“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 the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord, he doth not regard it.” Rom. 14: 5, 6. These words are regarded by many as furnishing evidence that under the gospel the Sabbath is no longer of divine obligation; that there is now no difference in days, as the phrase “every day” must include the Sabbath. 1. It is well, in every case, that we look to the consequences following every decision we form. This proposition is eminently true in relation to the conclusions we arrive at, based on the statements made by Bible writers, and notably so in the ones contained in the quotation made above. 2. Rom. 5: 17–19 as certainly teaches universal or non-conditional salvation as Rom. 14: 5, 6 teaches non-Sabbath obligation. Both are absolutely non-Scriptural doctrines. If the first is an error, the second is also. 3. If Rom. 14: 5, 6 teaches that the Sabbath has lost its sacred character, and is a common day, then it has lost its place in the law; the law has suffered change or loss in one of its parts, which is plainly contrary to the Saviour’s words in Matt. 5: 17–20. One jot or tittle was not to pass from the law till heaven and earth pass. Heaven and earth yet remain, therefore the law of which the Sabbath is a part, yet remains. The law mentioned here could not have been the ceremonial, as that passed away more than 1800 years ago. 4. If the construction in question be sound, then the apostle is arrayed against himself in Rom. 2: 25–27; 3: 19, 31. These passages prove the moral obligation of the law. The Sabbath is a component part of the law, therefore it is of present obligation. 5. The phrase “every day” includes the days of which the apostle speaks. These days are evidently annual and do not comprehend the weekly Sabbath. They are evidently the same as brought to view in Col. 2: 16, the holy days and sabbath-days, which were shadows of things to come. See Lev. 23: 37. These sabbaths and days were different from the Sabbath of the Lord. Verse 38. No one was to be judged in regard to these, but the law of which the Sabbath is a part will judge and find guilty. Rom. 3: 19; Jas. 2: 12; Jno. 12: 48. Jesus spoke the law in Matt. 5: 17–20. It was the ground of righteousness, without which no one can enter the kingdom. So the expression “every day” does not necessarily include the weekly Sabbath, any more than “every-day” clothes include the special suit one wears on Sabbath or on Sunday. When we say a man “works every day” we do not mean to include his weekly rest-day. “Every day” in Ex. 16: 4, 21 did not include the Sabbath. Verse 26. The people were to gather the manna every day, but on the Sabbath there was none. So “every day” in Rom. 14: 5 may not include the Sabbath, and cannot without doing destructive violence to the teachings of both Jesus and Paul. 6. The argument of all days alike is used mostly by those who believe in no Sabbath at all, and there is some consistency, at least, on the part of such persons, but there is none at all on the part of those who believe in what they call the “Christian Sabbath.” If the first day of the week has been set apart for rest and worship, and has had divine honors conferred upon it, as this class of individuals positively insist, then this day is of a different character from all others, and all this talk about being fully persuaded in our own mind which day we shall keep is sheer nonsense, and is simply a shift to evade the claims of the Sabbath, a flimsy excuse to avoid duty. 7. Finally, to sum up, the “days” of Rom. 14: 5, 6 are the days, viz., the annual feasts and sabbath-days of the typical system. Lev. 23. These were to cease, Hos. 2: 11, and did cease at the cross. Col. 2: 14–17. The weekly Sabbath cannot be among them, because it was not a shadow but a memorial, pointing back and not forward, and because the law of which the Sabbath is a part is yet of obligation. N. J. BOWERS.