We proceed to address those of you who regard the sabbatic law as having been nailed to the cross, and consider the first day of the week as an institution entirely new, regulated as to its observance wholly by the New Testament. You, whom we now address, are exempt from some of the inconsistencies which we have exposed; but your theory labors under very serious difficulties, and is to be regarded, on the whole, as more obnoxious to the interests of religion than the one we have been considering. According to your position, the New Testament recognizes no Sabbath at all. Do not start at this charge. That it is repugnant to your feelings, we allow. You have never thought of anything else than entire abstinence from labor on the first day of the week. It is your day of rest as well as worship. But on what ground do you make it a day of rest? What example have you for doing so? What law of the New Testament requires you to lay aside all your secular business? As sin is the transgression of the law, and where no law is, there is no transgression (1 John 3, 4; Rom. 4:15), how do you make it appear to be sin to work on the day in question? It is by the commandment that sin becomes exceeding sinful. Rom. 7:13. By what commandment do you make it appear sinful to work on Sunday? These are questions of the highest importance. Now suppose one of your brethren attends public worship on the first day of the week, and—to make his conformity to what is supposed to be apostolic example as perfect as possible—participates in the breaking of bread. He then goes home, and labors diligently till the day is closed. By what law will you convince him of sin? Not the law of the Sabbath as contained in the Decalogue, for that you hold to be abolished. Not any law of the New Testament which says, "Keep the first day of the week holy; in it thou shalt not do any work," for there is no such law. Not the law of apostolic example, for there is no proof that the apostles ever gave such example. The very utmost that you can with any show of reason pretend of their example is, that they met together for worship and breaking of bread. To this example, your brother has conformed to the very letter—who can say he has not in spirit also? What now will you do with him? "The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." The Bible, therefore, is the rule by which he is to be tried. Convict him of sin by this rule, if you can. But the case becomes still more difficult, when you come to apply it to those who are without the pale of the church. We have already seen that apostolic example concerns merely the ordering and arrangement of the church. Attempt now to convince the unbeliever of sin in working on the first day of the week. In order to do this, charge apostolic example upon him. What is his reply? "I know not," says he, "that I am bound to imitate them in this matter. How does it appear that I am? I will admit, for argument's sake, that they celebrated the resurrection of Christ on Sunday by religious worship; but they also broke bread and partook of it by way of celebrating his death. If their example binds me in one particular, why not in the other? Prove to me," says he, "that any but the church assembled on the first day for worship, and I will do so too. But in the absence of all such proof, I must conclude that their example has nothing to do with me; unless, indeed, you can make it appear that their example and practice were in conformity to some law, which commanded them as rational creatures, independent of their relation to Christ and his church. When you can produce that law, then I shall feel bound to obey it, and imitate the apostles in their obedience to it; but not till then." Such is the reasoning by which an unbeliever may set aside all your attempts to charge sin upon him. Where, brethren, is your law, which like a barbed arrow, pierces the very soul, and fastens guilt upon the conscience? Where is that law which speaks out its thunders, saying, "Thus saith the Almighty God, the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth, It is the Sabbath day; in it thou shalt not do any work?" To throw aside the law, which cuts and flames every way, reaching soul and spirit, joints and marrow, in order to deal with the ungodly by mere apostolic example, is like muffling the sword, lest it should give a deadly wound. Apostolic example is indeed powerful with those whose hearts have been made tender by the Spirit of God, but with others, powerless. We are persuaded, brethren, that your conscientious scruples about laboring on the first day of the week never resulted from the mere contemplation of apostolic example. Such example, it is true, is all the law you acknowledge; but this is the theory you have adopted since you came to maturity, and began to think for yourselves. Your scruples have an earlier and different origin. They commenced with your childhood, when you were taught to consider the day as holy time. It was then carefully instilled into your mind, that God had, by express law, forbidden you to desecrate the day, and that you would incur his displeasure in case you should do so. The idea was then imbibed, that if you did not keep the day you would violate the fourth commandment. This idea has grown with your growth, and strengthened with your strength. It has obtained such commanding influence over your feelings, that you cannot comfortably forbear keeping a day of rest, though your theory does not require it. Even to this day, a strong impression rests upon your minds that the fourth commandment contains much of moral excellence—too much to be thrown altogether away, notwithstanding your system of theology teaches its abrogation. Such is the true secret of your tenderness of conscience. Apostolic example has in reality nothing to do with it. Following the secret monitions of conscience, your prosperity is promoted in spite of your theological system. But sound reason discovers that your experience and your theory are in opposition to each other. Some of the more thinking ones among you are aware of this, and are continually aiming at such a modification of their theory, that their experience will harmonize with it. But be assured that there will be an everlasting conflict, till you are brought to acknowledge fully and heartily the claims of the Sabbath law. We are aware of that system of theology which regards the New Testament as furnishing the only code of laws by which men are bound since the death of Christ. We have looked at this doctrine with attention; and so far as the order, government, and ordinances of the church are concerned, we admit its truth. As the laws and ordinances of the Jewish church were determined by the Old Testament, so the laws and ordinances of the Christian church are determined solely by the New Testament. Therefore, we should say at once, the argument is yours, if the Sabbath were a church ordinance. In such case, however, none but the church has a Sabbath. But the question is not concerning church ordinances. In these we follow the New Testament as closely as yourselves. The question is concerning an institution which has respect to mankind at large—to man as man; for the Saviour teaches us that the Sabbath was made for man. Now, it will be a very hard matter to prove that when men as rational creatures are concerned, the only code of laws by which they are bound is the New Testament. Let us put the matter to the test. How will you prove that it is unlawful for a man to marry his sister, his daughter, or any other of near kin? The New Testament utters not a word on the subject. It is not enough to say, It is implied in the law which forbids adultery; for it must first be proved to be a species of adultery to do so. Nor will it do to say, The common sense of mankind is a sufficient law on the subject; for the moment we suppose that its unlawfulness is to be determined in this way, we abandon the argument that the New Testament is the only code of laws, and resort to the common sense of mankind as furnishing a part of the code. But if the common sense of mankind shall furnish a part of the code by which we are bound, who shall undertake to say how large a part? Besides, on this principle, the book of divine revelation is not complete and perfect. It is a lamp to our feet only in part, and the common sense of mankind makes out the deficiency! You are, therefore, driven to take your stand again upon the New Testament. Finding you there again, we repeat the question, How do you prove by your code that a man may not marry his sister? It is impossible. You must, of necessity, look to that division of the Scriptures usually called the Old Testament; for the New says not one word about it. Let us turn now to the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus, and we shall find a collection of laws exactly to the point. "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him," &c. Verse 6. The degrees of kindred are then expressly marked. Will it be objected, that these laws were given particularly to the Jews, and to no other people? We admit they were given to the Jews, as indeed was the whole system of revelation in that age; but we cannot admit that they concerned no other class of people; for it is expressly shown in that chapter, that the matters of which they took cognizance were regarded as abominations in the Gentiles. Because of such things, the fierce wrath of Jehovah came down upon the Canaanites, and they were cast out of the land as loathsomeness. Verses 24, 30. If these things were viewed as abominable in the Canaanites, they surely were not ceremonial pollutions. They were not mere Jewish laws. The fallacy of the doctrine is therefore sufficiently exposed.—From the Seventh-day Baptists.