THE SABBATH by John Nevins Andrews

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · May 27, 1852

THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

LETTERS TO O. R. L. CROZIER.—NO. II.

DEAR SIR:—Your second article commences in substance as follows: 1. The Sabbath was first made known and enjoined in the wilderness. 2. That consequently the Sabbath obligation did not commence in Eden, and continue thence forward. 3. That therefore the patriarchs had not the Sabbath, yet lived to a greater age than succeeding generations, and were the most holy of men, so that as a natural consequence the Sabbath is not an essential constituent in the health and happiness of men. 4. That Paul in Heb. iv develops in the plainest manner possible, the primary signification of the week, and especially of the sanctified seventh day, and shows that it was not sanctified as a weekly rest, but as an emblem of the rest of the saints after the resurrection. 5. That the obligation to keep the weekly Sabbath, began in the wilderness of Sin, and terminated at the crucifixion. Col. ii.

The specious character of your argument has already been exposed. But I will briefly notice the points a second time.

1. The first mention of the Sabbath in Ex. xvi, is not in the form of a command to keep it, but is a simple mention of something already in existence.—"To-morrow," said the Leader of Israel, "is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." How long it had been the holy Rest-day of the Lord can be ascertained by reading Gen. ii, which tells us when it was that he rested on the seventh day and sanctified it, ("set it apart to a holy use.")

2. Your inference that the seventh day was made the holy Rest-day of Jehovah in the wilderness of Sin, being without foundation, your second statement, viz: that therefore the Sabbath obligation did not originate in Eden, being a deduction from that inference, falls of its own weight. But God has by his own voice given the origin of Sabbath's obligation. He gives the fourth commandment, and then, to shut the mouths of cavilers, gives the origin of the obligation to keep it. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the SABBATH-DAY and hallowed it." If these words do not show the existence of the holy Sabbath at Creation, and that its sacred character there originated, then they do not mean what they say.

3. Your third position depends for a foundation on the inferences already refuted, viz: that the seventh day became the Sabbath of the Lord, after the Israelites entered the wilderness, and that the obligation to keep the Rest-day holy there commenced. That the sanctified Rest-day, or holy Sabbath of the Lord, has been in existence ever since the first week of time is an undeniable fact. To assume that the patriarchs were ignorant of the Sabbath of Jehovah, or that they had no regard for his hallowed Rest-day, (because in the brevity of the Mosaic record, after giving the account of its institution, we are not informed respecting its observance, or its violation,) is taking for granted a position, that must first be proved before any weight, whatever, can be attached to it.

4. The Decalogue bases the weekly observance of God's Rest-day on the sanctification of the Sabbath at Creation. The fourth of Hebrews says nothing respecting the sanctification of the seventh day; therefore it does not contradict this idea of the Decalogue, nor does it even seem so to do. The rest of Jehovah from his work of creation, and the union of Adam and Eve may respectively illustrate the final rest of the redeemed, and the perfect union of Christ and his church; but can never be made to explain away "the primary object" of the Creator in instituting the Sabbath and marriage, as distinctly stated. Mark ii, 27; Col. xi, 9.

5. As the seventh day did not become the holy Rest-day of the Lord in the wilderness of Sin, but was such already, the first part of your statement rests upon nothing save your own assertion. And as it has been already shown that the CARNAL ordinances [Heb. ix, 10; Col. ii, 14—17] which Christ blotted out did not include the oracles of God, [Acts vii, 38; Rom. iii, 1.] the ten commandments, (which Paul calls holy, SPIRITUAL, just and good,) Col. ii does not even allude to the point which you wish to establish. Your next remark is as follows:

"The display made by the writer in the Review about there being no 'Act of instituting the Sabbath recorded in Ex. xvi,' only shows that he wanted to say something, and was at a loss to know what."

It is a very easy thing for me to point to THE ACT by which Jehovah made the seventh day his sanctified Rest-day or holy Sabbath. But you deny this, and affirm that he made the seventh day his Rest-day or Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin, though no act of that kind can be produced by you. The following is what you are pleased to call my "display," which you say evinces a desire to say something, but a loss to know what. Which of us it is that is thus situated, I leave you to judge:

"The expressions of this chapter respecting the Sabbath should not be forgotten: 'To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord;' 'To-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord;' 'The seventh day which is the Sabbath.' Verses 22—25. With a single question to the candid reader, we submit the chapter: Is there any ACT of instituting the Sabbath recorded in Ex. xvi, or does it treat the Sabbath AS AN INSTITUTION ALREADY IN EXISTENCE?"

Your remark that the Sabbath came into existence as did light, the sun, moon, &c., by Jehovah's act of speaking, "and it was so," would be very opportune, were it not the case that Ex. xvi does not contain any such thing; the first mention of the Sabbath which it makes being the statement of Moses, "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord."

After stating that the time when the Sabbath was instituted is a very plain matter, you remark:

"The Review attempts to invalidate the sentiments of the report on Ex. xx, 8—11, by showing that that text teaches the institution of the Sabbath at creation. I readily admit that such a conclusion might be drawn from that passage, considered by itself. Yet it makes no affirmation at all as to when the Sabbath obligation began: it simply enforces it, and assigns a reason for fixing upon the seventh for a rest-day in preference to any other, viz: because in six days God had created the heaven and the earth, &c., and rested on the seventh. To learn when men were required to rest on that day, we must have recourse to those portions of the Scriptures that speak on that point. Ex. xvi, is one such, which was considered last week; and others will be noticed."

To show the matter in the true light, I give the statement of your original report which you say I have tried to invalidate. It is this:

"We then passed to the Decalogue, Ex. xx, 8—11.—Some thought this passage proved the Sabbath to be a primary institution, established at the creation.—But it was replied, that it does not say any thing of the kind, hence that conclusion is only an inference, which is not sufficient to establish a truth or a religious duty."

The following is the manner in which, as you state, the Review attempted to invalidate your "report."

"Those who will look at the fourth commandment FOR THEMSELVES can judge of the truth of C.'s assertion that the Sabbath is not a primary institution, or that the proof of it at least, rests upon mere inference. Where does this text place the origin of the holy Sabbath? For this is the grand question before us. At the giving of the manna in the wilderness of Sin?—Silent about that wilderness. Did God say then, (at Sinai,) I now institute the Sabbath? Verily, he does not! And it is very evident that he could not thus say. For C. is obliged to admit that some how or other it was in existence at least thirty days before the Hebrews came to Sinai. What does God say then as to the origin of his Sabbath? [Rest-day.] He states the reasons on which the fourth commandment rests in these words: 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the SABBATH-DAY, and hallowed it.'—Verse 11. Then the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord, prior to his act of sanctifying and hallowing it. And this act of blessing and sanctifying the day, immediately followed his act of resting upon it. Gen. ii, 2, 3. If these facts do not prove the origin of the Sabbath prior to man's fall, then they mean much less than they express. What made it Jehovah's Rest-day?—His act of resting upon it—not at Sinai, not in the wilderness of Sin,—but at Creation. What made it 'holy unto the Lord'—his 'holy day' &c?—His own act of blessing and hallowing it in Eden.—Since then it has been the holy Sabbath unto the Lord. It does not derive its sanctity from Sinai, no, no. But because of the sanctity it already possessed, it was placed in Jehovah's royal law. Let the fourth commandment speak for itself."

The time when God gave an express precept for the observance of his Sabbath is not the point on which its institution turns. For the Sabbath is mentioned

in Ex. xvi, before any express precept for its observance is named. The fourth commandment itself points us back to the beginning for the origin of God's Rest-day; and we may add that although one only of the other nine commandments of the Decalogue existed in the form of direct precept, prior to the departure from Egypt, yet no person attempts to dispute that the moral duties contained therein have existed as such from Creation. The duty to keep the Rest-day holy grows out of the fact that God has hallowed and sanctified that day. And such will remain the duty of man until God's blessing and sanctification shall be removed from the day of his rest.—You continue:

'The Review had no occasion for saying that 'C. is obliged to admit that some how or other it [the Sabbath] was in existence at least thirty days before the Hebrews came to Sinai.' I have never shown any unwillingness to admit that.'

Had you not attempted to make out that the Testimony (not then in existence) was mentioned in the wilderness of Sin even more familiarly than the Sabbath, I should not have had reason to conclude that you wished to darken as far as possible the fact that it then existed. If you can assign any other reason for that attempt, please do so.

In answer to your inquiry why the Review contends for the institution of the Sabbath before the giving of the Decalogue, I reply, because of the facts already stated, which prove the institution of the Sabbath at Creation. And of this, as already seen, the Decalogue itself furnishes the most decided proof.—In connecting it with circumcision and the passover 'you therefore do greatly err.'

You next speak of the great propriety with which God could say to the people at Sinai, 'Remember the Sabbath-day,' inasmuch as he had made it known to, and enjoined it upon them, a month previous, and some of them had violated it, &c. You judge rightly, that without some knowledge of the Sabbath the children of Israel could not be called upon to 'Remember' it. But let me ask, What day was it that he required them thus to keep in memory? The day of his rest from Creation, or some day on which he had rested in the wilderness of Sin? If the Sabbath did originate in that wilderness, is it not very remarkable that the Decalogue instead of citing us to the wilderness in question, should point us back to Creation?

You inquire why we find no reproof in Ex. xvi for neglect or forgetfulness respecting the Sabbath? In answer, you are requested to read verse 28, which contains the reproof of Jehovah given to certain of the people for violating his Sabbath. 'HOW LONG refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?'

The truth of your statement that 'The plain, obvious teaching of Heb. iv is 'sublime nonsense' to the Review?' may be judged from reading the language of the Review. It is as follows:

'Is it not sublime nonsense to say that the Sabbath was made as a memorial of the departure of Israel from Egypt, or as a type of man's future redemption and rest after the Second Advent, when as yet he had not fallen?'

Now I beg your attention while I inquire, Is it 'the plain, obvious teaching of Heb. iv,' that the Sabbath was made as a memorial of the departure of Israel from Egypt? Does it contain even an intimation of that kind? And as there is nothing of the kind therein recorded, I next inquire whether Heb. iv contains any 'plain obvious teaching' that God sanctified the day of his rest as a type of the final rest of the saints? Failing to find such statements, I remark that I did not refer to 'the plain obvious teaching' of the apostle Paul but to certain unwarrantable inferences of your own. You wish me to explain the third verse of the chapter. Its hidden meaning I shall leave to yourself, but will notice some of the plain obvious statements of that portion of Scripture, and its connection. The works of God were FINISHED from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day FROM ALL THE WORKS. The Great Creator then entered his rest. After man had fallen, God held out to him the hope of restoration and final admission to that rest; but to a large class who had provoked him he swore that they should not enter it. Again through David he sets before man the hope of that admission to his rest. This shows that the rest of the saints is yet future, and remains to be realized by them.

The statement which you make respecting the zeal of Sabbath-keepers some time since in teaching that the Sabbath is a type, and now in denying that it is a type, is, so far as my knowledge extends, entirely uncalled for. Several who first embraced the Sabbath, as T. M. Preble, J. B. Cook, and others, who have since relinquished it, taught that it was a type. To some extent that idea was received, though I know of no instance in which it was presented by us as a point of importance. But never since the point has been examined have we seen any reason to believe that the Sabbath is a type. If we have here resorted to dishonorable expedients, you are requested to sustain the charge by facts; if we have not, then the use of a dishonorable expedient may rest where it belongs.

Before noticing my argument respecting Deut. v, 12—15, you refer to one of its concluding remarks which reads thus: 'He had brought them out of 'the house of bondage' where they could not keep the Sabbath, [Proof Ex. i, 13, 14; iii, 7; v, 4—19; vi, 9,] and placed them in a situation where every thing was adjusted with reference to the Sabbath, that he might 'prove them whether they would walk in his law or no.'' Ex. xvi. After stating that these texts make no allusion to the Sabbath, you say:

'This is the kind of proof the Review relies on in this matter.' To those who will admit such proof, it can prove anything it pleases to assert with its accustomed assurance. It dares enforce, as positive and plain divine revelation, its own groundless inferences, which contain not the first ray of evidence? O that it and its readers might see the fearfulness of such a course, and abandon it.'

It is very true that the Sabbath is not spoken of in these texts, but the situation of the people, (the point before us) is 'a great truth plainly stated.' The texts referred to, show that the children of Israel were in the most abject bondage, under the control of a monarch who denied any knowledge of Jehovah, [Ex. v, 8,] and who forced them to toil to the utmost in 'the iron furnace,' so that their cry came up to heaven by reason of their bitter bondage. Such was the situation of the mass of the people. Ex. ii, 23, 24; Acts vii, 19, 34; Deut. iv, 20; 1 Kings viii, 51. You are requested to explain how the Rest-day of Jehovah could be observed by a people thus situated, 'and after that,' if you will, 'mock on.'

After saying that the Review evidently feels the need of obscuring the clear light of Deut. v, 12—15, and that 'to do this it resorts to a number of expedients, all of which will avail nothing with the candid,' you remark:

'It says 'Deut. v, is not the Decalogue as uttered by Jehovah. It is a rehearsal of it by Moses forty years afterward. Some things are added and some things are omitted.' What! does the Review charge Moses with corrupting the Decalogue? Hear his own testimony. [Here you introduce verses 2—4, which precede the rehearsal of the ten commandments by Moses, and verse 22 which follows, and continue:] This transcript of the Decalogue is attested more at length and with more precision than that in Ex. xx. 'These words the Lord spake' and 'wrote them in two tables of stone.' Yet the Review says this 'is not the Decalogue as uttered by Jehovah.' The reader may decide which to credit, Moses or the Review. If more is contained in the transcript of the Decalogue in Ex. xx or in Deut. v than was written on the two tables, that which contains this addition is a corruption, and Moses' testimony is untrue, that 'the Lord spoke these words' and 'wrote them'. But we believe Moses' testimony, and that he did not corrupt the Decalogue.'

To expose the sophistry of the course of argument adopted by yourself, and to show your utter inability to answer the questions there addressed you, I append the words of the Review. The expedients which you charge me with resorting to, speak for themselves:

'I can hardly suppress a smile when I witness the eagerness with which C. groups this text, which says not one word about the ORIGIN of the Sabbath, to prove that it was instituted after Israel left Egypt. The Decalogue, as uttered by the voice of the King Eternal, gives us the reasons on which the Sabbath institution is based. Ex. xx, 8—11. These, as it has been already shown, are all against C.—Deut. v, does not give one of these reasons. And we submit this point to him, Can you tell from Deut. v why the seventh day should have been preferred to the first, the second, or the fifth days as the Sabbath of the Lord? And further, can you tell from the same chapter how it happened that any day was called the Sabbath [Rest-day] of the Lord? And if you cannot answer, as most assuredly you will not be able to do from Deut. v, then you must confess that we must look to Ex. xx, which explains the whole matter. For it is a rule (I think) to interpret that which is less particular, by that which is full and definite. Deut. v is not the Decalogue as uttered by Jehovah. It is a rehearsal of it by Moses forty years afterward. Some things are added, and some things are omitted. Now look at its mention of the Sabbath. It begins [verse 12] as follows: 'Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it AS the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.' Now where had he commanded this act? In Ex. xx, where 'God commanded the Hebrews to rest on the seventh day, for he had rested on that day at Creation.' Then Deuteronomy itself, cites us to Exodus for the Sabbath law, and Ex. xx gives it, with reasons that base the institution on what was done at Creation. Nay, it even calls the seventh day the Sabbath, as we have before shown, prior to the fall of man. Does Deut. v contradict the testimony of Ex. xx, and tell us that the Sabbath was made after the departure from Egypt? Not an intimation of the kind is given. Does it tell us that the Sabbath commemorated the departure from Egypt? Not a word of that. Let the original commandment speak. 'Remember (the day of the Exodus? No! but remember) the Sabbath-day.' What day is the Sabbath day? Some day connected with their flight from Egypt? No! No! It is the day on which Jehovah rested from his work of creation!'

Your statement that in the above I charge Moses with corrupting the Decalogue, shall now be noticed. You take exceptions to three sentences, the first two of which read thus: 'Deut. v is not the Decalogue as uttered by Jehovah. It is a rehearsal of it by Moses forty years afterward.' Now this is a statement that truth or falsity of which can easily be tested. If you will turn to Ex. xix, you will there read that God came down on Mount Sinai in the third month after the departure from Egypt, and, continuing the narrative, you read in the first verse of the next chapter that God then spake the words recorded in verses 2—17 of that chapter. This is its time and place, and this the utterance of the Decalogue.

Now turn to Deut. i, 3, and you will find that the date of the book is the fortieth year after the departure from Egypt. Chapter v speaks for itself. It purports [verses 1—5] to be REHEARSAL of the words spoken on the occasion described in Ex. xix; xx. This is direct proof that Deut. v is not the original version of the Decalogue, but is a rehearsal of it. As further proof on this point, notice the language of the fourth and fifth commandments as here given: 'Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God HATH COMMANDED thee.' 'Honor thy father and thy mother as the Lord thy God HATH COMMANDED thee.' Thus both of these, precepts contain direct evidence that they are not, the original commandments, as uttered by Jehovah, but plainly cite you to the original, already in existence. My first statement therefore is vindicated by undeniable facts.

Now I will examine the statement that causes you so much horror. It is this: 'Some things are added and some things are omitted.' This also is a point so simple that its truth or falsity may at once be tested. Turn to Ex. xx, 11, and you have a plain statement respecting the institution of the Sabbath at Creation, and the reasons out of which the institution grows. This verse Deut. v omits, and consequently says nothing respecting the origin of the Sabbath or Rest-day of the Lord. Now please to notice a moment longer. Deut. v, 15, which assigns as a reason why its observance was enjoined upon the people of

Israel, viz: that they had been delivered out of the cruel and bitter bondage of Egypt, is ADDED by Moses in this rehearsal of the Decalogue. (And even this verse cites us elsewhere for the original precept.)

As the facts in the case sustain every point that you have assailed, you are at liberty either to withdraw your charges, or to stand in array against the plain statements of the Bible. However, if you wish to teach (in the face of plain, undeniable facts to the contrary) that Deut. v is the original version of the Decalogue, and that Ex. xx is a rehearsal of it by Moses, then let me show you that the charge of teaching that Moses corrupted the Decalogue applies with equal force to yourself. For if Ex. xx be a rehearsal of Deut. v, (a gross absurdity!) then it is plain that it adds the whole of its eleventh verse, (the account of the institution of the Sabbath,) and omits the whole of Deut. v, 15, (the reference to the Egyptian bondage.) Is it not so? As I expressly stated that Deut. v does not contradict Ex. xx, I can see no excuse whatever for the charges which you make. You next remark as follows:

'Now the COMMAND is plainly stated in both places, and in nearly the same phraseology: but in Ex. xx, the reason is assigned for enjoining the seventh day as a Sabbath in preference to any other, and in Deut. v, the reason is assigned for enjoining the Sabbath to be kept: this latter is what especially concerns us in this discussion.—For by the question, 'When was the Sabbath instituted? is, of course, meant, When were men required to keep it?''

Your idea, that Ex. xx gives the reason why the seventh day was to be kept as the Sabbath, does very well as far as it goes; but the plain statement of that chapter, that it was the Sabbath at the time when God blessed and sanctified the day, you keep out of sight. Really, if you had no theory that would be upset by the admission, would you hesitate for a moment to acknowledge that the holy Rest-day of the Creator originated at the close of Creation, and not in the wilderness of Sin? The first mention of the seventh day states that God rested upon it, sanctified and blessed it. Gen. ii, 2, 3. The next time it is mentioned in the Bible it is called 'the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.' Ex. xvi, 22, 23. What had been done to the seventh day between these two points? Nothing. The next chapter that speaks of the seventh day (Ex. xx) proves plainly that by the acts named in the first mention of it, [Gen. ii, 2, 3,] the seventh day became the Sabbath.

The reason assigned for enforcing upon Israel the observance of that day which was hallowed at Creation is perfectly natural, and does not furnish the slightest proof that the seventh day became the Sabbath of the Lord after the departure from Egypt. The other precepts of the Decalogue might be observed even in abject bondage; but the observance of the Rest-day of the Lord was a question which, not themselves, but their masters would decide.

The question before us, is not, When was the first precept on record given, requiring the observance of the Sabbath? but, When did the seventh day become the holy Sabbath?

The fourth commandment did not create the moral duty of keeping the sacred Rest-day of the Lord, any more than the first, second, third, fifth, or tenth commandments create the moral duties which they were given to guard. For all these moral duties are as old as Creation, and neither of them is affected by the fact that the first direct precept on record respecting them was given after the departure from Egypt.—You shall be heard further:

'Now hear Jehovah's answer to this important question: 'And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.' A statement so plain as this ought to end all controversy on the question involved. God's people were servants in Egypt, he delivered them: THEREFORE he commanded them to keep the Sabbath day. Now as this is the only reason God gave for commanding that day to be kept, it settles the point, and proves in the most positive manner that that commandment did not exist with that people before the deliverance from Egypt, as its express design was, to keep them in mind of the heavy bondage of Egypt and their wonderful deliverance therefrom. No more need be said on this point: if such testimony will not avail, it is useless to adduce any other.'

As you rest your argument in the most confident manner on this last position, I call your attention to the defects:

1. Deut. v does NOT furnish the ONLY reason for commanding the observance of the Sabbath. The grand reason, the blessing and sanctification of the Rest-day, is not even noticed. Now look at Ex. xx, the original version of the Decalogue. Verses 8—10 give the grand Sabbath commandment (of which, by the way, Deut. v, 12 only claims to be a rehearsal) and the next verse gives the great primary reason in words not easily explained away. Please read the reason as assigned by Jehovah in the sentence that follows the Sabbath commandment: 'For [BECAUSE] in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it.'

2. You have exactly reversed the statement of Deut. v, 15. Instead of making the deliverance from Egypt a reason for remembering the Sabbath, you make the observance of the Sabbath something expressly designed to commemorate their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. This idea flatly contradicts the language of Jehovah: 'Remember the Sabbath-day;' that is, the day on which he rested at Creation, and not the day of their flight from Egypt.

3. But as you rest the whole weight of your argument upon the language, 'THEREFORE the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day,' and think that if this testimony does not prove that the Sabbath was instituted after the departure from Egypt, that it will be useless to adduce any other, it shall be noticed in particular. Turn to Deut. xxiv, 17, 18, and you will read thus:

'Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless, nor take a widow's raiment to pledge; but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence; THEREFORE I command thee to do this thing.' (The same form of expression occurs in verse 22, and in Deut. xv, 16; xvi, 12.) If the expression in Deut. v, 15 proves that before the departure from Egypt, men had not been under obligation to keep the Sabbath which God sanctified and hallowed at Creation, Does not the SAME EXPRESSION in Deut. xxiv, 17, 18 prove that men had not been under obligation, prior to the departure from Egypt, to treat with justice and mercy the stranger, the fatherless and the widow? And if you confess that such a position is a monstrous absurdity, then I would ask further, Is it not a legitimate conclusion drawn from premises laid down by yourself? Will you not be candid enough to acknowledge that this your concluding argument to prove that the Sabbath was instituted after the departure from Egypt, is nothing but a baseless inference?—I now append the language of the Review to which the remarks noticed above is your reply:

'But does not Moses say, 'The Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm: THEREFORE the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day?' Truth. But is there a word in all that that tells us how there came to be a Sabbath-day? Not one. It does not give one word respecting its origin. But it does give the reason why God enforced it upon the children of Israel. He had brought them out of 'the house of bondage' where they could not keep the Sabbath, [Proof Ex. i, 13, 14; iii, 7; v, 4—19; vi, 9,] and placed them in a situation where every thing was adjusted with reference to the Sabbath, that he might 'prove them whether they would walk in his law or no.' But lest C. should say the fourth commandment originated the Sabbath, we find the Sabbath in existence BEFORE ANY express command to keep it had been given. Ex. xvi, 23. The reader will notice that it is not, When was the fourth commandment given? that has been the question before us, but, 'When was the Sabbath ITSELF instituted?' As C. speaks of cause and effect, we will try to state them distinctly:

1. THE CAUSE: 'God BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY AND SANCTIFIED IT; because that in it he had rested from all his work.'

2. THE EFFECT: 'The Sabbath WAS MADE for man.'

Deut. v, which says not one word about the ORIGIN OF THE SABBATH' is presented as a 'direct and positive answer to the question,' and in the estimation of C. makes IT AS PLAIN AS ANY THING CAN BE! We sum up the question discussed as follows:

God sanctified the Sabbath at Creation. Ex. xx, 11.
He made it known to the Hebrews in the most solemn manner. Neh. ix, 13, 14.
The fourth commandment of the royal law, embodies the sacred institution, and renders it as immutable as that law. Rom. iii, 31; Luke xvi, 17.—You continue:

2. 'For whom was the Sabbath instituted? The Review calls the use made of Deut. v, a wicked perversion; yet it says, C.'s syllogism proves that the Sabbath was not binding on the Patriarchs.' Well let that remain then—a nail in a sure place. But the Review constructs another syllogism, the conclusion of which is, virtually that God did not make a covenant with his people in Horeb which he had not made with their fathers; for it insists that nothing new was enjoined by the covenant in Horeb. Here again the Review is in direct array against Moses; he affirms, and it denies?'

Perhaps nothing can show in a plainer manner your disposition to wrest my words, and to hide my arguments (rather I should say, the necessity that compels you thus to act) then to present the words of the Review to which you refer. They are these:

'To show the wicked perversion of this text, [Deut. v, 1—3,] so often made, we say to C. 'Come now let us reason together.'

'The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.'
'The Sabbath was a part of that covenant which Moses said God made with the people in Horeb, and not with their fathers.'
Hence the duty enjoined in the fourth commandment was not binding on the patriarchs.

Really, this disposes of the Sabbath in an admirable manner; but let us try it again:

'The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.'
The precepts 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet,' were a 'part of the covenant which Moses said, God made with the people in Horeb and not with their fathers.'
Hence the duties enjoined in these nine commandments were not binding upon the patriarchs!!

Such a freedom as that, is really the freedom for which the carnal mind has ever plead. Rom. viii, 7: 2 Pet. ii, 18—22.—C.'s syllogism proves that the Sabbath was not binding on the patriarchs; mine (constructed on the same foundation) proves that none of the duties enjoined in the Decalogue were! But 'that which proves too much, proves nothing to the point.''

Had there been any chance to show wherein the second syllogism was not as fair as the first, you would, doubtless, have pointed it out. If your syllogism is good for any thing it may be turned against either of the commandments with the same propriety that it can be against the fourth. And with the same propriety (I submit to yourself) it can be turned against them all. The necessity of your case must indeed be great, or you would not catch at a straw and call it 'a nail in a sure place.' The sentence reads thus: 'C.'s syllogism proves that the Sabbath was not binding on the patriarchs: mine, (constructed on the same foundation) proves that none of the duties enjoined in the Decalogue were!' The conclusion of the first syllogism you rest upon as a sure foundation, when the second exposes the sophistry and perversion of the first. Your 'nail in a sure place' is fastened in a perversion; but it is on nails of this kind that your argument hangs.

You then quote Deut. v, 2, 3; Jer. xxxi, 32; Heb. viii, 9, to prove that God made a covenant with his people in Horeb, and to prove that this covenant was the Decalogue, you quote Deut. v; Ex. xxxiv, 28; Deut. iv, 12, 13; ix, 9, 11, 15. You then draw the conclusion that 'the Decalogue contains something that God had not given to the fathers of those with whom he covenanted in Horeb.' And you think that as all the other duties enjoined in the Decalogue must have been binding on their fathers, that it was the precept respecting the sanctified Rest-day of the Lord. Now it is not necessary to spend many words on this point. If your argument, that the covenant which was made in Horeb was the ten commandments, and that it was not made in the days of the patriarchs, proves that the Sabbath did not then exist, it also proves that the first, second, third, and indeed all the commandments were not then in existence.

Your argument proves too much, viz: that none of the moral duties were binding in the days of the patriarchs, or it proves nothing to the point, and leaves the moral duties embodied in the Decalogue, entirely unaffected.

I will test the character of the inference, which is your main argument in answering the second question.

The covenant made in Horeb either did or did not institute the duties of the moral law. 1. If it did institute them, then it enables you to prove that the Sabbath, with all the rest of the moral precepts in the Decalogue, was made for the Hebrews only. But this would prove that idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, false-witness and covetousness, as well as Sabbath-breaking, had not been wrong prior to that time, and were not then wrong for any other people than the Hebrews. 2. But if the covenant made in Horeb only authorized these moral duties, without creating them, then you have not in this text one fraction of proof that the Sabbath was made in Horeb for the Jews. Your proof here is an inference drawn from the fact that God then made a covenant with Israel:—But that covenant did not create the Sabbath, for it was in existence BEFORE the covenant was made. Ex. xvi.

But you think that Ex. xxxi, 16 confirms this view that the Sabbath was made with and for the Hebrews only. As the text does not say any thing of the kind, it is sufficient to answer, that this is only another inference which is quite too weak to establish the idea.

The language of Christ, that 'the Sabbath was made for man,' (standing in direct contradiction of your inferences to prove that it was made for the Hebrews only,) you attempt to get over by saying that Christ's testimony does not bear against your view, 'unless it can first be proved that the Israelites were not men.' Mark the contrast. Christ says 'the Sabbath was made for man.' You point to a fraction of the human family, and say that it was made for that fraction only, and that Christ's words do not show the contrary, unless I can prove that that fraction is not composed of men! How weak and unreasonable is such an assertion! How reasonable the statement, that it was made for Gentiles as well as Jews, unless it can be proved that Gentiles are not men. If you have any proof to offer that they are not men, it will help your case; if you have not, you stand in array against the statement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, simply shows that it designated them as the worshipers of the TRUE GOD in distinction from the nations around them who worshiped 'the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth.' Jer. x, 10—12; Eze. xx, 20.

The great stress laid on the language of the fourth commandment to prove that the Jews alone should keep it, shows how difficult a case you have undertaken. It is very true that the words, 'thou,' 'thy,' and 'thine,' do often occur; but had you taken the trouble to read the other commandments, you would have found precisely the same words often used. Notice in particular the fifth and the ninth commandments. If the word 'thy' and 'thine' restrict the duty enjoined in the fourth commandment to the Jews only, then they also restrict to them the duties enjoined in the other precepts. And as the term 'thy God' occurs five times in the Decalogue, it goes as far to prove that the God of the Bible is a Jewish God as it does to prove that the Sabbath of the Lord is a Jewish Sabbath.

But what is quite as remarkable, the two commandments, which you are pleased to admit as binding on all men in all ages, were given to the Jews as really as were the ten. And these use the same 'Jewish' pronoun quite as freely as that hard to be got rid of fourth commandment. 'THOU shalt love the Lord THY God with all THINE heart, and with all THY soul, and with all THY might.' 'THOU shalt love THY neighbor as THYSELF.'

You deem the language referred to as the most explicit, and unanswerable proof that the fourth commandment belonged to the Jews only, and that whosoever should teach differently exposes himself to the penalty of adding to the law of God.—Now don't be too strong. Whosoever, on this reasoning, shall assert that either of the two great principles, or any of the ten precepts that grow out of these principles, are binding on any other besides the Jews, exposes himself to the penalty of adding to the law. And inasmuch as God is said to be 'THY God' he must be 'the God of the Jews only, and not of the Gentiles also?'

But to determine who the 'thee' and 'thou' are to whom the law speaks, I inquire, To how many does the law speak? To the Jews only, or to all the family of fallen man? Paul answers:

'Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and ALL THE WORLD may become guilty before God.' Rom. iii, 19.

Our views of the two commandments, and the ten, are in harmony with the words of Christ, of Paul, and of James.—Matt. xxii, 35—40; Rom. xiii, 9; James ii, 8—12. Your statement that we contradict the words of Christ in Matt. xxii, 40, is false.—We regard these two great precepts, and the ten which grow out of them, as the Royal law of God. Your remark that 'the Decalogue is inapplicable as a universal and perpetual law,' and that it has given way to 'the unincumbered moral law,' was not intended, we presume, with reference to the statutes that forbid idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false-witness and covetousness. O no. But the precept embodying the Sabbath that was made for man at Creation, was Jewish, and had obtained a place in that 'holy, spiritual, just and good law,' to get rid of which, it was all abolished.

The Gentiles were amenable to the law of God or they were not. If they were not amenable to the law of God, then they must be regarded as moral beings, but accountable only to the gods of their own creating. But if they were amenable to the law of God, they were amenable to its fourth precept, the holy Sabbath.

To your remark respecting the existence of the Sabbath in the new earth, and your query whether wearisome labor will then exist, I answer that inasmuch as the prophet Isaiah, in speaking of the new earth, says that all flesh shall assemble from Sabbath to Sabbath to worship before Jehovah, we are decidedly of the opinion that it will exist in that holy state.—Nor does this imply that wearisome labor will then exist, any more than the statement of Ex. xxxi, 17, that the Great Creator rested on the seventh day and was refreshed, implies that he was wearied with his work of Creation.

The institution of the Sabbath is not affected by the fact that there will be nothing of the character of servile labor in the kingdom.

Not being able to discover any connection between your significant question, Whether the relation of wives would be perpetrated in the new earth? and the institution of the holy Sabbath, you are requested to point it out, if the question means any thing more than a sneer.

Having noticed the inferences that you have drawn from the expression, 'The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers,' and from the words 'thee' and 'thy' in the fourth commandment, to prove that the Sabbath was made for none but the Hebrews, (what proof?) and shown that the first inference may be turned against any, or all of the commandments with equal propriety, and that the second inference bears no more against the fourth commandment than it does against the ten and the two, and that the law of God speaks to all the fallen race of Adam, so that 'thee' and 'thou' is not limited to the sons of Jacob, I inquire, Are not 'Great truths plainly stated?' And are not these inferences contemptible and quite too weak to bear their own weight?

In order to strengthen those inferences, you make some effort to redeem several objections, urged by yourself at the first, against the universal observance of the Sabbath. It is with evidence of this kind that 'the disputers of this world' are able (in their own estimation) to prove the impossibility of the resurrection of the body.

In answering your first objection, viz: that the Sabbath law forbids the kindling of a fire on that day, I pointed you to the fact that nothing of the kind is found in the grand Sabbath law, the fourth commandment, which is a part of the royal law. And that the hand-writing of ordinances, which regulates this matter, and also shows what offerings should be made on that day &c., was designed only for a particular people in a particular country. You request me to look at what you are pleased to call a 'correction' of my 'perversion' of the royal law. Your request was complied with in my first letter, and your so-called correction shown to be a flagrant perversion of my words.

The next thing at which you catch is the idea that those who live in the polar regions have half a year of sunshine, and then a half year of darkness, and that if they followed the Sabbath law, they must count this but one day, so that a Sabbath could occur but once in seven years. This idea you think is admitted by me, in my saying that it is doubtless the scripture method to regulate our time by the sun, instead of Palestine, and thus to keep the seventh day as it comes to us.

This you think proves that those who live in the polar regions would have a Sabbath only once in seven years, and we in the same time would have 384. Surely, this circumstance

is ample proof that the Sabbath is a local institution, and every body ought to be satisfied of this!