Discussion on the Sabbath Question
Between Eld. J. H. Waggoner, S. D. Adventist, and Eld. Peter Vogel, Disciple. “Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh day Sabbath is to be observed by Christians throughout the gospel dispensation?” Eld. Waggoner, affirms; Eld. Vogel, denies. Eld. Waggoner’s First Affirmative
Much of the controversy in the world has arisen from misapprehension of terms. To secure the reader in this respect, I remark that when I use the words, “the Scriptures,” I mean the Old and New Testaments. And I speak of this because it has become a custom with some in this “evil generation” to confine “the Scriptures,” so far as authority is concerned, to the New Testament. This is very wrong, and leads to grievous errors. The word “Scriptures,” in the Bible, without any limiting word, very often refers to the Old Testament exclusively, but never to the New, exclusive of the Old. While the custom to which I refer gives precedence to the New Testament, in the Bible itself, precedence is always given to the Old. The reader will notice that all of our propositions are concerning what “the Scriptures teach.” And as the first two rested almost entirely on the testimony of the Old Testament, they shut out that invidious distinction, and regard the two Testaments as of equal authority as witnesses in the case. In the ministry of our Lord and of his apostles, “the Scriptures,” referring in almost every instance to the Old Testament, were the standard of all authority, to which they always appealed. The idea which now somewhat prevails, that they superseded “the Scriptures;” that they set aside the authority of the Old Testament by the introduction of the New, finds no sanction in the words of Christ and his apostles. Thus Paul wrote to Timothy: “From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures”—the Old Testament, of course, for none of the New Testament was written when Timothy was a child; “which are able to make thee wise unto salvation,”—because they thoroughly furnish the man of God “unto all good works.” The law of God which “is perfect” (Ps. 19:7), is written therein. The commandments of God which contain “the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13), are there made known. “The law,” “the doers” of which “shall be justified,” and by which men shall be judged (Rom. 1:12, 13, 16; see Eccl. 12:13, 14), is in those Scriptures. This is high indorsement. But, though the law of God is perfect, man has not perfected himself in obedience; he has not done his whole duty; there are no “doers of the law;” and therefore a remedy is needed; a system of restitution, of recovery, or of bringing back to God. And this is introduced by Paul in connection with “the Scriptures,” thus: “through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Here is set forth a close relation, a complete harmony between the Old and New Testaments; between the law and the gospel; “the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. But this remedial system, as I before said, is not elementary; it does not grow out of the will or action of God, as does the law; but it grows out of the rebellion of man. They who reject the law, and take the gospel as its successor, as some do, and then boast of “first principles,” use language without any just regard to its relations. The truths here set down will be appreciated when we come to examine Eld. Vogel’s theory of “general principles” as opposed to “direct enforcement.” Our text in the N. T. has been briefly noticed, and as it looks both to the past and future of our discussion, I will further notice it here. It is Mark 2:27. On this, I affirmed that “the Sabbath was made at creation;” which is proved by the truth that it was the rest day of God from the work of creation, and that “for this reason” he blessed and sanctified it. And this is decisive that it was “made for man,” for the race; that it is a primary institution. But Eld. Vogel replied: “The universal term, anthropos (man) is limited by the known fact that the Gentiles had not the Sabbath.” On this assertion his conclusion is based! But a statement to be the logical basis of a conclusion must be either self-evident, expressly stated, clearly and indisputably proved, or admitted. If it is claimed with neither of these, it is a clear case of “begging the question.” But (1) his statement is not of the nature of self-evident truth. (2) It is not expressly stated; the text itself gives no countenance to such a view. (3) It is not clearly proved; his main line of argument is philologically defective, as witness the following: “The Hebrew, concerning which Eld. W. maintains a respectful silence, has no such exceptions as he would force on the Greek text, and this places my position beyond all dispute.” But I have shown that the Hebrew has such exceptions, and hold myself ready to show it further, if it becomes necessary; and this not only throws his position back on disputed ground, but robs it of all its force. For, as I remarked, a rule given to set aside the obvious meaning of a scripture must not admit of exceptions. My view of Gen. 2:3, is clearly the obvious one, sustained, too, by the word of the Lord in the fourth commandment; while his rebutting argument furnishes no ground for necessary dissent, being itself so defective. (Of his unjust and unscholarly accusation that I would force such exceptions on the Greek text, I shall have occasion to speak hereafter.) (4) It is not admitted; in sincerity I deny it. And I confidently say it is not known to me, nor to any one else by any scripture statement to that effect, nor by any just conclusion from any such statement. A clearer case of “begging the question”—of assuming as true what remains to be proved—is not often seen. He refers to 2 Tim. 2:2, but it is inappropriate. There are limitations in that passage (though the limitation he claims is much disputed), and to give this as a parallel instance of the use of “the universal term,” surrounded as it is by limitations which forbid its use in a universal sense, is a great trespass on the limits of just reasoning. I might, in like manner, say that the twelve, in Acts 5, also used “the universal term men,” limited only by the number seven, &c., &c.! But if I quoted it thus to meet the evidence of a passage without any limitation, all must consider it an abuse rather than a proper use of language. There is no limitation in Mark 2:27, either expressed or implied. The truth that the sanctification (appointment) of the Sabbath was always referred to the facts of creation, is sufficient to make it certain that “the Sabbath was made for man”—for the race. And the title which the Saviour appropriates to himself in this passage,—“the Son of man”—is proof beyond possibility of contradiction that this view is correct. Related as are his words in the two verses, it is impossible to place a limitation on the word man in one sentence, and not carry that limitation over to the other. I ask the reader to note this. Or, if Eld. Vogel is as tenacious for the article as his words indicate, he can retain it in this passage, as it is in the Greek, “The Sabbath was made for the man.” This would direct our minds at once to the man who was present when the Sabbath was made; for, as shown by the history in Genesis, only one man existed at that time. But this makes its bearing equally comprehensive, for that man was the parent and representative of the race. The duties and the welfare of the race were committed to him. Any institution made for him, and at that time, was for his posterity without any limitation. The translation is unobjectionable as it stands; but if the article should be translated, it cannot be referred to any man but Adam, the parent of the race. In either case is proved the Edenic origin of the Sabbath. As related to this, I will here notice the objection that man has not a Sabbath to observe “from the beginning.” The objection itself is ambiguous; “from the beginning,” marks no definite point of time. It cannot refer to “the beginning” as in Gen. 1:1, for that would be but a foolish cavil. But I affirm that the Sabbath is an institution of original obligation, dating from the original enforcement of moral obligation on man. I use the term, “original obligation,” as embracing that, and that only, which grows out of original relations; that is, relations growing out of the independent action of the Creator, and not at all arising from the action or rebellion of the creature. (See my first article.) In reply to the objection, I say that Adam, being himself a part of the original creation, existed before all of the relations existed on which moral obligation is based. If this is true, it covers the whole ground of the objections, and effectually removes it. Now for the proof. I affirm (who will deny?) that marriage is an original and moral institution. But there was no such institution from “the beginning,” for Adam to regard; for, when he was created, no woman yet existed. We have the following order of events: 1. Adam was created—but there was no marriage. 2. Eve was made—but yet there was no marriage institution. 3. She was given to Adam to be his wife—and then marriage obligation first existed. And so of the Sabbath. 1. God created the heavens and the earth—but there was no Sabbath. 2. God rested the seventh day—but yet there was no institution of the Sabbath. 3. God blessed and sanctified (set apart to a sacred use) the rest day—and then Sabbath obligation existed. Marriage rested as much on the ordinance of God as did the Sabbath. To be consistent, Eld. Vogel must deny what I have stated in regard to marriage, or yield his objections to the Sabbath as an original institution. And here again I say, what I expect to show again and again, that any argument which would overthrow the Sabbath, would destroy the foundation of all morality. Let the reader ponder this. The points I have herein examined have an important bearing on the argument which I shall now put forth. The evidence required on this proposition is quite different from that required on the first two. The proof on those was in regard to the origin of an institution, and its appointment for observance. The present proposition does not call for evidence of that nature. In this consists the difference of proof concerning an old and a new institution. An old institution is only recognized; its recognition is all that is required to establish its existence. But a new institution must be proved by the act of instituting it, by its consecration or appointment, or by an express precept for its observance. If these be not produced, there is no evidence of an institution. And without these, an allusion or recognition is entirely out of the question. We have never contended for the origin of any Sabbath institution or Sabbath obligation in the New Testament. Indeed, it is inadmissible under the circumstances. We plead directly against it; we plead for a Sabbath as old as the heavens and the earth; a Sabbath made for man when man was first made acquainted with his relations and duties to God; a Sabbath blessed and set apart as Jehovah’s rest from the work of creation. If there were any act of instituting it found in the New Testament, that would be an argument against its antiquity. Right here, our opponents run into a grave error. They affect to think that we should produce as explicit an act of institution or precept for an old institution as they ought to produce for a new one. More than that; they generally refuse to accept the plain recognition of an institution well known to exist for ages, while they contend that we ought to acknowledge a few unnecessary inferences as authority sufficient to establish an institution which is never once named in the Scriptures, of which no act of appointment can be produced, and which was never enforced by any precept. On no other subject in the whole range of theology is shown such an utter disregard of all the principles of just reasoning, as is shown in the opposition to the Sabbath of the Lord our God. I propose to examine this question under three heads, namely: I. Show that the Lord claims a day in this dispensation as he did in past ages. II. Show that the Sabbath is recognized and familiarly spoken of in the New Testament, without such explanations as would be necessary to guard against misapprehension if it were abolished. III. Show that the law of which the Sabbath commandment is a part, was not abolished, but is now binding on all mankind. I. To show that the Lord claims a day in this dispensation, I quote Rev. 1:10. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” In quoting this text, I wish to have distinctly understood what I claim, and what I do not claim, that it teaches. Knowing that unwarranted inferences are often drawn from this passage, I shall avoid such an error. (1) I claim that this text proves that one day is “the Lord’s day” in this dispensation; that his claim and right to that certain day is as clearly established by this scripture as was his right to a day established by Ex. 20:10, or by Isa. 58:13. And I insist that this text is decisive on this point. (2) But I do not claim that this text furnishes any proof as to what day of the week is “the Lord’s day.” In that respect it defines nothing. That must be settled by other scriptures. But the settlement of this point will not be difficult if we allow the Lord to establish his own claim by his own word. The reader will remember that all of our propositions concern that which “the Scriptures teach;” not that which we would be pleased to have them170teach, or which we would unnecessarily infer from their teachings. (3) While I do not claim that Rev. 1:10, gives any information as to which day of the week is there referred to, I do claim that it refers to the Sabbath, the seventh day, because it is the only day that the Lord ever claimed as his, either in the Old or New Testament; and I unhesitatingly challenge the disproof of this proposition by reference to a single text in all “the Scriptures,” which proves, whether directly or indirectly, that the Lord ever claimed any day as his own but the seventh day. While “the Scriptures,” our acknowledged standard, declare positively which day is “the Lord’s day,” we have square work before us. Mere inferences have no place in this question. II. The inspired writers of the gospels and the book of Acts speak familiarly of the Sabbath as of a known and observed institution, without any of those explanations which would be necessary to guard against misapprehension, if it were abolished. Matt. 28:1: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.” Greenfield says of opse, “after, or at the end of.” So this may be properly rendered “after the Sabbath,” which is in harmony with Mark 16:1. This text contains all that Matthew says about these two days, at the time of the resurrection, the Sabbath and the first day of the week; the rest day and the first working day. Mark 16:1, 2: “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.” Verses 9–11: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.” This is all that Mark says of that Sabbath and first-day at the time of the resurrection of the Lord. Luke 23:54–56; 24:1: “And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.” This is Luke’s testimony concerning that interesting period of the crucifixion and resurrection. While it is silent, as is that of the others, in regard to any abrogation, it gives important evidence in regard to those holy women of whom it has been said, they were “last at the cross and first at the tomb.” Their devotion to the Saviour was no more noteworthy than was their faithful obedience to God’s commandment. They waited until “the first day of the week”—a working day—to do that which they would not do on the Sabbath, out of respect for the authority of the law of God. If Sabbath obligation had ceased, it will ever remain a marvel that this text is so particular to notice obedience to it, and so silent in regard to its cessation. John 20:1, 19: “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.” “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.” I have quoted John also, though he does not mention the Sabbath, because I wish to get all the evidence at once before the reader concerning that time when it is claimed that obligation to God’s commandment ceased, and some new obligation was to be introduced. Having passed through the gospels, I reserve the examination of the Acts of the Apostles for the next article. Eld. Vogel’s First Negative
The proposition now before us is of great importance. The first two were mere outposts, this is the enemy’s main army; there, we did mere skirmishing, here, we shall have a pitched battle, fighting for existence. I could afford to yield the first two propositions, but here I can give no quarters. Circumcision existed before the law of Moses (Gen. 17:9–14), was incorporated in it (Lev. 12:1–3), and was abolished with it. So if the Sabbath had existed before the law and was incorporated in it, it fell with it; provided, of course, that the latter, like the former, was a positive institution. If any of our readers have never before heard or read a religious discussion, they might as well learn at once, 1st. That no passage of Scripture is so fortified but that an ingenious opponent can say something contrary to its most obvious sense, and even make his position seem plausible. Such men were not wanting even in the days of the apostles, and Peter complained that they “wrested all the Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). God made no attempt to coerce the willfully perverse, but so spoke that the honest heart need not fail of his sense. 2d. I expect to present no argument to which no reply will be attempted, and to adduce no passage of Scripture for which my brother has no interpretation. Hence, the manifest duty of the reader is to judge, with honesty of purpose, which argument has the greater weight, and whose interpretation is the better and in harmony with God’s word. I have no wish to dissent from my brother’s definition of the term “Scriptures;” for it is manifestly true that the term includes both the Old and the New Testament, and is as comprehensive as the word “Bible.” That “all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, and is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus,” I believe on the testimony of Paul; but on the same testimony I also believe that “there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof” (Heb. 7:18). It is not my purpose just now to explain this paradox; but one thing is clear, that at least much, if not all, of the Old Testament Scriptures does not stand related to us as it did to the Jews. No doubt, “The law [marg. doctrine] of the Lord was perfect” (Ps. 19:7) in its adaptation to the times and circumstances of the Jews, and “holy, and just, and good” (Rom. 7:12), in its designs; and yet, “The law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7:19), so that “the ministration of death” had to be “abolished” (2 Cor. 3). But how it is that “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4) shall appear as we proceed, so far as it has a bearing on the investigation before us. Bro. W.’s sly hint as to the use of the expression “first principles” is wholly lost on me. I hide behind Paul who uses its equivalent (Heb. 6:1, 2) in such a way as to relieve me from all embarrassment. I would suggest an interview with him; it might save a needless burning of powder. And here I must pause to answer a question asked me by Eld. W. in his closing article on the second proposition. He is “at a loss to comprehend” and asks me to explain what I mean by “the Hebrew has no such exceptions as he tries to force on the Greek text.” I simply mean what I say. I had quoted a general rule governing the Greek use of the article, and it was clear that it bore me out in my position on Ex. 16. He adduced a special rule, declaring there were certain exceptions to the general rule. And without showing (for that was his business) that it applied to the particular case in hand, he assumed it (which he had no right to do, since it was not a general rule), and argued from the assumption. This I called forcing exceptions on the Greek (my brother will please pardon the obtuseness which fails to see in this anything either “unjust” or “unscholarly”); and in connection with this, I said that the Hebrew has no rule of exceptions which will enable him to gain his point. I know, indeed, that there are exceptions even in Hebrew, but in prose not so many as in Greek. It was logically no part of my business to disprove his illicit assumption, but, as usual, I did the gratuitous task, and he has, thereupon, proceeded upon another illogical assumption, namely, that if he could dispose of my gratuity, he would make good his first assumption! Bro. Waggoner falls so frequently into this error that I cannot refrain from calling the reader’s attention to another instance. In my opening article on the second proposition, I announced this universal rule: “When an institution is instituted or enacted, or mentioned for the first time, the definite article ‘the’ is always wanting.” Instead of adducing a single exception, which, by the rule, he was challenged to do, he simply insisted that the examples which I had cited as illustrative of the rule were of such a class that they were not adapted to its illustration, since the article may be absent for another reason than that required by the rule! Suppose he had been successful in this, what possible bearing against the rule could it have? As a gratuity, it may have been well enough, and I shall not complain if he sees fit thus to waste paper and ink, only I was anxious to have my main position tested. I might help him to another fact, and say that Lev. 23, is an example of enumeration, and that this may, at least, in part account for the absence of the article; but of what avail would this be to him? If the article is absent for two reasons, how does that disprove the rule which finds there a condition in accordance with its requirements? Eld. W. insists that he has shown “that the Hebrew has such exceptions” as his position on Ex. 16 requires. In this, he evidently alludes to the cases adduced in his last negative, which I had no previous opportunity to notice, and will, for this twofold reason, at once examine them with all possible brevity. (a). Ps. 21:1, is sufficiently accounted for by Bro. W. himself. It is Hebrew poetry; and Green says (Gram. § 247): “The article is frequently omitted in the brief and emphatic language of poetry, where it would be required in prose.” (b). Gen. 1:1, “In (the) beginning” is not to the point, since the article is not needed in an English translation any more than in Hebrew. “At first” answers every purpose. (c). Ex. 35:2, I have already accounted for, and is altogether in my favor. It is professedly a quotation of the original language used in giving the Sabbath to man, and, of course, indefinite. “These are the words which the Lord hath commanded,” &c. Here, by the way, I am reminded of my brother’s comment on the term “words” in Deut. 5:22. If he insists on using it there in the sense of “commandments,” he must grant me the same privilege here. And if you look in Ex. 35, for the “commandments” of the Lord, you will find things which are not written on the two tables of stone. And thus has he sharpened for me a knife which will eviscerate his comment yet to be made on “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Beware of tools with two edges. (d). Ex. 20:10, is not indefinite. True, the article is wanting, but it is one of those cases where it is not needed, being definite by construction. See Green’s Gram. §§ 243, 6, 255, and 257. (e). Lev. 23:3, comes under the rule of enumeration in which the article may or may not be used according to the writer’s option, and has, therefore, no bearing on Ex. 16. Compare, for example, 1 Chron. 23:31, where the article is used, with Col. 2:16, where the article is not used, though the items enumerated are the same. Thus, every example relied on by Bro. W. most signally fails him. And to save him all further trouble over the absence of the article, in certain cases, from the term Sabbath, I would say that I know of passages, and knew it before I wrote a line on Ex. 16, where the article is wanting, but always for adequate reasons, in nowise affecting my position on that chapter. I wish, moreover, to take occasion here to remark that, in so far as my arguments hinge on Greek and Hebrew criticisms, they are mainly designed for those who can know that they are just. The common reader will find enough not thus contingent to answer every purpose. I have often, also, another reason aside from thoroughness of discussion in going to the original. For example, those who hold my brother’s views often lay such stress on a clearly mistranslated passage, as the presence of the article in the English version of Ex. 16, that the force of their reasoning cannot well be broken without showing that it has only the false basis of an untenable translation. And I am thankful to God that he has given me the ability to reach such cases. Eld. W. has a peculiar fondness for discussing over again propositions already disposed of. The first note we heard from him when the second proposition was before us was on the beginning of the first, and in his closing article on the second, he was still there; and both the first and the second pass again under review in his opening out on the third! An occasional going back might be borne without nausea, but so much of it—well, it shows that he is not satisfied with the work he has done, else, why should he return? If the surgeon repairs to the field when the battle is over, it is because he knows there are wounded ones there, and also dead ones who need embalming. “Peace to their ashes.” As it is now my business to follow Eld. W., he shall find in me “a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.” And I will at once proceed to give a decent burial to his argument from Mark 2:27. 1. While I am fond of the article in its proper place, I cannot endure it in English before the word “man” in this passage. If “man” were here translated from aner, as in 1 Cor. 11:9, I could have no objections, but since it is from anthropos, a generic term, owing to a difference of idiom, the article is necessary in Greek, but has no business in English; and therefore Adam cannot here be referred to. See Crosby § 470. 1. 2. That a generic term can be, and often is, limited by a known fact not expressed in connection with it, I have undeniably shown in my last article on the first proposition, and can be further proved by a thousand examples. But it is not necessary, since my brother admits it. The only question between him and myself is, Is there such a limiting fact? I affirm it, he denies it; let the reader judge between us. I shall make no attempt to prove over again what I have already established, but am content to refer to my work on the second proposition at length, and particularly to the arguments marked VI and VII, as stated and defended in my second and third affirmative. Dare Bro. W. content himself with this reference and abide the reader’s verdict? or must he debate those points over again, and so confess defeat? We will see. He may even repeat the accusation of “begging the question,” if he likes; I can afford to bear it all—my appeal is made. 3. “Related,” says Eld. W., “as are Christ’s words in the two verses [Mark 2:27, 28], it is impossible to place a limitation on the word man in one sentence and not carry that limitation over to the other. I ask the reader to note this.” Let him note it, say I, and, whether true or false, when he has found anything in it, I am ready to hear his report. 4. What my brother says of Acts 5 (Acts 6, he means), about “men” being limited by the number “seven” (verses 3 and 5), as bearing against my use of 2 Tim. 2:2, is so wholly irrelevant that I cannot see how he so sadly blundered. For example, in his passage the original is aner, in mine it is anthropos; his term is specific, mine generic! So far as the difference between my brother and myself is concerned, it may or may not be true that “marriage is an original and moral institution.” I am not now concerned about that. He may also emphasize the alleged fact that Adam was himself “a part of the original creation,” and “existed before all the relations existed on which moral obligation is based;” it is still true that man had no Sabbath “from the beginning.” This is, if the days of the creation week, as Eld. W. assumes, were twenty-four-hour days, the second day of Adam and Eve’s existence should have been a Sabbath in order to have a Sabbath “from the beginning.” But he says that the Sabbath came because God had rested, and therefore after his rest. Now, if man’s Sabbath came after God’s rest, it did not begin with his rest, and therefore not with the first seventh day. That’s all. The confident and oft-repeated assertion “that any argument which would overthrow the Sabbath would destroy the foundation of all morality,” thus making the Sabbath a moral institution, I wish now to put severely to the test. I affirm that The Sabbath Is a Positive Institution
1. In Matt. 12:1–5, Christ compares it with a positive law which David broke in eating the show-bread. Now, had the Sabbath171been a moral law, his argument would have been fallacious, or what logicians call a non sequitur, for in that case it runs thus: David, your model saint, when hungry, broke a positive law, and you hold him guiltless; my disciples, when hungry, broke a moral law, and therefore you should also hold them guiltless! Where is the parity of reason? Have the moral and the positive the same predicates? 2. In Matt. 12:7 the Saviour evidently classes satisfying hunger with “mercy,” a moral principle, and keeping the Sabbath he puts in the category of “sacrifice,” a positive requirement, insisting that the moral takes the precedence, and so declares the Sabbath to be a positive institution. “If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” 3. In Mark 2:27, 28, the same principle is involved. Jesus declares man to be Lord of the Sabbath; but man is not and cannot be Lord of a moral principle, for moral principles are either eternal, or founded in the nature of things and the constitution of man. When Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” he asserts nothing as to when the Sabbath was made—that thought is wholly foreign to his purpose—but for what purpose it was made; he simply says that man has control of the Sabbath, and not the Sabbath of man. And since man is lord of the Sabbath, and Jesus is also a man, being the Son of man, he argues that he is also Lord of the Sabbath; that is, has a right to use or set aside the day to any extent that the higher law of mercy dictates, as in feeding the hungry, healing the sick, leading an ass to water, or drawing a sheep out of the pit. Or in the language of the great Alford, “Since the Sabbath was an ordinance instituted for the use and benefit of man—the Son of man, who has taken upon him full and complete manhood, the great representative and Head of humanity, has this institution under his own power.” See Lange on Matt. 12:8. The Pharisees did not admit that Jesus was the Son of God and so had control of the Sabbath, yet somehow he silenced them. If Jesus did not establish his lordship over the Sabbath from the fact that man is lord of it, how was it that he silenced them? I repeat therefore again that man is lord of the Sabbath, and challenge my brother to produce an instance where man is said to be lord of a moral principle. Till then, let him stand in silent awe before this enunciation, and own the Sabbath a positive institution. 4. But there is still more in the above passage. It declares that “the Sabbath was made (egeneto)”; a moral principle is not made, but is (esti). 5. The Sabbath was a commemorative institution; this my brother admits; but a moral or eternal principle is never commemorative. This has stood in italics and challenged refutation ever since our discussion began. 6. The Sabbath was a type; a moral principle is not and cannot be one. That the Sabbath was a type, I am willing to leave to the reader’s decision upon the evidence presented in argument V, on the second proposition. Dare my brother place as much confidence in his reply then made? If not, let him try again, and he will find that the half has not been told. 7. If the Sabbath had been a moral institution it would have been of universal obligation, and the Gentiles would have had it as well as the Jews. For proof that the former did not have it, I appeal again to arguments VI and VII of the second proposition. 8. The Sabbath was a periodic institution, i. e., of periodic obligation, and is therefore positive in its nature, since no moral obligation is ever periodic, but unintermittingly binding. 9. There is no moral, i. e., necessary, connection between God’s resting on the seventh day and man’s resting, but the connection is only through positive commandment to that effect, and therefore the Sabbath is a positive institution. Or, to use my brother’s own language, it is “in its appointment (that) we must find the duty of observance;” “the evidence of its appointment is found in the words sanctified and hallowed;” “the sanctification of a day consists in a precept for its observance for a special or sacred purpose.” I submit, as I have from the beginning, that that which is born of a precept inherits its nature and is positive. I could easily swell the preceding list, but think it will answer every purpose as it is. If there is a weak point in it, I do not know it, and hope my brother will point it out. Of this, I am very confident, that so long as only one of these points stands unimpaired, the field is mine. And on his ability to overthrow these depends his ability to hold the present proposition. What more he says in his last paper as yet unnoticed shall receive due attention in my next.