " a sect everywhere spoken against," I unshrinkingly 
withstand the anti-evangelical imposition "after the command- 
ments and doctrines of men" — of a crucified and blotted ordi- 
nance; however prevalent or determined the subjection, with 
whatever "show of wisdom in will-worship," it may be upheld. 

But what are the premises necessary to render this luciferous 
text available to my friend's cause? The fewest possible are 
three. 1. That "the Lord's day" here intended Sunday. 2. 
That it was so called because it was "dedicated to the Lord ty 
his authority^' And 3. That being so dedicated, it must, in 
consequence, be a " Sabbath." Any one of these three postu- 
lates failing, his text is absolutely useless; the connecting link 
between it and the necessary conclusion being wanting. Now 
so far from these three things being indisputable facts, I assert 
that no one of them has been established ! Nay, I hesitate not 
to say, that no one of them can be established ! J. N. B. has 
prudently not attempted to establish one of them : unless an 
extravagant indulgence will consider assertion an "attempt."* 
" If no one (the ^ Friends' excepted) pretends to doubt that 
the * Lord's Table,^ ^ the Lord's cup,' and ^ the Lord's Supper' 
(1 Cor. xi.) prove the existence oi an Ordinance of universal 
and perpetual obligation under the Christian Dispensation, how 

* See Note C, at the end of this Reply. 



MR. Taylor's tuird reply. 241 



No " ordinance" of a Christian Sabbath. Unjustifiable amplifications. 



idle is such a doubt in reference to ^ the Lord's day !' Honest 
men should blush to own such a doubt. '^ (p. 188.) 

To relieve my friend from all imputation of discourtesy, I 
have the pleasure to assure him that I own no particle of 
'^ doubt" upon the subject; and may, therefore, I presume, be 
held excused from blushing, without any impeachment of my 
honesty. But what wretched 'Verbal trijiing^' have we in 
this passage: what ^'darkening of counsel by words without 
knowledge.'^ Every intelligent man sliould know that 'Hhe 
Lord's Table," "the Lord's cup," and "the Lord's Supper" 
DO NOT "prove the existence of an Ordinance;" that these 
designations are its merest accidents! Every consistent Pro- 
testant knows that "an Ordinance of universal and perpetual 
obligation" can be proved only by " chapter and verse" or- 
daining. Every honest reader of his Bible knows that with 
regard to a " Christian Sabbath," none such exists! J. N. B. 
himself has been compelled unreservedly to acknowledge, that 
this is "a kind or degree of evidence which Infinite Wisdom 
has not seen fit to give" (p. 170); and that even to look for 
it, was "preposterous !" (p. 172.) 

The passage immediately preceding this most unworthy 
sophism of my friend J. N. B. is an appropriate introduction 
to it : " Here is ' the Lord's day' in the Christian Church [!] 
at the close of the Apostolic age ; as such too well known to 
need explanation, [! !] sanctioned by the last of the Apostles of 
Christ,[!!!] and by Christ himself indeed,[! ! !!] with the last 
vision of his glory accorded to man on earth." (p. 188.) In 
what language shall I rebuke this daring tissue of perversion ? 
Has the solemn warning, with which this book of prophecy 
closes {Rev. xxii. 18), been utterly unheeded? 

Step by step have I now followed the trail on which my 
friend promised we should find " the thing" — a New Testament 
" Sabbath :" but the most careful search has been fruitless. 
Step by step has the evidence become more irresistible that 
we have been led " a wild-goose-chase" — altogether vpon the 
21 



242 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

No Sabbath in any of the twelve texts. The selection unfortunate. 

wrong track! And now that we have arrived at the last pos- 
sible hiding-place of this imaginary nondescript, this thing 
'' without a name/'* no vestige of it is apparent : " the thing^' 
is not here! Our labor has been wasted; our patience abused. 
And yet we are told, with a gravity as ludicrous as it is arro- 
gant, that the invisibility is owing to the dazzling excess of 
perspicuity ! And my friend can aiford to extend a conde- 
scending " pity" to those who do not choose to accept the ge- 
nerous offer of his tenebrious eyesight ! 

On casting a retrospective glance at the " twelve texts'' 
which J. N. B. has thought proper to parade in support of his 
side of the point at issue (" the Day required hy the Sahhath 
law"), two subjects of surprise are irresistibly suggested. The 
first is that he should have hit upon this particular collection 
of texts rather than upon some other dozen (considering that 
several of them are really among the most destructive ones to 
his own dogma he could possibly have selected); and the other 
is, that he should have been so moderate as to limit their num- 
ber, at any rate, to a single dozen, when he could so easily have 
adduced a gross of texts ftir more pertinent to the point in con- 
troversy than the ver}^ best he has chosen. It is a fact, un- 
mistakable and unescapable, that he has failed — wholly, irre- 
trievably failed — to make out even a pretext of a case ! He 
has been able to find no solitary passage (I will not say im- 
peaching) tending to impeach my " First Proposition." It 
stands uncontroverted — incontrovertible. Not one of his texts 
has a surmise of relation to the foui-th commandment !'\ In a 
logical point of view, it is a matter for dissatisfaction, that I 
have wasted so much time in superfluous battle : but my friend's 

* "If we find the thine/ — is it not the merest verbal trifling to dis- 
pute about the nameV^ [p. 190.) 

■f Perhaps — excepting text the second (Isai. Ixv.): and this is so 
clearly Anti-sabbatarian in purport, that GiiOTius actually quotes this 
prophecy to show that all days are equally holy under the new crea- 
tion ! LowTH makes a similar application. 



MR. TAYLOR S THIRD REPLY. 243 

Appeal to history. Tlieological authority incompetent. 

dislike of " summary" executions furnishes, to myself at least, 
a partial excuse for my unnecessary and self-imposed labors. 
And if but a single Sunday -led, ordinance-subjected reader may 
have been thereby inducted into a more rational and Scriptural 
appreciation of this great question, the time I have employed 
will not have been misspent. I have endeavored to unfold the 
subject, "not with enticing words," but with "sound speech 
that cannot be condemned;" hoping, "by a manifestation of 
the truth, to commend the doctrine to every man's conscience." 

ly. Sujjplementar}/ Intimations from Tlieohgical History. 

A very feeble attempt has been made by J. N. B. to fortify 
his position by an appeal to theologic authority ; but in the 
entire absence of Scriptural foundation, such an appeal cannot 
for one moment be entertained, or such authority for one mo- 
ment received in evidence. There is nothing on which it can 
act, or to which it can give direction. It can have no original 
jurisdiction. Premising that I have thus no occasion whatever 
to even notice his citations, I am still impelled by the control- 
ling claims of Truth to follow my friend even here.* 

* In an excellent, though anonymous work on " The Sabbath" 
(published in London, 1849), it is stated that "no ecclesiastical writer 
of the first three centuries of the Christian era has attributed the ori- 
gin of Sunday observance either to an injunction or the example of the 
Apostles, or to any precept from Christ himself: a fact which is exceed- 
ingly strong evidence, that at no time during that period did there exist 
in the Christian Church any belief or tradition that the religious ob- 
servance of the Sunday originated in a divine appointment." {^Chap. 
viii. p. 307.) The full title of this volume (which is distinguished by 
accurate scholarship and judicious criticism) is "The Sabbath ; or an 
Examination of the Six Texts commonly adduced from the New Testa- 
ment in proof of a Christian Sabbath. By a Layman. London, 1849." 
I have had occasion to refer to this work once before {p. 230, — note) ; 
and have once or twice availed myself of the author's labors without 
particular notice. 

Jeremy Taylor shrewdly argues from the computation of Easter 



244 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Athanasius: His testimony misapplied. 

1. "According to Coleman (^Christian Antiquities, p. 430), 
^Athanasius, in the beginning of the third [properly /oi^r^A] 
century (a. d. 325), expressly declared that the Lord changed 
the Sabbath into the Lord's day/ " (^p. 166.) If my friend, 
instead of depending on hearsay evidence {as inadmissible in 
logical as in legal investigation), had brought his witness into 
court, he would have found that his testimony has been per- 
verted and misapplied. It will perhaps occasion surprise to 
some to learn that Athanasius, in the passage alluded to, is 
actually attempting to show ivh?/ the fourth commandment is 
not obligatory. Referring to the very customary observance 
of the Jewish Sabbath (which relic of the Synagogue lingered 
for centuries in the Church), he explains : ''We assemble on 
the Sabbath day, not that we are infected with Judaism (for 
we have never embraced its pseudo-sabbaths), but we assemble 
thus on this day to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. 
Formerly, indeed, the Sabbath was properly honored by those 
of old, hut the Lord displaced the Sabbath by the Lord's day/^ 
Nor do we contemn the Sabbath by our authority merely, but 
the Prophet himself rejects it, saying : 'Your new moons and 
your Sabbaths my soul hateth.' As long, indeed, as those 
things were performed, which were proper by the institution 
of the law, or rather as long as the Master had not come, the 
sway of the tutor maintained its authority ; but when the 
Master came, the tutor was supplanted, as at the rising of the 
sun the lantern is extinguished. '^ (Opera: Tom. i., Homilia 
de JSemente.)]' That Athanasius did not in this passage design 

adopted by the eastern churches and the disciples of St. John, that 
"this must needs be a demonstration that the day of the resurrection 
was not holy by divine or apostolical institution." (Duct. Diib. B. u. 
chap. ii. rule 6, sec. 55.) 

* MsTgflnxg h Kwf lof T»v Tou a-atSetTcv h/xe^av, m Kvptaxny : literally : 
" The Lord changed the Sabbath day into the Lord's day." 

f I believe that throughout the voluminous writings of this Father, 
the term *' Sabbath" is never applied to the first day of the "week, but 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 245 

The doctrine of Athaxasics — ^n^j-sabbatarian. 

to iutimate that " the Lord's day" became 'Hhe Sabbath/' in 
my friend's language {p. 52), " absorbing into itself all the 
authority of the original law," is clear from his previous 
*' Treatise on the Sabbath," in which he says : " The Lord's 
day, which is the heginning of the new creation, ended the 
Sabbath; as this same regeneration in man superseded circum- 
cision." And again, after remarking that the Sabbath com- 
memorated the termination of God's creative labors, he adds : 

tmiformly to the seventh day. Certain it is that Athanasius never 
claims the authority of the fourth commandment as sustaining any 
observance of Siinday. And this, be it observed, so late as the fourth 
century. I remarked, in my former Reply {p. 98, — note), that "I be- 
lieved no solitary writer could be found, in the first two centuries of the 
Christian era, who ever called Sunday the Sabbath." My friend J. 
N. B. has not attempted to question its correctness; and yet he would 
have us believe that the commandment was transferred to " the first 
day," by Divine authority establishing that day as "the Sabbath" of 
the Christian dispensation, while throughout the earlier and purer 
ages of the Church, no one ever thought of calling " the thing" hy its 
appropriate ^^name." I believe I may give him a broader issue, and 
add another century. If correct, we shall have to admit that "it was 
not till erroneous views of the day of Christian worship began to be 
entertained that it was ever supposed to * absorb into itself the authority 
of the original law,' the fourth commandment." [p. 99, — note.) J. N. B. 
has met this oddly enough, by saying: "This statement of my friend 
requires no answer. It is sx mere begging of the questio7i." (p. 191.) He 
mistakes ; it is a negation of the question. He that affirms, must 
prove. My friend would doubtless be well pleased to transfer the 
burden of proof from his own shoulders ; but for once I must decline 
accepting it. 

I will merely observe that the diligent and scrutinizing Lardner 
derives a strong argument against the genuineness of " The ApostoKcal 
Constitutions," from the circumstance of their ordaining that the 
Jewish Sabbath should be observed. On which he correctly remarks, 
that "the Apostles of Christ never gave such instructions about keeping 
the Sabbath;" and that such instructions "are more suitable to the 
fourth or fifth century, than to the most early times of Christianity." 
(^Credibil. B. i. chap. Ixxxv. sec. 6.) 

21* 



246 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

EusEcius : His testimony — ^nfi-sabbatarian. 

*^But the second creation had not an end ; so that he took no 
rest, but works even to the present. And hence we do not 
keep the Sabbath, as they did in the former dispensation, but 
hope for a future Sabbath of Sabbaths, in which the new 
creation, having no end, shall be established a perpetual holy 
day. (Tom. i. — Tract, de Sabbatis et Circumcisione.') I ten- 
der the testimony of my friend's witness, as a valuable and per- 
spicuous corroboration of my Scriptural doctrine, that Sunday 
is not the " Sabbath." 

2. J. N. B. continues (p. 166): ''Coleman adds: 'The 
account which Eusebius gives of this subject is that the Logos, 
the Word, in the New Testament, transferred the Sabbath of 
the Lord Grod unto this day.' " The account which Eusebius 
gives of the subject in his Commentary on the Psalms (the 
work from which the above has been incorrectly quoted), is as 
follows : " This Psalm is superscribed ' For the Sabbath.' 
Now even the Priests in the temple did various works on the 
Sabbath in conformity with the law ; so that it did not require 
from them an absolute rest ; nor indeed loas the Sabbath day 
appointed for the priests, but only for such as could not devote 
their whole life to the worship of Grod, and all their days to 
works acceptable to Him. Hence it was enacted for them to 
attend to these things at stated intervals." Then, after a 
citation of the severe denunciation of Isaiah (chap. i. 13, 14), 
occurs the passage : " Wherefore the word through the new 
covenant transferred the festival from the Sabbath to the 
dawning of the light," &c. ... "On that day, which is the 
first day of light, and of the true sun, we assemble together 
(six days intervening), and celebrating spiritual Sabbaths, per- 
form according to the spiritual \^^ what was appoiiited for the 
priests to do on the Sabbath ;* for we make spiritual offerings 

* "Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days, 
the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless ?" 
{Matt. xii. 5.) 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 247 

Justin Martyr : An unfortunate appeal. 

and sacrifices/' &c " And indeed whatever other things 

it was proper to accomplish on the Sabbath, these we have 
transferred to the Lord's day as being pre-eminent in dignity, 
and more honored than that Sabbath of the Jews. For upon 
this first day, God at the creation having said : ' Let there be 
light,' the light was," &c. {Commentar. in Psalmos, Ps. xci.*) 
The same author, in another work, likens the Patriarchs to 
Christians, by observing: " Thei/ regarded not carnal circum- 
cision, neither do we; they regarded not an observance of 
Sabbaths^ NEITHER DO WE ; they regarded not an abstinence 
from certain meats, and other distinctions which Moses first 
instituted, and transmitted to be typically obeyed, neither do 
Cliristiana observe such ceremonies now." (^UisL Eccles. lib. i. 
cap. 4.) I tender my friend, Eusebius as a strong witness 
that Sunday is not the " Sabbath." 

3. Justin Martyr (says J. N. B.,p. 167) '^assigns as the 
reasons for observing the first day of the week, commonly 
called Sunday, as the day of Christian worship, that on this day 
God, having changed the darkness and the elements, created 
the world, and that Jesus our Lord on this day arose from the 
dead." 

Most unfortunate allusion ! This witness strikes away the 
very corner-stone of Sunday Sabbatarianism; and denies all 
possible connection between Sunday and the fourth command- 
ment ! The " Sabbath" was ordained on a particular day, 
because that on a corresponding period God "rested" {ishib- 
both) from his work; "wherefore the Lord blessed the 
Sabbath day" {Exod. xx. 11) ; but Justin maintains that '^the 
first day" was not a rest day, but was memorable for the dia- 
metrically opposite and incompatible reason that then the 
Creator began to work ! And he moreover assigns this as the 
primary reason for commemorating the day ! "On the day 

* Being Psalm xcii. of the common version. 



248 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Testimony of Justin Martyr — ^li^f'-sabbatariaii. 

of tlie Sun [Ttjv 8e tov tj-kiov •Yjixs^av],'^ we commonly all meet 
together, because it is the first day in which God, transforming 
the darkness and the chaos, made the world." (1st Apology ; 
addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, A. D. 147.) It is 
too plain for discussion that this day could not be the Lord's 
Sahhath. Not only does Justin omit all notice of any prac- 
tice among the early Christians of abstaining from labor on 
Sunday, or of any supposed obligation to do so, but he informs 
us in the most explicit manner that the day was not observed 
as a Sabbath. He contends that the Sabbath, like circumcision, 
was wholly and unconditionally abolished by the gospel ; and 
that there was no more need for a Sabbath since the advent of 
Christ, than there had been use of it among the Patriarchs 
before its enactment by Moses. (Quoted ante, p. 97.) " The 
new law," says he, in refutation of the Sabbatarians, *' will 
have you keep a perpetual Sabbath ; but ye think when ye 
have passed a day in rest that ye have fulfilled your religious 
duty. ... If any one among you is perjured, or dishonest, let 
him cease to do evil; if any one is adulterous, let him repent, 
and he will have kept the true Sabbath, and the one acceptable 
to God." (^Dialog, c. Trijjjh. p. i.) I call my friend's atten- 
tion to the circumstance that this is not "a happy metaplior'' 
(p. 79) ; it is given as literal truth ; it is the calm consistent 
doctrine of all his writings; and not alone of his, but of those 
of all the early Fathers. I tender my friend this witness as 
a most conclusive one that Sunday is not the " JSabbath.^f 

^ Not the day "of the Lord," be it observed. 

f Notwithstanding that Justin Martyr expressly denies that there 
was any Sabbath before Moses [cum T/yph.), J. N. B. seems really 
disposed to extort from this Father some countenance of that chimera, 
a patriarchal Sabbath! After exalting the Sabbath, as "at once 
combining in its weekly rotation the three grandest displays of the 
Divine glory [!], and establishing the real harmony of the Patriarchal, 
the Mosaic, and Christian dispensations," he adds: "Although the 
deliverance from Egypt is less prominent [!] in our thoughts as Gen- 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 249 

Ec.vtan: His view essentially -Ix^i-sahbatarian. 

4. J. N. B. has made another attempt to smuggle in John 
BuNYAN. Deprecating the requirement of "t\\Q seventh day/^ 
he remarks : ''In this sense I fully agree with Bunyan, 'As 
for the seventh day, that is gone to its grave, with the signs 
and shadows of the Old Testament.' '' (p. 168.) An important 
word in the quotation has been omitted " probably from in- 
advertence. '' My friend does not "agree with Bunyan'' in 
any sense. That independent thinker correctly holds that it 
is "the seventh day Sahhatli, that as we see, is gone to its 
grave.'' And it was this sentiment that, in my last Reply {p. 
147, — note), I challenged my friend " to indorse ;'' and which I 
hope he will yet have the courage and consistency to do, with- 
out reservation. In Bunyan's theology, it is the fourth 
COMMANDMENT that "is gone to its grave, with the ' signs^ 
and 'shadows' of the Old Testament,"* I commend the fact 
to my friend's more attentive consideration ; and I confidently 
tender him this witness in addition to his others, as likewise 

tiles, yet so early as tlie days of Justin Martyr, we find the other tioo 
ideas actually in the minds of Christians [!]. For he assigns as the 
reasons for observing the first day of the week, commonly called Sun- 
day, as the day of Christian worship, that on this day, God having 
changed the darkness and the elements, created ihQ world [!], and that 
Jesus our Lord on this day arose from the dead." [p. 167.) Well, 
really ! And what in the name of common sense has all this to do with 
the Sabbath? — the day on which *' God rested from all his work." 

A patriarchal Sabbath is one of the most notable assumptions in 
speculative theology ; and its sublimest phase is the modern intuitive 
discovery that a Cliristian Sunday Sabbath was the true primitive type, 
the Saturday of the Creator's chronology, being to man " the first day 
after his own creation," and naturally his Sunday. The question 
whether Adam enjoyed his " sublime repose" from creation on Satur- 
day or Sunday becomes thus a somewhat equivocal one. (See an 
elaborate "Sermon, with notes," by Prof. Lee. Cambridge, England, 
1833.) 

^ My friend, as "Editor" of Bunyan's Practical Works, cannot be 
ignorant of this. 



250 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The witnesses all reclaimed. Burden of proof. 

furnishing a satisfactory testimony that Sundoi/ is not the day 
required in the Decalogue ! 

I believe these are all the authorities cited by J. N. B. to 
corroborate his unscriptural assumption -, but so far from giving 
it any countenance, I claim that they one and all confirm my 
^'Proposition/^ that Saturday is the Sabbath demanded by 
the fourtJi commandment. 

W. B. T. 



PART III. 
TRUE PERIOD AND CHARACTER OF THE SABBATH. 



*' The 'Law and the Prophets' were until John : since that time the 
^Kingdom of God' is preached." — Luke xvi. 16. 

"The Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths to be for- 
gotten in Zion. . . Her King and her princes are among the Gentiles : 
the Law is no more." — Lamentations ii. 6, 9. 

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going be- 
fore, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." — Hebrews vii. 1 8. 

"Sabbath days . . . are a 'shadow' of things to come; but the 
'body' is of Christ." (Colossians ii. 17.) "And his 'rest' shall be 
'glorious.' " — Isaiah xi. 10. 

"Thei'e remaineth therefore a keeping of a Sabbath, to the people of 
God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased fi'om 
his own 'works,' as God did from his." ["For He spake in a certain 
place of 'the seventh dag' on this wise, 'And God did rest the seventh 
day from all his works.'"] — Hebrews iv. 9, 10, 4. 

"If that which is done away was glorious, much more that which 
'remaineth' is 'glorious.' Seeing then that we have such hope, we use 
great plainness of speech." — 2 Corinthians iii. 11, 12. 

"If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought : but 
if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it ; lest haply ye be found even to 
fight against God." — Acts v. 38, 39. 



It is obvious that the burden of proof lies wholly on him 
who affirms the existence of another Sabbath than that of "the 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 251 

Sunday, not Sabbath. — Jrfs ii. — xiii. — Galat7a7}s iv. 

seventh day -/' and that on the failure of that proof the theory 
must fall. Still, from the superabundant strength of the cause 
I advocate, I am inclined to a work of supererogation; and shall 
here show, by the direct testimony of the New Testament 
Scriptures — -Jirst, that Sunday is 7ioc a Bible "Sabbath,'^ in 
any sense whatever; and secondly, that Saturday is "the 
Sabbath,^^ and the onlt/ Sabbath known to the apostles. 

First ; I shall establish that Sunday is in no sense whatever 
a Bible or Christian Sabbath. 

1. I am authorized to assume (without believing) that the 
day spoken of in Acts ii. 1 was Sunday; since J. N. B. has 
very positively asserted it. That this day was not a Sabbath, 
is clear from the manner in which it is referred to. A Sabbath, 
Divinely instituted in commemoration of the resurrection, 
" must, in the esteem of all Christians, be of far higher and 
sweeter import" than any purely Jewish festival, as was " the 
day of Pentecost." When, therefore, neglecting all allusion to 
the one character, the historian narrates the incidents of the 
day solely with reference to the latter and less important 
character, the conviction is irresistible that it could not have 
been a gospel "Sabbath." 

2. We are informed, in Acts xiii. 42 (a. d. 45), that on a 
Saturday, the Gentiles of Antioch were so well pleased with 
Paul's discourse that they earnestly desired him to repeat it 
on the next Sabbath. Here was the very occasion for the 
preacher to have instructed these eager Gentiles that the day 
following was the true Sabbath, when he would be pleased to 
meet them, and discuss the topics suggested by the "resur- 
rection-day." It was an occasion forced upon him. But 
alas ! "the inspired Apostle" was all unconscious of the grand 
discovery of modern theologies; and passing over Sunday 
without a notice, patiently awaited the next Saturday, (verse 
44.) I tender this text with confidence, as a most decisive 
proof that Sunday was not then a " Sabbath." 

3. The writer of Gcd. iv. 10 (a. d. 53) could not have 



252 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

1 Corinthians xvi. — Romans xiv. — Acts xx. — Colossians ii. 

condemned the '^ observance of daj/s," if Sunday had been 
Divinely appointed for Christian observance. An exception 
was imperatively demanded ; and could on no explanation 
have been omitted. The true offence of the foolish Galatians 
would have been that they did not '' observe" the riyhf day : 
but this was not the charge. "Ye observe da^s!" — If Sun- 
days, the observance is reproved! If not Sundays, their ob- 
servance had not been established ! This text is lucid proof 
that Sunday was not then a " Sabbath.'' 

4. The injunction contained in 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (a. d. 56) 
likewise could not have been given, if "the first day" had 
been a "stated day" of worldly rest. Equally impossible was 
it for this day to be specified without some allusion to its sacred 
character, had such been recognized. This text confirms the 
evidence that Sunday was not then a "Sabbath," 

5. An important link in the chronological chain is found in 
Rom. xiv. 5 (a. d. 58). If the first day of the week had ever 
by Divine authority been specially dedicated as "the Lord's 
day," it would have been impossible for an "inspired apostle" 
to give unqualified permission to ^^ esteem every day alike T' 
This text affords the most irrefragable demonstration that Sun- 
day was not then a "Sabbath."* 

6. From Acts xx. 7, 11 (a. d. 60), we learn "that Paul had 
so little regard to the first day of the week as to commence his 
journey on that day;"f an unequivocal indication that Sunday 
was not then a " Sabbath." 

7. The last text I shall adduce is Col. ii. 16 (a. d. 62), 
which denies in toto the obligation of either "holy days" or 

■5^ <'If Paal's language in that chapter be taken without any limita- 
tion, [!] it strikes equally against the Chi-istians' Lord's day as 
against the Sabbath of the Decalogue." J. N. B. {p. 19.) My friend 
seems to suspect that "the Christians' Lord's day" is not exactly the 
same thing as "the Sabbath of the Decalogue!" 

f A precedent for this is suggested by the somewhat similar instance 
recorded in Luke xxiv. 13. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 253 

Saturday, the only Apostolic Sabbath. — Luke xxiii. — Acts xiii. — xv. 

*^ Sabbath days." If this does not refer to the first day, it is 
positive proof that Sunday was not then a "Sabbath;'^ if it 
does refer to the first day, it is equally positive proof that Sun- 
day was not then a ^'Sabbath.'' 

Second!}/; I shall establish that Saturday alone is the Sab- 
bath recognized in the New Testament. 

1. It is unquestioned that, during the ministry of Jesus, the 
only day characterized by that name is 'May the seventh'^ of 
the week. (Matf. xii. 2 ; 3faj'k iii. 2 ; vi. 2 ; Lu/ce iv. 16 ; 
xiii. 10, 14; Joh7i v. 10, 16; ix. 14, 16, &c.) 

2. A/te?' the crucifixion (indeed, on the very day following 
that event — Saturday), we read that the disciples '^ rested 
the Sabbath day, according to the co7nma7idni€nt." (Luke 
xxiii. 56.) A satisfactory proof, as my friend J. N. B. has 
justly remarked, "that up to that time the Saturday Sabbath 
was held sacred by Christ's disciples." (p. 183.) I thank him 
for this frank avowal (demanded alike by his intelligence and 
his candor) that it was " Saturdaij" which was observed " ac- 
cording to the commandment. '' 

3. The next mention we find of the Sabbath is in Acts xiii. 
14, after an interval of more than ten years from the preceding 
instance, a lapse of time fully adequate to the complete estab- 
lishment and universal recognition of a new Sabbath, had any 
such been contemplated; but, as we have seen, none such ivas 
knmcn! If any one could be artless enough to question 
whether the day mentioned in this text was Saturday, the cir- 
cumstance of the open synagogue will establish, above all con- 
troversy, that " the Sabbath day" here noticed could have been 
no other than '' the seventh day." 

4. Overlooking the week immediately succeeding to this 
(verse 44), the next mention of the Sabbath is in Acts xv. 21, 
seven years later. On this occasion the liberal-minded bishop 
of the Jerusalem church, in warmly advocating before the 
general council there assembled the exemption of Gentile be- 
lievers from the observance of the Mosaic institutions (see ante, 

22 



254 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Acts xvi. xvii., &c. — Col. ii. No other Sa'bbath in the New Testament. 

p. 139), urged upon the over " zealous" Jewish brethren (Acts 
xxi. 20) the consideration that " Moses of old time hath in 
every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues 
everi/ Sahhath day.^^ Here, as before, the open synagogue 
isettles beyond all possibility of doubt that Saturday alone was 
designated. 

5. Without quoting in detail all the subsequent passages 
referring to " the Sabbath day," it is sufficient to state that, in 
every instance in which the phrase is used, throughout the 
apostolic history (^AcU xvi. 13; xvii. 2; xviii. 4,* &c.), bring- 
ing us down to a period of thirty years after the crucifixion, 
its invariable and indisputable application is to "the seventh 
day." 

6. In the Epistles, we meet with the term but once (Co?, ii. 
16); and here, as ever, in defiance of the shifts of quibblers, 
it is still the day observed " according to the commandment^' 
the day HaShibingij that alone is designated ; though, if J, 
N. B. wishes to apply this text to Sunday, he is welcome to it. 

The result of our examination is, that in no single instance, 
throughout the New Testament j is the title "Sahhath" applied 
to any other day than Saturday 1 (q. E. D.) In every case, 
let it be remarked, moreover, the designation is "the Sabbath 
^ay" — a day too notorious to be mistaken, too definite to be 
described; — a day excluding all possible rivalry, and scorning 
all possible perversion. He, therefore, who tells me of a "first 
day" Sabbath, tells me of that of which the Scriptures hnoiu 
nothing ! His wisdom is not that which is from above, but 
after man^s wisdom ; it is drawn from the " broken cistern," 
and not from the " living fountain. "f The triumph of the 



-'^ The simple expressions: *'Paiil, as his manner loas, went in unto 
them on three Sabbath days," &c. ; " he reasoned — every Sabbath," &c. ; 
in themselves furnish the clearest evidence that no other day of the 
week could have been at that time similarly distinguished. 

f " If conscience is not true to the Law of God, it is no better than 
a false chronometer." J. N. B. (p. 19.) 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 255 

The '"First Proposition" fully established. Christianity ■without a Sabbath! 

consistent Roman Catholic, over all observers of Sunday call- 
ing themselves Protestants, is indeed complete and unanswer- 
able !* 

I submit to every intelligent, impartial reader, that my 
"First Proposition" is established beyond all reasonable 
ground of objection or escape : " There is one, and only one, 
weekly Sabbath enjoined, described, or in the remotest manner 
alluded to, in the whole Bible, whether Hebrew or Christian, — 
the Saturday Sabbath," the seventh day of the fourth com- 
mandment. And I claim with confidence the unreserved benefifc 
of my friend's concession, that "all the other five Propo- 
sitions live icith it!'' (/;. 182.) 

So, then, we are to believe that the Christianity of the Bible 
has iw Sahhath day I That honored institution, which has 
been so zealously defended and so eloquently vaunted from a 
thousand pulpits — which, handed down through successive 
generations, has demanded and obtained a submissive and un- 
questioning observance — which has been so prominently incul- 
cated in the pious trainings of infancy, and perhaps, imbibed 
from the fervent lips of maternal aiFection, has become indeli- 
bly associated with the earliest and strongest impressions of 
habit, of conscience, and of duty — which has revived, with its 
ever-recurring peiiod of religious inspirations, the toil-worn 
spirit of the faithful living, or cheered with its clustering 
memories the pillow of the hopeful dying — and which, gather- 
ing around its shechinah the force of a thousand devotional 
impulses, has animated its votaries with a confidence implicit 
and intolerant^ while its violation has inspired a sentiment of 
horror, has been accounted the synonyme of "' ungodliness" 
and " profanity," has been held up to the unruly school-boy 

* It should present a subject of very grave reflection to Christians 
of the "reformed" and "evangelical" denominations, to find that no 
single argument or suggestion can be offered in favor of Sunday ob- 
servance, that will not apply with equal force and to its fullest extent 
in sustaining the various other "holy days" appointed by " the Church." 



256 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Awful " Judgments" against Sabbath-breaJcers ! 

as a warning monument of an avenging Providence* — that 
'' glorious" institution which, in short, has been esteemed, in 
the language of a distinguished apologist,f " the Sun of the 
moral universe F' and which my friend claims as '^a legacy 
from the risen Lord," " the bright link of man with man and 
earth with heaven, the safeguard of virtue, the glory of reli- 

* Ezemplce gratia: A popular juvenile "Sabbath Manual," pub- 
lished by the "American Tract Society," contains such arguments as 
the following: "Another man in the same State, who had spent the 
Sabbath in getting in his grain, said that he had fairly cheated the 
Almighty out of one day. On Tuesday, the lightning struck his barn ! 
He gained nothing valuable by working on the Sabbath." {page 74.) 
Item: "Another man . . . spent the day in gathering his grain, and 
putting it into a vacant building near his field. But the lightning 
struck the building! and, with the grain, it was burnt to ashes." 
{page 75.) Item: " But another man thought he had succeeded better. 
... He had worked on the Sabbath all the year, and had thus gained 
more than fifty days. But that very day the lightning struck his barn ! 
and his Sabbath day gains and his weekday gains were burnt together." 
{page 82.) Item : "A number of men at one time had mowed a large 
quantity of hay. For a number of days it had been rainy. The Sab- 
bath came, and was a remarkably pleasant day. One man stayed at 
home, opened his hay, took care of it, and in the afternoon got it into 
his barn." ... A week afterward, a cloud arose, "and moved on to- 
ward the barn into which on the previous Sabbath the man had put his 
hay. The lightning darted here and there, and by and by went down 
into the barn ! . . His neighbors' barns on each side were so near that 
it seemed impossible to prevent them from being burned. But . . 
neither of them took fire, and the Sabbath-breaker's barn was burnt 
out between them." (joa^es 239, 240.) Item: "A man in the State 
of New York was accustomed to work on the Sabbath. . . While in his 
field upon the Sabbath, treading down hay upon the stack, the light- 
ning struck him! and he was a corpse." {page 243, &c. &c.) Nur- 
sery Tales 9 by the Keverend Justin Edwards, Doctor or Divinity. 

Of all the ten commands, the fourth appears to be the only one guarded 
by the retributive thunderbolt ; and even here the lightning makes the 
strange mistake of miraculously protecting the wrong day! — the day 
not "nominated in the bond !" 

f Dr. Beecheb, of Boston. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 257 

Carnal Sabbatarianism incompatilile with a spiritual " Sabbatism." 

gion, tlie pillar and prop of society, the palladium of nations, 
the ^ pearl of days/ the blessing of this world and the beacon- 
light of that which is to come" — that priceless institution is 
declared a vain chimera ! — but a human fiction !* — but as the 
baseless fabric of a vision, and insubstantial pageant faded — 
as a superstitious dream when one awaketh ! 

Even so ! But rarely, in the close-paged history of human 
error, has so haughty a construction towered above so slender 
a foundation, as in the development of what is called " the 
Lord's day, or the Christian Sahhath /" However pious and 
devoted its advocates, however '^ fervent in spirit" or " diligent 
in teaching," they require to have '' the way of Grod more per- 
fectly expounded unto them" (^Heh. v. 12, 14); for their 
*' zeal of God is not according to hnowledger ''Desiring to 
be teachers of ' the Law^ they understand neither what they 
say, nor whereof they affirm." " Their minds are blinded ; for 
until this day remaineth the veil untaken away in the reading 
of the old testament ;" so that '' they cannot steadfastly look 
to the end of that which is abolished." They have not fully 
entered into that true Sabbatism which ''remaineth to the 
people of G od :" " neither can they know it, because it is spi- 
ritually discerned !" " What if some do not believe ? Shall 
their unbelief make the faith of God without effect ? God for- 
bid !" 

"7/ere is the Sahhath F^ exclaims my friend, with earnest 
apostrophe, {p. 173.) "Look at it. The seal of the world's 
Creator — of your Creator and of mine — is upon it.f Efface it 

* "If the Sabbath be no part of the Law of Gorl, let it perish!" 
J. N. B. {iJ. 55.) 

I How comes it that J. N. B. has been so bold as to " efface" the 
" seal of the world's Creator" by an utter neglect of that day which 
alone can be the seal? "riemember the Sabbath day !" — Yovi Ila- 
Shibingi; — the day in which the Creator rested! "The first day" 
never was, and never can be, day Ila-Shibingi ! And 071 it the Ci'eator 
did not rest! [Gen. i. 1 — 5.) 

22* 



258 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The "express declarations" of Jesus — Anti-saHbatarian. 

if you can ! Attempt it if you dare !'' Efface it, I cannot, 
for it is already done. It was most effectually accomplished 
nearly two thousand years ago ! Attempt it, therefore, I shall 
not; for " so fight I — ^not as one that beateth the air I'' This 
^' seal of the world's Creator'^ has heen cancelled {Isai. Ixv. 17; 
Heb. iv. 4, 5; Col. ii. 14); the covenant it certified has ex- 
pired by limitation. {Exod. xxxi. 17; 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8; Heb. 
viii. 6 — 13.) No fragment of a codicil or schedule has been 
left to give my friend his "legacy.'^ (^Gal. v. 3.) If he will 
not accept under the laU ^^ testament,^' he is absolutely dishe- 
rited ! He can take nothing from the former one. I ^' dis- 
pute his title to the inheritance." {p. 179.) 

'^ Tell me not,'^ says ho, ^' that Jesus Christ has come from 
Heaven to abrogate this Law — in the face of his own express 
declarations to the contrary !" {p. 173.) Tell me not tlwu ^^of 
his own express declarations to the contrary," when they can- 
not be found !* — when they do not exist ! " He that hath my 
word, let him speak my word faithfully. . . . Behold I am 
against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, 
and say, ' He saith !' " Tell me not of " His fidthful exposi- 
tion, His noble vindication, His constant application^^ of the 
Sabbath law ! " Yea, hath God said ?" Where is it written? 
" Chapter and verse'' for that ! Dare not to tell me that the 
tenor of his whole obedient life " was to honor it as immuta- 
hW {p. 173) ^' in the face of his express declaration" (when 
condemned by the Sabbath-keepers of olden time), "i% Father 
worketh hitherto, AND /work !" (John v. 8 — 17); and in the 
face of that other " noble vindication" of his authority, when 
charged with disregarding the fourth commandment, " The 
Son of man is Lord even of the Sahhath-day !" {^Maft. xii. 1 
— 8.) Dare not to say that "all this was to honor it as im- 

* It is unnecessary to notice here a weak attempt made by J. N. B. 
in his former E-eply [p. 58) to construct a prop for the Sabbath out of 
Matt. V. 17, 18 ; for the sophism can hardly mislead any one. The 
subject will, howeyer, be more properly considered presently. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 259 

A gross equivocation. Iluman authority insufficient. 

Qjiiitahle!" Think you he could prove his observance of the 
Sabbath by chiiming to be its Master ? or that he could be 
"Lord'' of his "immutable" ruler? Think you he could ex- 
hibit his authority over the law by " obedience" to the law ? or 
that, as " Lord of the Sabbath/' he could be in londage to the 
Sabbath 1^^ It seems beneath the dignity of honest controversy 
to reply to such equivocation. Nothing less desperate than 
Sabbatarianism could tolerate absurdities so palpable. Search 
the Scriptures! ^^ They are they which testify of Me!" 
What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. 

" Whatever be true in other countries and times," urges my 
friend, " human authority^ neither legal nor ecclesiastical, will 
satisfy free-born Americans. No man's conscience will be 
bound here by anything short of Divine authority — real or sup- 
posed." {p. 180.) The consideration suggested in this para- 

^'' "As he is 'Lord of the Sabbath,'-hG has a power of dispensing 
■with it, and even of abolishing it." Dk. Gill {^Commentary on Matt. 
xii. 8). 

" This is Tery much," says J. N. B. {p. IGO), " as if one should infer 
from the words of Jehovah to Moses, ' I am the God of Abraham, 
Isaac, and .Jacob,' merely that as their God, he had the right to anni- 
hilate them at will." It seems that my friend is satisfied with a false 
analogy, if a true one will not suit. The circumstances of a declaration 
(whether as restrictive or extensive) are accordingly considered too 
unimportant to be taken into the account. Now had this declaration 
of Jehovah to Moses, instead of being delivered confirmatorily (as a 
pledge of continued providence), been mside peremptorily, in answer to 
the question "Why hast thon utterly destroyed the Patriarchs?" my 
friend's analogy would be perfectly just, and his inference unexcep- 
tionable, "that as their God, he had the right to annihilate them at 
will !" So when in answer to the question " why do they on the Sab- 
bath day that ivhich is not lauful?" ( Mark il 24), Jesus declared that 
he was "Lord also of the Sabbath;" every child would know that this 
reply could not possibly mean to extend the obligation of the law ! 
" How forcible are right words!" said honest Job; "but what doth 
your arguing reprove?" — "If any man speak, let him speak as the 
oracles of God.'" 



260 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

A divine law — " real — or su]^j)osed !" A holy life recttiired, — not a holy day. 

graph, throws even my friend's former d priori argument com- 
pletely in the shade. Behold the last retreat of Sabbatarian 
desperation ! An absolute Theocracy alone " will satisfy free- 
born Americans V for, since J. N. B. considers all the argu- 
ments addressed to their reason or their sense of a common in- 
terest, in favor of a sacred day of rest, avowedly weak and fal- 
lacious C^a weekly Sabbath being not of itself obvious"), the 
institution can have nothing whatever to sustain it but a posi- 
tive and arbitrary enactment. If there is any force or meaning 
in the above paragraph, it conducts us to this : though the 
New Testament should not enjoin or encourage a ^' Christian 
Sabbath,'' we must ^^ shun to declare all its counsel;" for no- 
thing will answer to bind the conscience here '^ short of Divine 
authority — real or supposed !" An intimation certainly 
much more creditable to my friend's candor than to his cau- 
tion ] and I will add, much more illustrative of his zeal than 
of his orthodoxy. That the conscience must be bound "in re- 
spect of an holy day,'' he assumes as being too clear for proof. 
Ml/ great object is to satisfy the enlightened conscience that 
it should not be held in subjection to the "observance of days ;" 
and to show, by the uniform and consistent tenor of all Scrip- 
ture, that " the Lord of the Sabbath" never ordained a holy 
day, but ever required a holy life ! that, under the perfect law 
of Christian liberty, every day is alike "the Lord's day:" 
and none arc " common or unclean." The hour cometh, when 
neither in the mountain, nor yet in your Jerusalem tonple 
shall the Father be worshipped : but when "the true worship- 
pers shall worship Him in spirit and in truth : for the Father 
seeketh such to worship liira."* And my unremitting and 
nnmisgiving labor shall be (to the utmost of my ability) to 

■5^ " The time once hath been, when the Sabbath was not holy day. 
And the time shall come, wlicn to all true and Godly men, every day 
shall be like holy.'''' Eeasmus. [Paraphrase in 3Iark ii.) 

"To contend," says Milton, "that what under the ncAV dispensa- 
tion ought to be our daily employment, has been enjoined as the busi- 
ness of the Sabbnth exclusiTely, is to disparage the gospel worship, 



MR. TAYLOR S THIRD REPLY. 261 

The Gospel standard. Au extract from Neander. 

convince all who affect a gospel standard , that, like " the in- 
spired Apostle/' they should "give place by subjection — no, 
not for au liour,'^ to those who would bring their conscience 
into bondage. I would conjure them by every regard for 
honest construction of language, by every sentiment of venera- 
tion for Bible authority, to "be strong in the faith; not giving 
heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men that turn 
from the truth.'' 

Although the space may not with propriety be spared, I 
cannot resist the temptation of here placing in juxtaposition 
with the declaration that " human authority will not satisfy," 
and as an appropriate commentary on it, a passage from one 
of the most profound and venerated of modern theologists : — 
need I name the learned Neander ? 

^'St. Paul expressly declares all sanctifying of certain seasons, 
as far as men deduced this from the Divine command, to be 
Jewish and unevangelical, and to be like returning to the 
slavery of the law, and to captivity to outward precepts. Such 
was the opinion of the early Church. At first the Churches 
assembled daily for prayer in common, and for the public con- 
sideration of the Divine word, and the common celebration of 

the Lord's supper and the agapoi Just as the 

unevangelic made its appearance, when men supposed the ex- 
istence of a separate caste of priests in the Church, which stood 
upon Divine right — when they forgot the common Christian 
priesthood in the consideration of this peculiar caste of priests, 
and when they introduced a contrast between secular and 
spiritual persons among Christians, — so also in this matter, the 
unevangelic appeared, when men supposed certain dai/s distin- 
guished from others and hallowed by Divine right — and when 
they introduced a distinction between holy and common days 
into the life of the Christian, and in this distinction forgot his 
calling to sanctify all days alike. The confusion between the 
Old and the New Testament notions manifested itself here in 
the same manner, and at the same time, as that which relates 

to the priesthood The festival of Sunday, like all 

other festivals, was always only a human ordinance ; and it was 

find to frustrate rather than enforce the commandments of God." 
[Christ. Doctrine, Book ii. chap. 7.) 



262 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Learned authority — against the Sabbath. 

far from the intention of tlie Apostles to establish a Divine 
command in this respect, far from them and from the early 
apostolic Church to transfer the laws of the Sabhath to Sun- 
day. Perhaps at the end of the second century, a false appli- 
cation of this kind had begun to take place, for men appear 
by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin." 
(History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i. sec. iii. 
2/^0.") 

J. N. B. informs us that ^^ Human opinions really decide 
nothing here. Names equally illustrious, if not more 
numerous, are found arrayed on the other side — that is, in 
favor of the moral and perpetual obligation of the Sabbath." 
{p. 190.) Where shall they be found ? Will my friend ob- 
tain countenance for his ^'tradition of the elders," in the ear- 
liest commentators — the immediate successors of the apostles — 
the "Fathers" of the Christian church? Almost unanimously 
do they support my side of the question, and, like "the in- 
spired Apostle," utterly repudiate the Sahhath! Will he 
refer to those who in later centuries, casting off the trammels 
of a long accumulating growth of legendary observance (the 
fungi of human culture), and caring naught that these ob- 
servances had received the sanction of ages of acquiescence 
from the wise and good, dared battle for what they esteemed 
the Truth — "whether she carried the balm of life, or the 
weapon of death" — will he turn to iliG fathers of Protestantism? 
Where shall he find " names equally illustrious" with those of 
a Luther, a Melancthon, a Cranmer, a Tyndale, a Calvin? — 
all of whom explicitly or virtually denij the obligation of the 
fourth commandment? Or even descending to more recent 
times, and searching among the names which have earned the 
most enduring reputation for critical research and Biblical 
scholarship, how many will he find to maintain with him "the 
moral and perpetual obligation of the Sabbath ?"* In weight 
of character at least, I fearlessly may challenge a comparison. 

* " The dogma that the observance of the Sabbath is part of the 
moral laiv is to me utterly imintelligible." Whately. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 263 

Literal applications of Scripture — against it. 

But '^ human opinions'' do not really ^' decide^' the question ! 
And who — (unless my friend) — ever imagined that human 
opinions could decide it ? The few authorities / at least have 
adduced have been summoned as my witnesses; — not appealed 
to as my judges. Our cause can submit to but one arbiter. 
Our only controversy is ^'The ScriptuRxYL authority of the Sab- 
bath.^^ J^ human authority, I shall not interrogate.* If in 
the interpretation of our mutual Law both parties can present 
"names equally illustrious" in corroboration of our respective 
views, then is the contest thrown back and confined to the 
naked statute; and he who brings the greatest weight of rele- 
vant quotation — he who most asserts and insists upon the 
literal reading of the text — he who finds the least necessity for 
paraphrase, explanation, limitation, or addition — he whose ap- 
plications, in short, are most pertinent, most explicit, most con- 
sistent with themselves and all others — must in fairness be 
adjudged the victor. This issue is with the discriminating 
reader : — I shrink not from the verdict. 

I cordially agree with J. N. B. iii entertaining but little re- 
spect for that human exposition which evades or impinges upon 
the teachings it professes to elucidate ; which " walks in 
craftiness, and handles the word of God deceitfully.'' I know 
full well that even " great men are not always wise, neither do 
the aged always understand judgment. Therefore I said, 
hearken to me ; I also will shew mine opinion." 

Says J. N. B. : " My friend has chosen on this point [the 
reference to human authorities] the ungracious task of Ham 
to Noah." (p. 192.) Now, however unspeakable the ofi"ence 
of the reprobate son, I think that the impartial justice of a 
healthy morality will hardly exculpate the pranks of the some- 
what fantastic patriarch. If it was beyond measure wicked to 
see his exposure, it was in some measure improper to make the 
exposure. To apply this ancient lesson, if I " have chosen the 

* Sec Note D, at the end of this Reply. 



264 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

An " ungracious task." Sabbatarian nalechicss exposed. 

ungracious task" of discovering the nudity of venerable error, 
and, to aggravate the impiety of this surprisal, have profanely 
"told the brethren without,'^ the 'primary rebuke must fall 
upon the " fathers" in Israel, who have ventured out loifJwut 
their proper garments ! — not " having their loins girt about 
with Truth!" If anti-evangelical "views of the ten com- 
mandments, or some of them at least, have been embraced and 
propagated by Ministers of the Gospel" (p. 192), let these pa- 
triarchs be not utterly astonished to find their nakedness dis- 
played by some unfilial Ham. Let them not, with false, 
unhonored dignity, retort: "Thou wast altogether born in 
sins, and dost thou teach us^" Let them, with prudent heart, 
incline their ear unto instruction, however humble or unworthy 
its source ; studious rather of the good grace with which ad- 
vice may be received, than of the " bad grace" with which it 
may be proffered. " Rebuke a wise man, and he will love 
thee, and will be yet wiser." 

Unlike Ham, however, I would arouse our spiritual " Fa- 
thers" from their lethargic "orthodoxy," solely that they may 
be fully conscious of their uncovered situation. Unlike Ham, 
I urgently tender them the garment adapted to remove their 
reproach of Sabbatarian nakedness. Here are the " Six 
Propositions," diligently woven from the Scriptures. Awake, 
ye slumbering Noahs, from your traditionary bondage and 
bewitchment !* " Take unto you the wJiole armor of God, 
that ye may be able to stand ;" and that ye may wield with 
the power of consistency " the sword of the Spirit, which is 
the Word of God." 

" My friend, indeed," says J. N. B., "as if this were not a 
practical question, where every man, woman, and child must 
necessarily take a side, would waive all regard to consequences. 
He can give up the Sabbath as coolly as the false mother of 
old consented to the division of the living child. To him, 

* Fphesians v. 14. Galaiians ill. 1, 2. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 265 

The dead child — surrendered. Ishmael, and Isaac. The Law, and the Gospel. 

Truth is Truth, alike whether she carries the balm of life, or 
the weajDon of death/^ (p. 181.) 

Indulging the modest hope that this encomium may not be 
undeserved, I would remark that the previous flattering figure is 
not well chosen. The "child" is the dead one ! — stark cold ! It 
will not require a Solomon to decide our controversy. So far from 
" consenting to the division'^ of the child in dispute, I cheer- 
fully resign the whole corpse into my friend's awaiting arms — 
cerements and all ! Alas ! however his mistaken affection may 
for a while beguile him, his kindest nursing can never restore 
it. The outcast son of Hagar cannot be heir with the living 
son of Sarah. "Truth is truth T' whether she herald life or 
death. 

" Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to ' the 
Law,' by the body of Christ;'' being " buried with him by 
baptism into death," "wherein, also, ye are risen with him 
through faith," that ye " should serve in newness of spirit, and 
not in the oldness of the letter,'^ which was but " a shadow of 
things to come, whose body is of Christ." " Now, after that ye 
have known God, or rather are known of Grod, how turn ye 
again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire 
again to be in bondage ?" " Know ye not, that to whom ye 
yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom 
ye obey ?" " Ye are not come unto the Mount that might be 
touched, and that burned with fire ; nor unto blackness, and 
darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the 
voice of words;" "but ye are come unto Mount Sion, and 
unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." 
" Ye are not under ^ the Law,' but under Grace." " Stand 
fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you 
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." 

My friend, in trusting to the works of the ministration upon 

stones, instead of exclusively "looking unto Jesus as the 

author and /?Hs/ier of the Faith," and "the mediator of a 

better covenant" than that of Horeb, has " stumbled at that 

23 



266 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The wrong " breastplate." Jurisdiction of the Decalogue. 

stumbling-stone;" choosing for his breastplate ^'the righteous- 
ness which is in 'the Law/ blameless/^ rather than ''the 
righteousness which is of Faith." (Eom. ix. 30, 32.) "In 
the name of Truth and Honesty," says he (p. 172), "I have 
a demand to make on W. B. T., and on all, of his opinions. 
Come out clearly, and show your colors. [?] What do you 
mean to do luitli the Decalogue? Not a trace of anything 
local, temporary, ceremonial, or shadowy,* is in it. Every- 
thing is absolute, universal, perpetual Lawf — the Legislation 
of the Infinite Creator for men, His creatures. As such, it is 
distinctly recognized by Christ and his Apostles. "J 

Under the protection of a rigid logic, I might reply that the 
Decalogue is not the subject of our Discussion. I might insist 
that we are at present engaged with but one of its require- 
ments, and that one the only positive, ceremonial, and typical 

^- When the Sabbath rest is entitled " the beacon light of that which 
is to come" [p. 61), an unsophisticated reader might suppose that there 
was ''a trace" of something ^^ shadou'if in the Decalogue. My friend 
admits that the Sabbath was symbolical [Ileb. iv. 3, 4, 9), but does not 
like to grant that it was '<a shadow." {Col. ii. 17.) And yet, holding 
the fourth commandment to be an ^^ absolute, universal, perpetualLsi-w,'' 
he is living in the constant violation of that law ! He has probably never 
obeyed the plain and unmistakable requirement of that law, to sanctify 
the day Ha-Shibingi! "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy!" 
"Whosoever shall offend in one point, he is guilty of all!" My friend 
remembers only a Sabbath : — he has entirely forgotten " the day,''^ a day 
definite beyond the hope of escape, or the reach of evasion. I echo the 
question: "What do you mean to do with the Decalogue?" (See 1 
Kings xii. 33 ; 2 Kings v. 12 ; Dan. vii. 25.) 

f "Everything in the Decalogue is not obligatory to Christians, — is 
not a portion of the moral or natm-al law." Jerebiy Taylor. [Duct. 
Dub. b. ii. ch. 2, rule 6.) 

% " With regard to the doctrine of those who consider the Decalogue 
as a code of universal morality, I am at a loss to understand how such 
an opinion should ever have prevailed." Milton. [Christian Doctrine, 
b. ii. ch. 7.) 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 267 

"The Decalogue" consigned to the grave, — under the gospel "colors." 

provision in the code.* And having proved, beyond the pos- 
sibility of refutation, that the Fourth commandment "is gone to 
its grave with the ' signs' and 'shadows' of the Old Testament,'^ 
I might say, with the Roman poet, ^'Jcmiqiie opus excgi^^ and 
leave my friend to arrange his necklace (bereft of its " pearl 
of days") as best he may. Having no desire for concealment, 
however, I cannot slight his appeal, but must endeavor to 
''come out dcarhjr I therefore take occasion, "in the name 
of Truth and Honesty," to announce that I am at present 
sailing under the " colors" of Paul and of Paul's Master. And 
I "mean to do with the Decalogue" just as they did with it — 
leave it in the grave to which the Cross has consigned it, a 
subject for the glass of the Antiquary, or the knife of the 
theologic Anatomist. I shall "leave it alone in its glory,'^ 
assured that "if the ministration of death, written and en- 
graven in stones, was glorious (so that the children of Israel 
could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of 
his countenance)," " much more that which remaineth is glo- 
rious !" 

* " In its own nature," says Dr. Barrow, "it dififeretli from the rest 
of the ten Laws, the obligation thereto being not discernibly to natural 
light, grounded in the reason of the thing." {Works, vol. i. Exposition 
of the Decalogue.) Hence it is the only provision of that code having 
the injunctive "Remember!" It would have been impossible for the 
legislator to have said, '-'• Rememher not to steal!" '■^ Remember not to 
kill !" These precepts were addressed to the moral sense of his hear- 
ers ; the Sabbath law alone, was addressed to their memory ! This 
premonition was evidently used, as Dr. Gill has well stated, "because 
it was a command of positive institution, and not a part of the law of 
nature, and therefore more liable to be forgotten and neglected ; for, 
as a Jewish writer (Aben Ezra) observes, all the laws of the Decalogue 
are according to the dictates of nature, the law and light of reason, 
and knowledge of men, excepting this ; wherefore no other has this 
word ' Remember' prefixed to it." [Comment, on Exod. xx. 8.) Chry- 
sosTOi draws the same inference from this peculiarity of injunction, 
and considers the Sabbatli law a "local and temporary" commandment. 



268 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Decalogue entirely "local and temporary." 

In thus maintaining for it the character by which ''it is 
distinctly recognized by Christ and his Apostles/' it will ne- 
cessarily be shown that J. N. B. has wholly misconceived this 
character. " Not a trace of anything local, temporary, cere- 
monial, or shadowy, is in it V says he. Unfortunate error ! 
" I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the 
land of Egypt.'' Is there nothing '' local or temporary'^ here? 
{Jer. xvi. 14; Heh. viii. 9.) — "Visiting the iniquity of the 
fathers upon the third and fourth generation." Nothing 
'' local or temporary" here ? {Ezch. xviii. 20 ; Jer. xxxi. 29, 
30; Gal. vi. 5.) — "Thou wast a servant in the land of 
Egypt — tlievefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep 
the Sabbath day." Nothing " local or temporary" here ? 
{I^ai. xliii. 18; Jer. xxiii. 7; Gal. iv. 3 — 5.) — "The seventh 
day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Nothing " local 
or temporary" here? {Exocl. xxxi. 15, 17; ITeh. iv. 4 — 10; 
Isai. Ixv. 17.) — " Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy 
days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth 
thee^ Nothing " local or temporary" here? {Josh. i. 11.)''' 
Alas ! for the cause whose advocacy involves such reckless as- 
sertion. Every syllable of the Decalogue is made " local and 
temporary" by its very Preamble: the universal criterion of 
the object of a law, and its prime interpreter. And be it 
carefully remembered, that the Decalogue has never been en- 
acted ivith any other preamhle ! 

Is this " Anti-nomianism ?" Weak indeed is the faith, and 

^ "Why," says Selden, " should I think all the fourth command- 
ment belongs to me, when all the fifth does not ? What land will the 
Lord give me for honoring my father ? It was spoken to the Jews with 
reference to the land of Canaan." (Table Talk.) 

Dr. Gill justly remarks of the promise given in the fifth command- 
ment, " This further confii-ms the observation made, that this body of 
laws belonged peculiarly to the people of Israel." (Com. in loco.) 

Paul, with his characteristic love of illustration and adaptation, 
has extended this "promise" by a liberal paraphrase. (Eph. vi. 3.) 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 269 

Paul's triumphant refutation of the " Anti-nomian." " The Law" — dead. 

weak indeed the logic, that conceives it ! How triumphantly 
does the Apostle meet this stale and trivial imputation : "What 
then ? Shall we sin, because ' we are not under the Law/ 
but under Grace ? — God forbid I" And why not ? Because 
ti2J07'tion of the Law is still obligatory? Because we are still 
under the '^Decalogue ?" Never! but because '^ his servants 
ye are whom ye ohey /" — being not without law to God, but 
under the law to Christ. " If ye love me/^ said he who su- 
perseded the tutor, " keep my commandments." The repeal 
then of the Decalogue cannot disturb " one jot or one tittle" 
of the moral law : it leaves the whole subject of moral obliga- 
tion just where it was before these hard-ridden " ten command- 
ments" were enacted; and just where it has ever been since. 
Are the millions who have never heard of ''the Decalogue," 
necessarily antinomians? Bead Rom. ii. 14, 15, for your 
answer. Were those who lived during the thousands of years 
before "the Decalogue" had existence, necessarily antinomians? 
Read Rom. v. 13, for your answer. Are we who live thou- 
sands of years after " the Decalogue" is dead, necessarily an- 
tinomians ? Bead Rom. vi. for your answer : and blush for 
the silliness of the inference. 

" Before Faith came, we were kept under ' the Law,' .... 
but after that Fciith is come, we are no longer under a school- 
master." " Now, we are delivered from the ' Law,' that 
being dead wherein we were held ; that we should serve in 
newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." {Rom. 
vli. 6.) But, says J. N. B. (p. 173), " Paul does not say that 
the Law is ' dead,' but its c^irse only, ' in which we were 
held' by our guilt. — Gal. iii. 13." My friend has, in this un- 
lucky assertion, compromised his scholarship no less than his 
theology. Paul does not say that the " curse only" is dead. 
It is " the Laiv' which is dead /^ or rather, to which the 

" There is a grammatical variation in tb e ancient versions of this pas- 
sage [verse Gth) — which, however, does not at all affect the present 



270 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Christian married to a, new husband. 

Christian is " deacl.'^ (Rom. vii. 4.) It is " the Law'' 
wherein we were held^ before Faith came : it is "the Laiv^' from 
which we are delivered by burial into death : it is " the Law'' 
(not "its curse!'') which is no longer to be observed "m the 
oldness of the letter!" I think it would somewhat puzzle even 
the most " lawyer-like subtlety'' to explain how a curse is to 
be kept " in newness of spirit !" — or, on the other hand, how 
a statute which has ceased to command a literal obedience, can 
be anything else but " dead !"* 

"Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know 
the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as 
long as he liveth ? For the woman which hath a husband, is 
bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth ; hut if 
the husband he dead, she is loosed from the law of her hus- 
band .... Wherefore my brethren ye also are become dead to 
^ the Law' by the body of Christ ', that ye shoidd he married 
to another/' {Jcom. vii. 1 — 6.) Is it a " curse only," think 
you, that is symbolized as a "dead husband^" What glaring 

point. In some copies it is a7To9avovroi — in direct apposition with 
vofxov — " the Law being dead" — as rendered in our translation. In 
others, it is aTroSavovre? — " we being dead to that," — as given in 
our marginal reading. The sense is in either case the same: — the 
divorce is absolute: "a vinculo." Nay, the Apostle seems to have had 
in his mind both ideas: and hence, the mixed figure of a double death, 
and consequently of a double divorce. (Compare verse 4, with verse 6 ; 
see also, Gal. ii. 19.) 

■^ "But now have ye, with Moses' law nothing to do, since the same 
is become to you ward dead." Erasmus. [Paraphrase on Rom. vii.) 

" It is true" says Dr. Chalmers, in his Lectures on Romans, "that 
the Law may be regarded as dead; and that he, our former husband, 
now ' taken out of the way,' has left us free to enter upon that alliance 
with Christ considered as our new husband, which in many other 
parts of the New Testament is likened unto a marriage. And it is 
true also, that the death of the Law, which gave rise to the dissolution 
of its authority over us, took place at the death of Christ." [Lectxtre 
xxxviii.) 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 271 

The ohligatimi of the Law — to be proTcd. 

incongruity of metaphor : what palpable violation of gramma- 
tical construction ! "To what absurd results will wrong theo- 
ries lead intelligent men !'' 

Apparently, J. N. B. feels an uneasy consciousness of his 
indefensible situation, and would like to avoid the risk of 
maintaining it. "You have first to prove,'' says he, "that 
the Law of the Decalogue is ahrogated, before you demand 
proof of its re-enactment. Till this is done, fully and fairly, — 
till the argument from Matt, v., for example, is fairly met and 
set aside (which W. B. T. has not even attempted in his Re- 
ply), you have no right to demand proof of any kind as to its 
present obligation." (p. 173.) A mistake. My friend betrays 
here a want of logical perspicacity. The burden of proof is 
entirely upon him who " afiirms" the obligation. 

The Decalogue was actually promulgated only to the Israel- 
ites : its first enactment was after their separation from other 
nations; and then with an introductory proviso expressly limit- 
ing its application to that people. It is incumbent on J. N. 
B., therefore (if he would earn the character of a "sober 
logician"), to show at what time, and to prove by what author- 
ity, the Decalogue became obligatory upon the Gentiles. Did 
it bind the unconscious nations at its first oral proclamation 
from Mount Sinai ? Turn to Exocl. xix. and xx., or Deut. v., 
and see if you can find it thus written. "Will the date of obli- 
gation be fixed at the first tradition of the Tables, — a month 
and a half later? Turn to Exod. xxxi. and xxxiv., or Deut. 
X., and see if you can find it there. Or when the Gentiles 
turned to the Branch, and the root of Jesse, fifteen centuries 
later, was it then made obligatory by Apostolic edict ? Turn 
to Acts XV., and see if you can find it written there. My 
friend's "burden" will indeed be found a grievous one! No 
wonder he is anxious to be relieved from it. But there is no 
escape, excepting the abandonmeiit of his weak position. 

If, instead of reposing in my undoubted prerogative of simple 
negation, I choose to advance a step, and affirm the abrogation 



272 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Total ahrogation of " the Law" — fully establisliecl. 

of the Decalogue, then do I, in like manner, assume the task 
of proving my affirmation. This I have already '^done full}/ 
and fairly." Nor is there any room for evading the uniform 
and perspicuous teachings of ''the inspired Apostle." If any 
one ventures to assert that Paul, in his frequent allusions to 
"the Law," speaks only of the "ceremoniar' ^jcir^ of it,* I re- 
quire, in the first place, some Bible evidence to support the 
assertion; and I challenge the proof that "the Law'^ is eyer, 
in a solitary instance, referred to, independently of the ten 
commandments, or with the design of excluding them from its 
exposition. f And in the second place, I appeal to the explicit 

* There arc some, even " Ministers of the Gospel," who have been 
ignorant enough to assert this. Of course, I do not include J. N. B. 
among these. 

f "It cannot be denied," says Wiiately, in his Essays on raul, 
'■'■ that he does speak, frequently and strongly, of the termination of 
the Mosaic law, and of the exemption of Christians from its obliga- 
tions, without ever limiting or qualifying the assertion, without even 
hinting at a distinction between one part which is abrogated, and an- 
other which remains in full force. It cannot be said that he had in 
his mind the ceremonial law alone, and was alluding merely to the 
abolition of that ; for in the very passages in question, he makes such 
allusions to sin, as evidently show that he had the moral law in his 
mind ; as, for instance, where he says, * The law was added because 
of transgressions :' 'By the law was the knowledge of sin :' with many 
other such expressions. And it is remarkable that even when he 
seems to feel himself pressed with the mischievous practical conse- 
quences which either had been, or he is sensible might be drawn from 
his doctrines, he never attempts to guard against these by limiting his 
original assertion ; by declaring that, though part of the law was at an 
end, still part continued binding ; but he always inculcates the neces- 
sity of moral conduct on some c/(^e;-e?i^ ground. For instance: 'What 
shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 
God forbid.' He does not then add that a part of the Mosaic law re- 
mains in force; but urges this consideration: 'How shall we, Avho are 
dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us 
as were baptized into Jesus Christ, wei*e baptized into his death?' &c. 
And such also is his tone in every passage i-elating to the same sub- 
ject." {Essny v.) 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 273 

The Decalogue — specificaUy, abrogated. 

letter of the Record as decisively refuting this unfounded as- 
sumption, and impressively rebuking its rashness. It is "the 
Decalogue" which was "done away" by a more glorious minis- 
tration. (2 Cor. iii. 7 — 11.) It is "the Decalogue'^ from 
which, as from a dead husband, "we are delivered.'^ {Rom. 
vii. 2 — 7.) It is "the Decalogue'' which "decayed'' and 
"vanished away" before a better covenant. (Heb. viii. 9 — 13; 
Deut. V. 2 — G.) It is "the Decalogue'' which was "blotted 
out," and "nailed to the cross"* as being inseparably linked 
with the "shadows" and " carnal ordinances imposed until the 
time of the reformation," and which served unto the example 
of more heavenly things under the new priesthood "of good 
things to come." (Col. ii. 14 — 17; ITeh. iv., ix. 10; Eom. 
xiv.) In fine, it is "the Decalogue" which is ever placed in 
contrast with the newer government of Mount Sion and the 
spiritual Jerusalem. {Ileh. xii. 18 — 24.) 

But I "have not even attempted" to set aside "the argument 
from Matt, v." Most true ! I should indeed regret to see that 

* An objection has been raised to this (during the present Discus- 
sion) by our respected seventh-day Baptist friends of the New York 
"Sabbath Recorder," derived from propriety of metaphor, and the 
inconvenience of '■'■nailing''' a "table of stone" to a cross! It is suffi- 
cient that it is not impossible. And Paul has told us most explicitly 
that the nail has hem driven directly through the fourth commandment ! 
(CoZ. ii.) However difficult this accomplishment, our friends will find 
it vastly harder work to chisel away the balance of the tablet from its 
crucified position! 

"The 'ordinances' of which the apostle spake to the Colossians," 
says Macknight, "were ordinances, the blotting out of which was a 
proof that God had forgiven the Colossians all trespasses. The proof 
did not arise from the blotting out of the ritual, but of the moral pre- 
cepts of the law of Moses, as sanctioned with the curse [&c.]. . . . 
The moral precepts of the Law of Moses are called the Chirograph or 
'■handwriting of ordinances,' because the most essential of these pre- 
cepts were written by the hand of God on two tables of stone." [Com- 
ment, on Epistles, in loco.) ''Facilis descensus !" J. N. B. [p. 66.) 



274 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

" The argument from Matt, t." — not to be set aside. 

argument ''set aside/' It is altogether too interesting and too 
important to a full understanding of the Mosaic jurisdiction. 
Let him who would see displayed the moral code of Evangelic 
("anti-nomian'^) Anti-sabbatarianism read carefully and in- 
wardly digest that ''sermon on the mount;" let him see if 
there is to be found in it a fragment of a platform for unspi- 
ritual Sabbatarianism to stand upon. 

" Blessed are the humble, and the sorrowful, and the meek, 
and the righteous, and the merciful, and the pure, and the 
peace-making, and the persecuted;'' but never the ceremonial, 
never the tithe-paying, never the Sabhatli-heeinng ! When the 
Teacher proceeded to a more particular notice of the Mosaic 
law, in no single instance did he rest a moral duty on the au- 
thority of that law : in no single instance did he claim to be 
the interpreter of that law I* So far the contrary , he followed 
each quotation of a legal enactment with the disjunctive anti- 
thesis : "But I say unto yoiC something different! "He 
taught them — not as the Scribes" — not as a subtle expounder 
of a statute ; but "he taught them as one having authority" 
himself to command : insomuch that "the people were as/o?i- 
ished at his doctrine !" {Matt. vii. 28, 29.) 

■5^" That Jesus was in no sense the administrator or expositor of the 
Jewish code, is most decisively shown by the very text which has been 
so currently (and I must add — so perversely) cited to favor an oppo- 
site opinion. The explanation, " Think not that I am come to destroy 
the Law," would be altogether uncalled for and unmeaning from the 
lips of one who assumed the office of mere expounder. What would 
be thought of the intelligence of the commentator who should gravely 
assert that he did not design to '* destroy''' the text he was avowedly 
attempting to unfold ? It was precisely because Jesus was not a com- 
mentator; precisely because, "as one having authority," he did set 
aside the olden law, that this memorable disclaimer was rendered ne- 
cessary. Viewed in the light of that whole perspicuous and consistent 
Sermon, how significant to the awakened reason — how important for 
the stumbled faith — was the majestic annunciation : "In all this dis- 
pensation, I am not destroying, but fulfilling!" 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 275 

'* The Sermon on the Mount." 

Until the advent of the baptist Harbinger, "the Law and 
the Prophets" maintained their inviolable supremacy: but 
when the "witness of the Light" appeared, he heralded cni- 
other "kingdom." And yet, even then, no "tittle of ^ the Law' 
could fail" of its great office. {Luke xvi. 16, 17.) For the 
Master "came not to destroy" the Mosaic economy; but he 
came "to /«<//?/" it. His mission was not to "make it void;" 
but to "estahlish" it in its higher spiritual significance. And 
^^7/ this "fulfilment," one jot could not pass from "the Law," 
nor its minutest requirement be neglected. 

The references to the Pentateuch, which formed the texts of 
this instructive discourse, were gathered indifferently from the 
Decalogue and the general "Law;" as if with the very design 
of showing their identity of character and their correspondency 
of obligation.'^ Nor can a single hint be found throughout his 
lucid and assiduous teachings to favor the " fancy" of an?/ su- 
jierior sanctity in the taUes of stone. But every^where the 
CONTRARY If He taught that a true morality did not consist 

^ It appears strange that, upon tliis point, my friend J. N. B. and 
myself should, from the same premises, have arrived at opposite con- 
clusions ! He remarks, in his former Reply {p. 58), " That by ' these 
commandments' \_Matt. v. 19], our Lord meant the commandments of 
the Decalogue, seems to me so perfectly plain, from the specifications 
which follow, \_\~\ that I shall consider it beyond all dispute. When it 
is formally denied, it vrill be time enough formally to prove it." My 
friend will find it infinitely more difficult " formally to prove it," than 
to " consider it beyond dispute !" 

"In all Paul's Epistles," says Baxter, "and commonly in all the 
New Testament, the word 'Law' is ordinarily, if not always, taken 
more extensively than the Decalogue : therefore, to expound it for the 
Decalogue only, is to contradict the constant use of Scripture, under pre- 
tence of expounding the Scriptui'e." [Lord's Day, appendix, chap, ii.) 

J When, for example, the lawyer asked "which is the great com- 
mandment in 'the Law?' " Jesus, instead of turning to "the Deca- 
logue" (the infallible resort of the Sabbatarian), referred him to Deut. 
vi. 5, for "the first and great commandment;" and to Levit. xix. 18, 
for " the second :" and he declared that " on these two Commandments 



276 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Synopsis of " the argument from Matthew v." 

(as carnal ^' Nomianism" is ever too prone to suppose) in a 
strict observance of any written commandment , but that its 
demands reacted back (ivhere no statute can) to the moving 
impulse and the secret thought! {Matt. xv. 19.) 

Your Decalogue prohibits manslaughter; ^' but J say unto 
you/' the malicious feeling is guilt ! Your Decalogue forbids 
adultery; "but / say unto you/' the lustful thought is crimi- 
nal ! Your Law of Moses instructs its observers how they 
may obtain a legal divorce; "but / say unto you/' he who 
follows out its provisions, is guilty of offence I What ! Did 
not Moses direct us to give a writing of divorcement ? (Deut. 
xxiv. 1.) Yes, truly, in adaptation to the age of hardness in 
which he lived, but there is a morality higher and older than 
that of Moses ; and "from the hegi7ining," the command was 
not so! {3Iatt. xix. 7 — 9.) There is a code engraven upon 
other tables than those of stone; and instead of trusting to the 
written Law — "why not even of yourselves judge ye not what 
is right ?" {LuJce xii. 57.) Your Law requires a faithful ob- 
servance of oaths; "but / say unto you, swear 7iot at all!" 
neither by God's throne (3Iatt. xxiii. 22); nor even by his 
footstool; ("neither hy any other oath .'" — James v. 12.) Your 
Law commands a strict retribution upon the wrong-doer; "but 
/say unto you," retribute not the wrong! Your Law enjoins 
a patriotic affection for your neighbor and your countryman, 
and an utter disregard for the peace or prosperity of the 
foreigner and the enemy; "but / say unto you," love even 
your enemies, and do good to those that hate you! 

Such were His sublime "commandments!"* Such were 
the methods by which Jesus superseded the "fulfilled" code 
of Sinai;t and manifested to his "astonished" countrymen, 

hang all ' the Law and the Froj^hets.' " {3fait. xxii. 37—40; 3fark xii. 

29 — 34.) That precious "necklace" with its "pearl of days" appears 

to have been entirely overlooked ! 

* "If ye love me, keep My 'Commandments !' " (John xiv. 15.) 
■f "That is to say, profaneness towards God, disobedience to parents, 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 277 

" If ye lore me, keep My commandments." 

that he taught authoritatively I"^ impressing upon them 
the importance undet Ids kingdom, of serving no longer in the 
okhiess of tlie letter^ but in entire newness of spirit! 

Such is an epitome of ^'the argument from Matt, v.;" 
and he will indeed be bold, who even "attempts to set it aside." 
"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God!" 

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least com- 
mandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the 
least in Hhe kingdom of heaven.' . . . Whosoever heareth 
these sayings of 3Iin€ and doeth them, I will liken him unto 
a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; and the rain 
descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat 
upon that house ; and it fell not : for it was founded upon a 
rock.f And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, 
and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man which 
built his house upon the smid : and the rain descended, and 
the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; 

lying, robbery, and murder, are no longer sins under the Christian 
dispensation!" <' There remains no moral obligation on Gentile 
Christians !" J. N. B. (pp. 74, 75.) My friend cannot distinguish be- 
tween " Neonomianism" and " Antinomianism!"' 

"We utterly mistake the matter," says Chalmers, *'if we think 
that because emancipated from the relation in which we formerly 
stood to th-e Law, we are therefore emancipated from all service. The 
wife owes a duty to her second husband, as well as her first. The one 
has claims upon her obedience, and her dutiful regards, as well as the 
other. . . And thus it is with the Law on the one hand, and with Christ 
on the other. Under the Law we were bidden to do and live : under 
Christ, we are bidden to live and do." {Lectures on the Epistle to the 
Romans. Lect. xxxviii.) 

* "He hath delivered his precepts after the most pez-fect manner, 
with the greatest authority ; not like Moses and the prophets, sayiug 
Thus saith th-e Lord; but '/say unto you ;' not like the interpreters of 
Moses, for he taught them as one having authority^'' Bishop Pearsos. 
{Exposition of the Creed, art. ii. on '^Christ." ) 

J Ephesians ii. 20. 

24 



278 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The Sabbath excluded from the Model Sermon. 

and it fell: and great was the fall of it!" "He that hath Mi/ 
'commandments/ and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me!'^ 
The "Law" made nothing perfect, but "the bringing in of a 
better hope did."'^ 

It is well observed by Bunyan : " In all that large and 
heavenly discourse upon the law, you have not one syllable 
about the seventh-day Sabbath!" Is it not marvellous that 
Jesus so utterly forgot a vital "moral" duty, as to lend not 
even an approving glance at this "bright link of man with 
man, and earth with heaven — the blessing of this world, and 
the beacon-light of that which is to come?" What modern 
Sermon (wiser than the Master's) could be held complete with- 
out a glowing Sabbath eulogy, and an awe-toned reprobation 
of the " Sabbath-hreaker f" How shall we explain so startling 
an omission? nay worse, how shall we comprehend an omis- 
sion, pervading the whole New Testament ?f Irreparable 
oversight ! 

* "If we will acknowledge Christ to be our lawgiver," says Bishop 
Taylor, " and the Gospel to be his law, called in the New Testament 
' the law of liberty,' ' a royal law,' then must we expect that our duty 
shall be further extended than to a conformity in our lives to the 'tea 
words' of Moses. ... I know it is said very commonly (and the casuists 
do commonly use that method), that the explication of the Decalogue 
be the sum of all their theology ; but how insufficiently, the foregoing 
instances do sufficiently demonstrate ; and therefore how inartificially 
will also appear in the violence and convulsions, that must needs be 
used, to draw all these dissonances into one centre." [Ductor Dubi' 
taiit. Book ii. chap. 2, rule 4.) 

-j- Vide "Proposition IV." This unfortunate circumstance of 
course necessarily drives my friend to the remarkable position, that 
the New Covenant does not in itself comprise a sufficient code of moral 
duty for the Christian, " thoroughly to furnish him unto all good 
works !" And that the Sabbath law shall not be the solitary exotic to 
be transplanted into the Gospel garden, he endeavors to show how 
necessary it is to incorporate the second commandment also. " As 
well," says he in his former Reply {p. 58), "might you raise the 
same objection against the first commandment, or the second, or the 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 279 

Error — perishable. Truth only, cndtirinjr. 

Look to it, ye Christian Pharisees, lest in tithing mint, and 
more than tithing daysy ye "be likened unto the foolish man, 
who built his house upon the sand P' and lest, however admired 
your edifice, '^great shall be the fall of it!" Though ye 
would build "a tower whoso top might reach unto heaveiij' 
call to mind how in ancient legend, " The Lord came down to 
see the tower which the ^children of Men' builded," and they 
were scattered in confusion !* Though ye weekly point to 
your gilded temple, and sq complacently repeat to your 
credulous and uninquiring hearers, "See what manner of 
stones, and what buildings are here!" and "how adorned with 
goodly stones and gifts !" remember that again it was written 
of old — "the da3^s will come, in the which there shall not be 
left one stone upon another, that shall not he throicn doicnP' 
For the weapons of our warfare are mighty to the pulling down 
of the strong-holds of antiquated error, however firmly estab- 
lished, however cunningly fortified, by whatever numbers of 
the wise, the powerful, and the illustrious, stubbornly defended. 



TRUTH ONLY IS IMMORTAL 



Two personal suggestions demand a moment's attention 
before I lay down my pen.f In concluding ni}^ last Reply, I 

fifth, or the eighth, as against i\iQ fourth. ' But he does specify them 
elsewhere,' it may be said. I answer yes, the fifth and eighth (per- 
haps the first and tenth also) ; but nowhere the second." — As though 
the " second" could be riolated, if tlie " first" were obeyed ! {Mark xii. 
29, 32.) He who requires a clearer prohibition of idolatry than that 
in Acts XV. 20, needs not appeal to the " second commandment." Ilis 
conscience cannot be enlightened by the Decalogue ! 

* "The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as 
saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool : 
what house will ye build me ? saith the Lord ; or what is the place of 
my rest?" [Acts vii. 48, 49.) 

f A minor point occurs, which should perhaps receive a passing 



280 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Personal considerations. " Grave charges" against Sabbatarianism. 

could not help adverting to the remarkable fact that Christians 
of the denominations most strenuously professing to reject all 
human institutions in religion — the Protestants of ■ Protestants — 
were the loudest and least tolerant assertors of that unscriptu- 
ral dogma, a '^ Christian Sabbath P^ and that while vaunting 
their peculiar advocacy of " the Bible, the whole Bible, and 
nothing hut the Bible,'' upon this great question they actually 
"made the word of God of none effect through their traditions," 
" teaching for doctrines the commandments of men/' (p. 158.) 
J. N. B., in a passing allusion to this paragraph, remarks, 
"He has indeed (in closing his part iv.) become an 'accuser 
of the brethren.'* He has brought against me, and my 
brethren also, charges of the gravest kind." {p. 181.) 

I regret my friend's susceptibility on this point, but cannot 
think his inference exactly just. "Am I therefore become 
your 'enemy,' because I tell you the truth f My "gravest 
charge" has been that Christian Sabbatarianism is unscriptu- 
ral. And to establish this charge, has been my sole business 
from the beginning : as my friend's task has been to prove (if 
he could) the opposing doctrine unscriptural, and justify his 
assertion that my " stand-point is not that of Paul." (jo, 62.) 

But while I would " rebuke sharply" those who presume to 
hold in their bondage " another Master's servant," and arro- 
gantly "judge one man's liberty by another man's conscience," 
and while I would " give no place by subjection," but would 

notice. My friend complains (/>. 181, — note) that I styled an argu- 
ment of his — " etymological, when it is exegetical.^'' Real and important 
as the distinction undoubtedly is, I see not how it affects our present 
discussion. If an argument be inconclusive, it matters but little to 
which class it belongs. But I think it will generally be admitted, that 
in popular acceptation, at least, the " exegetical" is but a department 
of the "■ etymological." Nor is it perhaps always easy to discriminate 
accurately between their respective boundaries. At all events, the 
issue appears to me to be entirely a verbal one. 
"" See John v. 45. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 281 

The fairness of " partial extracts." 

" withstand them to the face because they are to he blamed," 
still, would I " count them not as ' enemies,^ but admonish 
them as brothers." Least of all, would I reproach them for 
their belie/. I would unswervingly uphold the inviolable sanc- 
tity of opinion ; believing that a sincere faith is amenable to 
no human " accusation/' but is accountable to Grod alone, — 
be that faith what it may. As I stated in my last Reply (p. 
87) : " Certainly I shall neither presume to 'judge,' nor to 
' set at naught' a believer, however ' weak in the faith' " I 
might esteem him. " This is well said," observes J. N. B. 
(p. 161.) '' How well it is fulfilled, will appear in the se- 
quel." I join with my friend in the reference. How far I 
have been consistent, our mutual readers for themselves must 
judge. 

The other remaining point to be noticed, is one of graver 
moment. In an early part of the Discussion (p. 56), J. N. 
B., in referring to the writers I had cited, remarked : " Of the 
unynarded language of others he has made a use, I think, they 
never designed." In part i. of my Beply, I assured him that 
" painful as such a conviction would be, I should certainly be 
thankful to him for its frank indication :" and that ''if, through 
prejudice or inadvertence, I had given an unfair coloring to 
authority, I would much rather be corrected, and retract a 
mistaken application, than continue in error, or labor under 
an intangible imputation." {p. 101.) This "frank indication" 
of an instance of " undesigned" use of " unguarded language," 
has not been made : but instead, J. N. B. replies : " I do not 
impute to him any intention of making unfair quotations, or 
of giving them a wrong coloring. I believe him as incapable of 
this injustice as myself. Yet such an appearance [!] is often 
inseparable from partial extracts, like those he has made from 
Calvin and Bunyan. With regard to Calvin, the fact may be 
verified [?] in a few moments by reading in Vol. I. of his In- 
stitutes, the single section on the Fourth Commandment. 

24* 



282 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

The demand for " correction" — unsatisfactorily answered. 

And as to Bunyan, the * Epistle to the Reader' prefixed to his 
Treatise on the Sabbath, will make the matter clear/' (p. 193.) 

My friend's answer is not as explicit as my appeal was per- 
spicuous. I did not assume the charge of '^ intentional un- 
fairness, therefore the disclaimer was unnecessary : but ^' if, 
through prejudice or inadvertence," my quotations were unfairly 
colored, I asked for '^ correction. '^ Although this has not been 
offered, the imputation is no longer " intangible ;" and self- 
respect imperatively requires from me a thorough examination 
and a decisive replication. 

" Such an appearance !" — What " appearance ?" An ap- 
pearance " of giving quotations a wro7ig coloring?" And what 
*'fact may be verified" by reading Calvin? The ^^fact" of 
such apparent wrong coloring ? Where is the example ? My 
friend has not adduced it.* I hesitate not to say he cannot 
adduce it ! On a careful review of the authorities to whom 
I have referred, I state it as my confident belief, that, 
without a shade of " apparent coloring," they bear out, to 
the utmost, the particular doctrines they have been summoned 
to elucidate. " With regard to Calvin, the fact may be veri- 
fied" by the statement that he will fully indorse the whole 
of my *'Six Propositions. "t The prhyiary design of the 

* A more critical discernment would probably have prevented my 
fi'iend's imputation ; and would certainly have obviated his sagacious 
surmise that my authorities did not all ^^ fully agree with me !!" [p. 
56.) A " sober logician" should know that evidence, presented upon 
one point, has nothing to do with any other point. If my witnesses 
fairly confirm the facts or constructions for which they have been re- 
spectively adduced, it is simply idle to inquire .whether they "fully 
agree with me in my Anti- Sabbatarian views!" My friend is, of 
course, at full liberty to make the most he can out of their cross-ex- 
amination. 

f I do not of course mean by this, that Calvin, in explicit terms, 
affirms each of the "six propositions," but that, from the tenor of his 
writings, he evidently would not hesitate to do so. And I throw upon 
J. N. B. the proof that he has ever, in any of his writings, directly or 
indirectly, impeached one of them. 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 283 

A '• partial extract" from Calvut. 

fourth commandment was, in his opinion, " to give the people 
of Israel a figure of the spiritual rest by which the faithful 
ought to refrain from their own works, in order to leave God 
to work with them :" and he maintains that " Christ is the end 
and consummation of that true rest foreshadowed by the an- 
cient Sabbath/' In relation to ''the Lord's day," he observes 
that it was used ^^ only as a remedy necessary to the preserva- 
tion of order in the Church/' '' Neither,'' says he, " do I so 
regard the septenary number tliat I would hind the church to 
its observance ! . . The amount is, that as the truth was deli- 
vered to the Jews under a figure, so it is given to us without 
shadows — first that we may consecrate our entire life, as a per- 
petual Sabbatism from our own works," &c. . . " Thus vanish 
all the dreams of false jrrophets, who in past ages have imbued 
the people with a Judaic opinion, affirming that nothing was 
abrogated in this command, except what was 'ceremonial,' 
(which by their account is the appointment of ' the seventh 
day') but that what was ' moral' remained in force, — namely, 
the observance of one day in seven. But this is nothing else 
but to change the day in contempt of the Jews, and to i-etain 
the same belief in the ' holiness' of the day; for, by this, the 
same mysterious significance would still be attributed to par- 
ticular days, which formerly obtained among the Jews. And 
truly we see what such a doctrine has profited : for those who 
adopt it far exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal, and supersti- 
tious observance of the Sabbath: so that the reproofs which we 
read in Isaiah are no less applicable to them at the present 
day, than to those whom the prophet rebuked in his time." 
(Institutes, lib. ii. cap. 8, sect. 34.) 

So closes Calvin's admirable exposition of the Sabbath Law. 
I earnestly hope that neither J. N. B. nor his readers will be 
misled by any false " appearance" in these partial extracts, to 
" give them a wrong coloring !" 

" As to BuNYAN," says he, " the ' Fpistle to the Reader' &c. 
will make the matter clear 1" ?Iake what matter "clear?" 



284 ABROGATION Or THE SABBATH. 

Buntan's Tiews. A fallacious use of " words." 

The '^ appearance" of ^''unfair coloring?''^ J. N. B. ^' quotes 
a sentence or two" (^. 194) going to show Bunyan's belief 
" that the first day of the week is the true Christian Sabbath !" 
A single remark is sufficient to dissipate my friend's delusion, 
and to entirely paralyze his last convulsive effort to retain the 
name and authority of Bunyan. They are using the term 
" Sabbath" in totally different senses! In the vocabulary of J. 
N. B. (as in mine), it designates the day of rest commanded 
by the Decalogue. In that of Bunyan, it designates simply a 
day of festive worship, without any more reference to the De- 
calogue, than if that code had never existed !* Indeed, al- 
though he entitles Sunday a ''Sabbath" (perhaps in adaptation 
to ordinary usage), the application is by no means accurate, 
since his whole argument is designed — not to establish a ''Best- 
day," and the sinfulness of labor upon it, but to uphold the 

^' J. N. B. has altogether overlooked this important circumstance, 
although in my last Reply (p. 147, — note) I called his attention to it 
by remarking that " since Bunyan founds his able argument for a 
Christian worship-day on the unconditional abolition of the fourth 
commandment, if ' he really is on my friend's ground,' I tender J. N. 
B. my most hearty congratulation on his adoption of the true Scrip- 
tural view." 

A synopsis of Bunyan's Treatise "will make the matter clear." 
The Essay is divided into five chapters, entitled " questions :" in the 
first of which, the author maintains that the seventh-day Sabbath is 
not discoverable by the light of nature : in the second, that it was con- 
sequently unknown till instituted by Moses : in the third, that when 
given in the wilderness, it could not bind the Gentiles: in the fourth, 
that it fell with the rest of the Jewish rites and ceremonies, and was 
never imposed by the apostles upon the Gentile churches. These are 
all the positions having any bearing on the fourth commandment, or 
of course on our present Discussion. The fifth and last "question" ex- 
amined by Bunyan (and one which comprises more than half his Es- 
say), is, "Since it is denied that the seventh-day Sabbath is mora 
and found that it is not to abide as a Sabbath forever in the churcli, 
what time is to be fixed on for New Testament saints to perform to- 
gether divine worship to God by Christ in !" 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 285 

A '• partial extract" from Bcxyax. 

duty of a thanksgiving day, in grateful commemoration of the 
Messiah's triumph in becoming " the first fruits of them that 
slept." Now BuNYAN will readily assent to all my "Pro- 
positions" excepting the First: and in reference to this first 
one, he takes just opposite ground from J. N. B. So that my 
friend is absolutely and hopelessly excluded from using his 
testimony 07i any one ]^jolntl For while J. N. B. very correct- 
ly admits that " there is but one Bible Sabbath" {f. 46), BuN- 
YAN will prove to him that Saturday is the only Sabbath re- 
cognized by the fourth commandment ! With my friend's 
kind assistance, therefore, our author will indorse aZ^the "Pro- 
positions !" An extract "will make the matter clear." " This 
caution in conclusion I would give, to put a stop to this Jewish 
ceremony, to wit, that a seventh-day Sabbath pursued according 
to its imposition hy law (and I know not that it is imposed 
by the apostles), leads to blood and stoning to death, those 
that do but gather sticks thereon ', a thing which no way be- 
comes the Grospel." And in a previous paragraph, it is held 
that as " when temple worship and altar worship, and the sa- 
crifices of the Levitical Priesthood fell, down also came the 
things themselves : so, when the service or shadow and cere- 
monies of the seventh-day Sabbath fell, the seventh-day Sab- 
hath fell liheicise !" (ques. v.) I trust these extracts do not 
happen to be " unguarded language," and that they do not 
" give a wrong coloring" to the author's real opinion. 

In my friend's concluding paragraph, he sums up with an 
air of self-satisfaction. "Now, in whatever details I difi"er 
from BuNYAN or Calvin, it is clear that oiu^ fundamental 
positions are the same. I commend this fact to my friend W. 
B. T." (p. 194.) I commend to J. N. B. the fact that he is 
most sadly mistaken I Their "fundamental positions" are as 
opposite to 7as, as are the antipodes. They teach, "in demon- 
stration of the spirit and of power," that the fourth command- 
ment is gone to its grave, with the "signs" and "shadows" of 
the Old Testament. J. N. B. tells us that " the Fourth Com- 



286 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 

Concluding sentiments. 

mandment, like the rest of the Decalogue, is a universal and 
perpetual Law :" and that Jesus "honored it as immutable!" 
He challenges their "fundamental position" with the defiant 
" Efface it if you can ! Attempt it if you dare !''* 

May the time speedily arrive, when my friend J. N. B. can 
say with propriety: " Our fundamental positions are now the 
same V when, " rooted and built up, and stablished in the faith 
as he is taught" in the Scriptures, instead of following " after 
the tradition of men," he shall discard "vain strivings and 
unprofitable contentions about ' the Lawf " and when no longer 
"carried about with strange doctrines," he shall "be ready to 
give AN ANSWER, to every man that asketh a reason of the 
hope that is in him." 

I have more than accomplished my task; as I have more 
than exceeded my proper limits. With sentiments of respect, 
and unaffected regard for my friend J. N. B., I take leave of 
him, by a recapitulation and reaffirmation of my " Six Pro- 
positions,^' as incontrovertibly established. 

I. The only weekly Sabbath enjoined or alluded to (directly 
or indirectly), in either the Old or New Testament, is that of 
Saturday — "the seventh day," indicative of "the sabbath of 
the Lord" after his six days' labor. 

II. This institution was a " strictly Jewish and ceremonial" 
one : — Jewish, in being " first made known to the Israelites 
by the hand of Moses," in being commemorative of their de- 
liverance from servitude, and in being a peculiar " sign of 
their separation" from other nations; and ceremonial, in being 
subservient to expediency, in being exactly parallel in its 
claims to any other ritual observance, and in being intended 

* When my friend penned his concluding and doubtless earnest 
aspiration (jo. 194), "May crowns as bright [as those of Calvin and 
Bunyan] be ours in the clay of the Lord's coming!" — he must have 
forgotten or abandoned his former dogma [p. 59), that whosoever 
should break the fourth commandment, " and teach men so, shall be 
called the least in the kingdom of heaven!" 



MR. Taylor's third reply. 287 

The " Six Propositions." 

but as a typ3 or " shadow" of a succeeding spiritual Sabbat- 
ism. 

<■ III. In full illustration of all which, Jesus openly, repeat- 
edly, and studiously violated the Sabbath ; and in assertion of 
his pre-eminent authority to neglect it, or set it aside (as being 
himself its very "body" and true fulfilment), claimed to be 
absolute "Lord" of the Institution. 

IV. Wherefore, its observance never received the slightest 
token of encouragement in the New Testament, nor its dese- 
cration the slightest intimation of disapproval : — an afl&rmation 
which cannot be made of any known Christian duty. 

V. Moreover, by a formal canon of the apostolic Council at 
Jerusalem, the Gentile Churches were declared entirely free 
from Sabbath observance ; being explicitly exempted from 
obligation to auy part of "the Law of Moses," excepting 
three "necessary things" which did not include this ordinance. 

VI. And accordingly, throughout the Apostolic Epistles, 
the Sabbath is invariahly referred to as a provisional symbol, 
entirely superseded by the advent of "the true image of the 
thing" it did but shadow ; the enjoyment of the spiritual 
Rest of the Gospel, rendering the continued observance of the 
carnal Rest of the Law, inappropriate and unchristian. 

W. B. T. 



NOTES 



NOTE A.— (From page 222.) 
"After Eight Days." — Johi xx. 26. 

In noticing the objection to the popular assumption — de- 
rived from the literal reading of the text ^^ after eight days'' 
— J. N. B. replies {p. 185) : "But this is contrary to Jewish 
usage, as well as Christian. As well might he object to 
Christ's resurrection on ' the third day/ from the phrase ' after 
three days I will rise again.' — Matt, xxvii. 63, 64." My 
friend mistakes the point. The day of the resurrection is not 
proved hy the expression " after three days" — but by inde- 
pendent and explicit testimony. His quotation merely goes 
to show that the phrase in question may have the meaning he 
assigns to it (which I never denied) ; it in no wise proves that 
it must have that meaning. I contend that the primary import 
of "«/);er three days," or '^ after eight days," is its literal 
meaning : modified in the one case by direct counter evidence, 
and in the other case wholly unmodified. 

J. N. B. will not doubt that Jonah was literally '4hree days 
and three nights" in the fish that swallowed him. (Jonah i. 
17.) Can I prove to him that the prophet was there only 
one day and two nights, by citing the instance of one who was 
buried from Friday evening until Sunday morning, and yet 
was said to be " three days and three nights in the heart of the 
earth?" {Matt. xii. 40.) I may succeed in showing that 
the half period is a possible construction : he will hardly be 
satisfied that it is a necessary one, or even a prohahh one. 
25 



290 NOTES. 



Yet here an interment of 36 hours is measured by the same 
terms as one of 72 hours. In like manner, ^^ after eight- 
days'^ may mean just a week; but I shall require decisive 
proof, before believing that it here does mean it. My friend's 
'' Jewish usuage, as well as Christian/^ he cannot establish. 
I hesitate not to say, that there is no Hebrew or Jewish idiom 
to countenance it.* 

The capabilities of language, under my friend's horticultural 
treatment, are, by the way, somewhat surprising. In part 
II. of his Reply (^. 174), we have the following: ^''^ After 
six days,' says Matthew (xvii. 1) — ^ about eight days,' says 
Luke (ix. 28) — was the Transfiguration. Why this specifica- 
tion of time?" he naively asks. And explaining the indefinite 
^''after'^ by the still more indefinite ^^ about,'' and dividing the 
difierence, he thinks ^^it is \i\^\j probable, to say the least,'* 
that exactly ^' one week" had elapsed. So, whether an occur- 
rence be "after six days," or after seven days, or ''after eight 
days," or anywhere ^^ aboui' either of these periods, it is 
precisely the same in my friend's dialectics; — else why so exact 
a specification ! 

He seems to forget, too, that even an exact ''specification of 
time" is nothing to his argument, unless it be shown that the 
specification was relative — that this precise time determined 
the occurrence. f Ever neglecting the essential, he builds 
wholly on the accidental. 



* Hetlin, an English Divine of the seventeenth centuiy , observes upon 
the passage in dispute, "But where the Greek text reads it ^g9' hfA.^eti 
oJtTfltf (post octo dies in the Vulgar Latin — 'after eight days' according 
to our English Bibles), that should be rather understood of the ninth 
or tenth, than the eighth day after." (History of the Sabbath.') 

I " We sailed away . . . and came to Troas in five days." (Acts 
XX. G.) "We sailed thence, and came the iiext day over against Chios ; 
and the next day we arrived at Samos ; and the next day we came to 
Miletus." (ib. xx. 15.) "And after /ye days," &c. (ib. xxiv. 1.) "This 
day is the fourtee7ith day," &c. (ib. xxvii. 33.) "We tarried there 
three days" (ib. xxviii. 12), &c. &c. — "Why this specification of time, 
if no special importance was attached to it?" — J. N. B. 



NOTES. 291 



NOTE B.— (From page 228.) 
"The Day of Pentecost." — Acts ii. 1. 

While I consider it altogether unimportant to the present 
discussion to inquire into the day of the week upon which the 
celebrated Pentecost happened to occur, I think that as a 
collateral question of Biblical illustration, it has sufficient in- 
terest to justify a very brief examination. 

"The day of Pentecost," says J. N. B. (p. 185), "it is well 
known, was cdicays on the first day of the week ! — Levit. xxiii. 
15 — 21.'' So palpable an inaccuracy in one who has studied 
the Bible for ^^ thirty years'^ {p. 71), is really surprising.* 
The " sabbath" mentioned in Levit. xxiii. 15 has no relation 
whatever to the seventh-day rest, as my friend has erroneously 
understood the text. By comparing this verse with the 7th 
and 11th of the same chapter, he will see that it designates 
"the first of unleavened bread," whatever day of the week 
that might be. The day of Pentecost, "it is well known," was 
always ih.^ fiftieth day after the first of unleavened bread ; which 
was determined by the day of the month (the 15th), and 
never by the day of the iGeek. It was not — (like its offspring 
'' Easter'')— 2, "movable festival." 

I will now attempt to compute for my friend the probable 
day of Acts ii. 1. It is related by Matthew (xxvi. 17 — 21; 
see, also, Mark xiv. 12 — 17) that, on the day preceding the 
Crucifixion, or Thursday, the discij^les prepared the "passover" 
or paschal offering, and that on the evening (by Jewish com- 
putation, the eve of Friday) the passover was eaten. {Matt. 
xxvi. 20; Mark xiv. 17.) This Thursday was therefore "the 
fourteenth day of the first month," Ahih or Nisan {Levit. xxiii. 

* Even Bible read Buxyan makes the same blunder ; and I siispect 
has been the one to lead my friend "into the ditch." — "Great men 
are not always wise." 



292 NOTES. 



5), on the oflernoon of which the paschal lamb was always 
sacrificed, to be eaten at evening, on "the first of unleavened 
bread." {Deut. xvi. 6, 7', Exod. xii. 8.) Friday was the 15th, 
"the first day of unleavened bread." {Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Levit. 
xxiii. 6.) This festival continued one week (extending from 
the 15th of Abib to the 21st, inclusive — Exod. xii. 18), of which 
week the first and last days (the 15th and 21st) were both 
accounted "sabbaths." {Levit. xxiii. 7, 8; Exod. xii. 16.) 
Saturday was the 16th (the day after the first "sabbath"), on 
which was the wave-offering. {Levit. xxiii. 11.) Seven com- 
plete weeks (a " week of weeks," as Josephus calls it) were 
counted from this 16th day, inclusive (xxiii. 15), which termi- 
nated with Friday, and on the next day, or Saturday, ivas 
^'the day of Pentecost V (xxiii. 16, 21.) 

It is absolutely incontrovertible that, if Matthew's account 
be correct, tlie Pentecost could not possibly have been on Sun- 
day ! This "fact" may be digested by "learned" Sunday 
Sabbatarians, at the ruminations of their studious leisure. On 
the other hand, if Sunday teas the Pentecost, then the passover 
could not have been eaten on Thursday evening, and Friday 
could not have been " the first of unleavened bread." If we 
understand Matthew (xxvi. 17) as saying that Thursday was 
" the first day of the feast of unleavened bread," this only 
makes the matter worse; for then the day of Pentecost was 
infallibly Friday ! By the unvarying system of the Jewish 
ritual, the Pentecost must occur just one day later in the week 
than the first of unleavened bread. 

After rummaging a host of Sunday Sabbatarian Treatises 
(which generally display a harmony and facility of assumption 
as remarkable as it is edifying), I find, in Ligiitfoote's " Com- 
mentary on the Actsj" an attempt at sustaining the common 
dogma. He reckons (according to Matthew) that Thursday 
was the " preparation" (14th of the month), Friday the first 
of unleavened bread (15th), and Saturday, or the Sabbath, the 
day of the wave-sheaf offering (16th) ; after which he counts 
the fifty days, as excluding the 16th, and added to it. ( Com. 
in Acts ii.) Such a mistake is inexcusable in a Biblical ex- 



NOTES. 293 



pounder.* The count Seyms on '^ the morrow after the sab- 
bath/' that is, on the second of unleavened bread. ^' From the 
day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering, seven 
sabbaths shall be complete. '^ {Levit. xxiii. 15.) The day of 
the wave-offering (the 16th) was always the first of the fifty 
daysf (see Dent. xvi. 9), consequently the Pentecost always 
came on the same day of the week. I am informed, by a 
learned Jewish Teacher, j that there can be no evasion here; 
that ''the computation is absolute and indisputable; the Pen- 
tecost always occurs on the same day of the week as the wave- 
offering.'^ And to make Sunday a Pentecost, the passover and 
unleavened bread must commence on Friday evening !§ 

The last evangelist, indeed, clearly favors this alternative, 
for he tells us {John xix. 14) that the day of the crucifixion 
was "the preparation of the passover,"]] necessarily the 14th 
of Ahib. {Exod. xii. 6 ; 2 Ghron. xxxv. 1, 16.) And since 
the crucifixion is known to have taken place on Friday (" the 

* In a Sabbatarian Essay, entitled, " Brief Remarks on the History, 
Authority, and Use of the Sabbath," by J. J. Gukney, the same cal- 
culation is very carefully gone through. Following his predecessor, 
i\Ir. Guruey has in this committed a blunder, or perpetrated an artifice. 

f "The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day from the day of the 
wave-offering ; but, in the number of the fifty days, was both the day of 
the wave-offering and of Pentecost included ; as now, among the Chris- 
tians, still it is." Bishop Pearson. (Ex^yosidon of the Creed, art. v. — 
"the third day.") 

J The Rev. I. Leeser, of Philadelphia, editor of " The Occident.'" 

I This hypothesis is adopted by Baxter, who says: "The Passover 
that year fell on the Sabbath day, and Pentecost was fifty days after 
the Passover, which falleth out on the Lord's day." (Pract. Works, 
vol. iii. "Lord's day," ch. 5.) This arrives at the conclusion desired 
by Lightfoote and Mr. Guruey, without recourse to their fallacious 
premises. 

II He further confirms this by alluding to the care of the Jews during 
the trial, not to defile themselves before eating the passover {.lohti xviii. 
28 ; see Numb. ix. 6 ; Ezra vi. 20) ; and he also speaks of the follow- 
ing Sabbath day (Saturday) being a "high day" {John xix. 31), as it 
would be if the first of unleavened bread. 

25* 



294 NOTES. 



preparation of the Sabbath" — Mark xv. 42 ', Luke xxiii. 54 ; 
John xix. 31), Sunday would of course be the day of the 
*' wave-sheaf.'' But while this construction would gratify my 
friend, and while, moreover, it would present the happy cir- 
cumstance of making the great Christian Offering strictly 
coincident in point of time with its archetype, the paschal sacri- 
fice, it is attended with the insurmountable difficulty (besides 
being explicitly contradicted by all the other evangelists) that 
Jesus could not have partaken of the passover ! And it was 
impossible for him, as a Jew, to have kept the passover on any 
other day than that appointed by the law.* 

On the other hand, clear and conclusive as is the concurrent 
testimony of Matthew (xxvi. 17), Mark (xiv. 12), and Luke 
(xxii. 7), against the Sunday interpreters, candor requires me 
to notice that these texts, in the judgment of the learned, 
likewise labor under two remarkable difficulties. In the first 
place, by a peculiarity of the Hebrew calendar, the 1st, and 
consequently the 15th of Ahih, never falls on Friday; the 
object of which arrangement is to prevent the annual ''day of 
atonement" {Levit. xxiii. 27) falling contiguous to the weekly 
Sabbath, since it would be impossible (in reference to food, &c.) 
to observe two successive days of ahsolute "rest" with the 
strictness required by the law. (^Ejcod. xvi. 23; xxxv. 3.) 
All the other Jewish holy days were simple " sabbaths," ex- 
acting no rigid observance, and yielding to lighter emergencies. 
But "the tenth day of the seventh month," like "the seventh 

* HoRXE, in Lis '■'■ Infroduciion to the IIoIt/ Scriptures,^' ihinks it "not 
improbable that some difference or mistake miffht arise in determining 
the new-moon!" and that "such a discordance miffht easily arise be- 
tween the rival and hostile sects of Pharisees and Sadducees ; and such 
a difference, it has been conjectured, did exist at the time Jesus Christ 
celebrated the passover with his disciples, one whole day before the 
Pharisees offered their paschal sacrifice!" {Introduc. vol. iii. part iii. 
ch. 4.) We have the unfortunate dilemma that Jesus either kept the 
right day or the wrong one. " He that is able to receive it, let him 
receive it!" 



NOTES. 295 



day'^ of the week, was emphatically \yD2^ r\2\l^ (shabhath shab- 
lathon), ' ' a rest day for rest/' * a Sabbath of sabbaths, — enj oined 
with peculiar solemnity, and enforced by the sternest sanctions. f 
There is every probability that the calendar was in this respect 
the same in apostolic times as at present, since the same neces- 
sity for the arrangement had existence then. 

The second difficulty in these texts arises from the well-known 
occurrence of the crucifixion on Friday. It was almost as 
impossible for the Jews to have tolerated an execution upon 
^' the first day of unleavened bread" (see Exod. xii. 16; Levit. 
xxiii. 7 J also, Mark xiv. 2) as upon the weekly " Sabbath." 
This forms a very serious additional obstacle, therefore, to that 
festival having commenced on Friday. 

Looking merely at the letter of these texts, they all seem 
to say that Thursday was the first of unleavened bread : but 
-while this construction avoids the foregoing objections, it in- 
volves the new one, that the passover could not have been 
killed upon it (as intimated in Mark xiv. 12) ; since this must 
always be prepared on the preceding afternoon (2 Chron. 
XXXV. 1; Levit. xxiii. 5, 6); whence the passover must have 
been eaten, and the Eucharist instituted on Wednesday even- 
ing, and not on Thursday evening, as is generally supposed. 
Whatever solution of these difficulties may be suggested, it is 
almost certain that the Pentecost did not occur on Sunday. 

* In our version not very forcibly rendered, "a Sabbath of rest." 
Agreeably to the well-known Hebrew idiom, intensity was always ex- 
pressed either by a repetition, or by the use of some tantologous phrase. 
The double expression peculiar to these ttvo, of all the Jewish sabbaths, 
was undoubtedly employed with the intention of impressing the pre- 
eminent sanctity of these two holy days, and the necessity of their 
strictest observance. The slightest infraction of either was punishable 
with death! An attention to these circumstances will serve to elucidate 
much in the New Testament which Sabbatarians find it convenient to 
gloss over as "Pharisaic construction I" 

f Compare Levit. xxiii. 24 — 32, with Exod. xxxi. 14 — 17. 



296 NOTES. 



NOTE C— (From page 240.) 
"The Lord's Day.''— Rev. i. 10. 

Not only is there nothing whatever to give plausibility to 
the "guess" that the apocalyptic "Lord's clay" signified Sun- 
day, but there are many considerations powerfully calculated 
to discountenance it. 

1. The writer could not design to mark out a day of re- 
ligious observance, since the subject of Christian ceremonies 
was wholly foreign to the objects of his discourse. The book 
professes to be a "Revelation" of the hereafter: it has no- 
thing to do with designating or upholding the observance of 
temporal "holy days." 

2. If a current day was intended, the only day bearing this 
definition, in either the Old or New Testament, is Saturday, 
"the seventh day" of the week. {Exod. xx. 10.) 

3. But it is altogether improbable that a literal day could 
have been intended, in a work which is characterized through- 
out by the most remarkable flights of figurative rhapsody. 
The inspirations of the prophetic spirit were not confined to 
particular days. It was neither the Jirst nor the last day of 
the week that could be signalized as the occasion of the influ- 
ence; and it seems almost puerile to suppose that it should be 
specified. 

4. There is extant no trace of evidence that the term 
"Lord's day" was ever applied to Sunday till near the close of 
the second century ! Throughout the first 150 years of the 
Christian era, no writer, apostolic or patristic, ever happens 
once to use the expression. The first instance I can discover 
of its application to Sunday occurs in an epistle of Dionysius, 
Bishop of Corinth, whose earliest assignable date is A. D. 170. 
Not only is it unknown in the canonical epistles (which cover 
a space of thirty or forty years of ecclesiastical history), but 



NOTES. 297 



neither in the apocryphal epistle ascribed to Barnabas, nor in 
the writings of Clement of Rome (a. d. 90), of Ignatius* 
(a. d. 100), of PoLYCARP (a. d. 108), of JusTiN (a. d. 145), 
or of Iren^us (a. d. 167), is the appellation to be met 
with J although these Fathers all refer to religious observances, 
and one or two of them to the commemoration of the first day 
of the week. Such extended and persistent silence is more 
than negative evidence ; it is wholly inexplicable on the Sab- 
batarian conjecture ; it is convicting demonstration that the 
conjecture is false. The phrase "Lord's day'' could not have 
had, at the time Eev. i. 10 was written, the meaning so gratui- 
tously ascribed to it, without being in universal and familiar 
use. Its first employment (possibly as early as the middle of 
the second century, or a quarter of a century before the allu- 
sion of DiONYSius), was most likely an adaptation from this 
text. 

5. The probable meaning of the expression is disclosed by the 
book itself {Rev. vi. 17 ; xvi. 14) ; an application of frequent 
occurrence both in the New Testament (1 Cor. i. 8, v. 5; 2 Coi\ 
i. 14; 1 Thess. v. 2 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10, &c.) ; and in the Old 
(^Isai. xiii. 6, 9; Joel i. 15 ; ii. 1, 11, 31 ; ZejyJi. i. 14, &c.). 
If Kvpiaxov fiftrtfov (1 Cor. xi. 20), and Secrtvov or tparts^a 
Kvfnov (1 Cor. X. 21), are convertible phrases designating the 
same thing, what can be more obvious than that Kvpiax*? '^fjispa 
{Rev. i. 10), and rjufpa Krpioi; (2 Pet. iii. 10), are (in the absence 
of any conjiicting applicatioii) equally convertible designa- 
tions of the same thing? The true Protestant will always 
interpret Scripture by Scripture rather than by tradition. f 

* The expression "Lord's day" occui's in an interpolated epistle of 
Ignatius : (" Let each one of you observe the Sabbath spiritually, and 

not by bodily rest But let every lover of Christ commemorate 

the Lord's day after the Sabbath") ; and will also be found in Arch- 
bishop \Vake's translation of his genuine epistle, commented on before 
[p. 96, note), neither of which deserves attention. 

f "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scrip- 
ture itself." — Presbyterian and Baptist Cojifess. of Faith, chap. i. 
sec. 9. 



298 NOTES. 



Nor is it any valid objection that the subjects immediately 
succeeding this contested passage (i. 10) were obviously con- 
temporary with the occasion. Surely no one expects, in a 
production like this, the same rigid order and consecutive 
dependence of occurrence, which is demanded in a literal 
narrative. The " high argument" of this apocalyptic vision 
is summed up by the prophet, in the concise declaration of the 
proem, that he was present in spirit " in the Lord's day" (sv 
jtvsvfiati £v T^ri Kvf;)iaxri riixs^a) ; or, as the particle iv may be trans- 
lated, ^' at the Lord's DAY." And hence, after the preliminary 
exhortations to the seven churches (occupying the first three 
chapters, and which are merely parenthetical), he commences 
immediately with the epoch to which (ev rtvivixati) he was 
carried. Nothing can be clearer than that the expression in 
Rev. iv. 2 is at once the resumption and exemplification of 
that in chap. i. 10. "I was 'in spirit' — at the Lord's Day, 
and heard behind me a great voice as of a trumj)et, saying I 
am 'a' and 'n,' the first and the last: and what thou seest, 

write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches 

After this, I looked, and behold a door was opened in Heaven : 
and the first voice which I heard, was as of a trumpet talking 
with me ; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee 
things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was ' in 
spirit :' and behold a Throne was set in Heaven, and One sat 
on the Throne." And then follows the great drama of "The 
Lord's Day," — at which "in spirit" the transported writer 
found himself. 

In view of all this, what must be thought of the prevalent 
dogma — announced again, and again, — from pulpit, and from 
pulpit, — with all the assurance of infallible inspiration, and 
all the authority of clerical dictation, — that the prophet de- 
signed to instruct us that he was in spirit — on Sunday ! and 
that, therefore, it is a heinous sin to work upon that day ! 



NOTES. 299 



NOTE D.— (From page 263.) 
The Dominical Sabbath. 

A FULL and truthful history of the origin of the Sunday 
Sabbath would form an interesting chapter in the Volume of 
Ecclesiastical Fabrications. This "Divine legacy" of the 
church owes its establishment to the inspired Emperor CoN- 
STANTINE* (a. d. 321) ; although, as a learned historian has 
observed, even so early as "the end of the second century, a 
false application of this kind had heguii to take place.'^f The 
voluntary commemoration of the resurrection, by a celebration 
of the Eucharist early on Sunday morning, may indeed be 
traced back somewhat further, though with an obscurity in- 
creasing as we ascend. 

The earliest explicit account we have of any ecclesiastical 
observance of this day is found in the Apology of Justin 
Martyr, about the middle of the second century. This 
writer, while affirming that the Christians of his time observed 
no Sabbath (see ante, pp. 97, 248), gives an interesting ac- 
count of the celebration of "the day of the Sun," and "the 

■^ The edict of his Catholic Majesty Coxstantine, ordaining the 
''Christian Sabbath," is as follows : " Let all judges, and people of the 
town, rest, and all the yarious trades be suspended, on the venerable 
day of the Sun [' venerabili die Solis'l- Those who live in the country, 
however, may freely and without fault attend to the cultivation of their 
fields (since it often happens that no other day may be so suitable for 
sowing grain and planting the vine) ; lest, with the loss of favorable 
opportunity, the commodities offered by Divine Providence should be 
destroyed." (Cod. Justin, lib. iii. tit. 12, sect. 2, 3.) Coxstantine 
also ordained that Friday (called generally "the day of Venus") should 
be specially observed, and that the various days consecrated to the Saints 
and Martj-rs should be celebrated in the churches. (See Eusebifs, Vit. 
Constant, lib. iv. cap. 18 — 20 ; also, Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. cap. 8.) 

f Neander. See ante, p. 262. 



300 NOTES. 



first of light/' by assemblies, public readings, exhortations, 
and prayers. 

The Roman Pliny, in his celebrated letter to the Emperor 
Trajan (in the beginning of the second century), relates that 
the Christians of his Province '^were accustomed to meet to- 
gether on a stated day, before it was light [f stato die^ ante 
lucew!\ and sing a hymn,'' &c., and then separate; after 
which they reassembled at a common meal. As the Sabbath 
day appears to have been quite as commonly observed at this 
date as the Sun's day (if not even more so), it is just as pro- 
bable that this "stated day" referred to by Pliny was the 
seventh day, as that it was the first day; though the latter is 
generally taken for granted. We have no contemporary record, 
unfortunately, to determine positively which of these days (or 
whether either of them) was the day denoted. The custom of 
assembling "before daylight" was obviously adopted that it 
might not interrupt the labors or occupations of the day, a 
large portion of these early disciples belonging to the servile 
and laboring classes. 

Ignatius, who wrote at the close of the first century, depre- 
cates the observance of the Sabbath, and makes no allusion to 
any custom of observing the Sunday. Indeed, no such custom 
is to be traced in any writer of the first century! And when 
we refer to the New Testament writers, the only passage which 
might seem, at first sight, to indicate a public distinction of 
" the first day" (1 Cor. xvi. 2), proves, on a careful examina- 
tioUj to be decidedly repugnant to the existence of Sunday 
assemblies. 





Date Due 




















































































































































<l)