THE SABBATH by John Nevins Andrews

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jun 10, 1852

THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

LETTERS TO O. R. L. CROZIER.—NO. III.

DEAR SIR:—The remarks with which you open your third article, do not seem to be much to the point. Very few of those who do not love the fourth commandment will object to reading whatever may be written to show that the commandments are abolished; and if it be such a fearful heresy "to do and teach" the fourth, with all the other commandments, that those who are thus engaged will "fall from grace," (rather, have already fallen,) those of your readers who thus believe will rejoice to find some one zealous to put down such a delusion, and to shut that floodgate of error that the observance of the fourth commandment is so likely to open.

I say this from your point of view. But should it prove after all that it is a dangerous and fearful course to break the commandments, and to publicly teach men so, when our Lord did not come to destroy, but to fulfill them, and testifies that he had kept them, and utters a solemn warning against the act of breaking them and teaching men so, then an apology is indeed needed, not a slight excuse, but reasons of the strongest kind. The following retrospective paragraph exhibits your opinion of your own articles in an amusing light:

"We have followed the Review through the Old Testament, and, as we think the reader will admit, it has been routed in every position it has taken, and every position of ours it has attacked has been defended by plain Scripture and fair argument."

Such being your statement of the subject, it may not be out of place to revert briefly to the manner in which you have accomplished this triumphant refutation.

What gives your remarks a ludicrous aspect is the fact that though you have carefully kept my arguments out of sight of your readers in your reply thus far, you now request them to decide whether you have not perfectly routed the Review in every position it has taken. If you have been so careful to keep my arguments out of your own sight as you have to keep them out of the sight of your readers, you may perhaps suppose, as honestly as some of them, that nothing remains of my position, and that in every point it has been routed. But we will briefly recur to the argument as it stands thus far, and let that speak for itself:

1. My position on the first question is, that the seventh day became the holy Sabbath, or sanctified Rest-day of the Creator, at the close of the first week of time, when he rested from his work of creation on that day and hallowed it.

2. Your position on the same question is, that the seventh day became the holy Sabbath, or sanctified Rest-day of the Lord, in the wilderness of Sin, though you are not able to point to any act that made it such, save the statement of Moses on the sixth day, "Tomorrow is the rest of the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord."—To look at particulars:

1. You attempt to "rout" the position of the Review, that the seventh day became the Sabbath of the Lord when he rested upon it and hallowed it, because that Moses in recording that fact in Gen. ii does not there use the word Sabbath. But Moses in giving us the words of the Decalogue, where the account of the week of Creation is rehearsed by Jehovah, expressly applies the term to the seventh day at that time.—Light a thing as it may be to rout the Review, it is a fearful position to deny the plain and unequivocal language of Almighty God.

2. You object to the institution of the holy Sabbath at the time when Jehovah "consecrated" and "set apart to a holy use" the day of his rest, because that an express precept for its observance is not also recorded. But this objection bears with equal weight against nine of the ten commandments. As we find but one of the precepts of the Decalogue existing as a precept in the sacred record prior to the departure from Egypt, we may with propriety say that men in that period had the same right to indulge in idolatry and blasphemy, that they had to profane that day which Jehovah had consecrated, and set apart to a holy use.

3. But as God's act of sanctifying and hallowing his Rest-day means something, you undertake to explain it away by introducing Heb. iv, which does not speak of any such act. Would it not be better to believe Ex. xx, 8—11, which makes that event the foundation of Sabbathic observance?

4. But the Sabbath is not mentioned in the history of the patriarchs, which you say "makes the conclusion inevitable that it was not known during that period."—Its institution is given before the patriarchs existed, [Gen. ii, 1—3; Ex. xx, 8—11,] and the fact that it is not afterward mentioned in the brief record of Moses in Genesis, is no evidence that it did not exist; and certainly it is not more remarkable than that it should not be mentioned from the days of Joshua to the days of David, a period of some hundred years in which it was enforced by the penalty of death.

5. As you have not deigned to answer the scriptural testimony presented to show that you had misapplied Col. ii, and as you state that I have nothing to offer on the point but assertions, the reader is requested for the sake of brevity, to turn to that part of my first letter to you that speaks on the point. Your professed candor can there be seen in the true light.

6. Having exposed your perversion of my remarks on James ii, I pass it, and state briefly that James not only quotes a part of the ten commandments in giving his account of the royal law, but declares that he who violates one has become guilty of all.—Your position is, however, that the royal law means only the precept named in verse 8, and is not the same law that is acknowledged in verses 9—12.—And all this in the face of your own position that there is but one law!

7. In your report of the Bible class, you stated that the Testimony (not then in existence) was spoken of IN THE WILDERNESS OF SIN "even more familiarly than the Sabbath." In reviewing you I pointed out the fact that Ex. xvi could not have been written until about forty years after the departure from Egypt, as it contains a record of events extending through that entire period. Verse 35. So that its mention of what finally became of the manna, [verse 34,] furnishes no proof whatever that the Testimony was even thought of in the wilderness of Sin. Instead of confessing that you have made a false statement, you try to evade the point by saying that I have not disproved the statement "that the Testimony is spoken of IN Ex. xvi even more familiarly than the Sabbath."—This had not been the point between us, but it is a good illustration of your manner of defending your position "by plain scripture and fair argument."

8. Your effort to explain away the voluntary act of preparation for the seventh day, on the part of the people, [Ex. xvi,] by introducing two miracles, needs not to be stated again. Its folly is sufficiently "manifest." Your attempt to prove from Ex. xvi that God made the seventh day his holy Rest-day in the wilderness of Sin, having been exposed in detail, that I be not tedious, I will request the reader to refer to that part of my communication to you, as I have taken pains to state your argument as well as my refutation, a thing which you carefully avoid.

9. In your remark on Ex. xx, you state that the time "when the Sabbath was instituted" is a "very plain matter." In this I agree with you. Had it not been such, I am sure that J. B. Cook in his sermon, May 9th, against the observance of the holy Sabbath, would not have stated:—"I present you the original institution of the Sabbath. It is found in Gen. ii."—I was much struck with the remark. Were you not also?

10. To be as brief as possible, I ask, Why, in your act of "routing" the Review, did you not explain away the direct evidence of Ex. xx, 11, that God hallowed the Sabbath at Creation?

11. As space forbids an extended mention of all the points that you have "routed," I ask you to look over the several inferences which you have presented from Deut. v, and from the rudiments of the world, the tradition of men and not after Christ, and at their exposure in the Review, and then answer me, Have you any thing here that you will point to as "plain scripture and fair argument?"

12. In concluding our discussion on the first two questions as stated by yourself, I inquire, Is it not a scriptural, legitimate and unavoidable conclusion, that God sanctified the Sabbath at Creation "for the Man?" Gen. ii, 1—3; Ex. xx, 11; Mark ii, 27.

The third question, as stated by yourself, is, "Does the New Testament require us, as Christians, to keep the Sabbath?" You request that inasmuch as all are, or have been from education, prejudiced in favor of the Sabbath, that they will lay this aside, so that should they find that it will not endure the rigid ordeal of the Bible, and

tion in general, and of each of its ten articles in particular, I have no occasion to resort to 'silly expedients' to obscure the light of truth. I thank God that I was enabled to expose 'the silly expedients' to which you resorted in your Bible class report, to prove that Christ and his apostles broke the Sabbath. A few of these will be noticed in their place. You speak of the Review as follows:

'Its nice discriminations about the law of God and the law of Moses are all fancied; as though God and Moses had separate interests in the Bible!'

Had you done me the justice to use the terms that were used by me, and then have shown that they meant one and the same thing, you would not have struck like one beating the air. My expressions were scriptural: 'The hand-writing of ordinances' is abolished; 'the royal law' remaineth. You are requested to prove that these are but one law, or else to take back your assertion.

It is very true that circumcision was called an everlasting covenant between God and the posterity of Abraham; and the like expressions are used with reference to other ceremonies. But it was not made for man at Creation as was the Sabbath; it was not one of the holy, just and spiritual laws which Jehovah spake from heaven, and which composed his constitution. Consequently there is no propriety in classing circumcision with the Sabbath of Jehovah. The sign of circumcision was given to Abraham, as a seal of the righteousness of his faith, when he was yet uncircumcised, that he might be the father of those that should believe even though they should not be circumcised.—Thus this rite itself showed that the time would come when it would not be required.

You assert that 'the language of the New Testament abolishing the Sabbath is more abundant and explicit than that abolishing circumcision.'—Let us contrast the statement of the New Testament respecting circumcision, with one of the most prominent texts urged by no-Sabbath teachers against the fourth commandment. Paul speaks of circumcision as follows: 'If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing.' Gal. v, 2. This testimony is very 'explicit.' Now we will look at Rom. xiv, 5, which you think refers to the observance of Jehovah's Sabbath. It reads thus: 'One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.'—Now admitting that Paul in Rom. xiv is classing the abolition of the fourth article of God's constitution, with the abolition of those carnal ordinances which stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings, (a thing in the highest degree unreasonable and absurd,) I ask, Can you not perceive a vast difference between the expression, 'Christ shall profit you nothing,' and the direction, 'Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind?'

In order to avoid the absurdity of teaching that God abolished his law and then re-enacted it, you say that God abolished that which was written on the tables of stone, 'but that did not necessarily involve the abolition of every precept in it that had existed before the period referred to.' The idea that the ten commandments could be abolished, and yet a part of the ten still remain in force, seems to be somewhat original with you.

Let us look at the idea a moment. Prior to the account of the departure from Egypt, we find but one of the precepts of the Decalogue recorded in the scripture, as a direct commandment. Gen. ix, 5, 6. But the existence of all those holy principles from Creation to Sinai you will not deny, the Sabbath precept excepted, as it is indispensably necessary to have them exist in this dispensation, some how or other.

Now if nine of the ten commandments could survive the abolition of the Decalogue, Why cannot the Sabbath, which was instituted at Creation, survive that abolition also? And if the abolition of the Decalogue (a thing that never yet was proved) leaves a part of the ten commandments still in force, the fourth commandment may be one of them. And if God could abolish the ten commandments and yet nine of them remain unabolished, Why cannot ten?

When any evidence is presented to prove that God has abolished a part of his constitution, and modified perpetuity of the Sabbath, necessarily grows out of its institution before the fall of man.

7. As the fourth commandment is, according to the statement of your Bible class report, one of the ten precepts that composed 'the constitution' of the great Jehovah, it abides until that constitution is abolished, and another established in its stead.

8. In conclusion, I ask, How much stronger are the last six commandments which Jesus quoted, than are the first four which he did not directly quote, inasmuch as (according to your view) they have since that all been abolished together?

From these facts, and many others which will be noticed hereafter, we conclude that the fourth precept of God's great CONSTITUTION stands on the same foundation with the other nine; and that they all abide until the Infinite Jehovah abolishes his constitution and forms another in its stead.

The second statement on which you rely as proof that the fourth commandment is abolished, is this:

'It [the New Testament] does not name Sabbath-breaking as a sin.'

Your attention is invited while the amount of proof contained in this statement is weighed.

1. That the sin of Sabbath-breaking is not named in the catalogues of sins in the New Testament, is only inferential proof that it is no sin to violate the fourth commandment and to 'teach men so.'

2. The New Testament does not present these catalogues of sins as complete lists; for some omit to name many grievous sins, and all omit to name some that are very heinous. Witness the sins of slave-holding and of Polygamy, both of which were common in the days of our Lord and his apostles, and certainly very out-breaking.

3. But mark! There is a standard somewhere by which these acts are shown to be sins. God has erected such a standard; and the New Testament points us to it, as nothing else than that holy law which you are trying to prove abolished. Hear the beloved disciple; 'SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.' 1 John iii, 4. Now hear Paul tell how sin is made manifest: 'BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN'. Rom. iii, 20. Hear him again: 'I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN BUT BY THE LAW.' Rom. vii, 7, 13. This is the only standard by which sin is shown. It is the embodiment of God's own principles of holiness, and it is therefore perfect. It is enough that the apostles have told us what the standard is by which sin is shown; we take this standard, and tell any man who breaks either the first, second, fourth, or eighth commandment he is a sinner, and 'the wages of sin is death.' Rom. vi, 23. Your third statement reads as follows:

'What if [the New Testament] says on the subject goes to show that the Sabbath was abrogated with the law of Moses.'

This statement lays the subject open for discussion. You affirm; I deny.—You commence by objecting to, and finding fault with the remarks of the Review on the question as stated by yourself. You think that they are uncandid and were made to forestall fair investigation by changing the point at issue. In this you are entirely mistaken. They were made to call attention to the fact that until the abolition of the ten commandments is proved, we are not under obligation to show the re-enactment of a single precept.

We have never claimed that the New Testament enacts the fourth commandment a second time. We deny that it was the design of the New Testament to re-enact the holy, just, spiritual and perfect law of God; but on the contrary, that law having shown the whole world to be condemned and guilty before God, the New Testament comes in to present a hope of pardon, without dishonoring God or making void his law. And that the New Testament in offering pardon to fallen, guilty man, does it for the very reason that the law of God condemns the whole world, and shows all mankind guilty before God, and exposed to his wrath, Rom. iii. Instead of assuming that whatever is not re-enacted in the New Testament, is not binding, you are requested to prove the abolition of the commandments of God, or else to render obedience to them.

I can assure you, that having the utmost confidence in the perpetuity and immutability of God's constitution

particularly of the New Testament, it can be cast away in the category of immortal-soulism, &c. (It happens, however, that this prejudice is in favor of that day which 'the Popes sabbatized,' and is strongly against the day which was made the Sabbath by the Creator.) You think it 'honorable and Christian' to cast away error for the truth, and very dishonorable to cling to an error through pride of opinion, when convinced that it is such.—Very good, I think just so.

Now I will test you. Will you be 'honorable and Christian' enough to confess that God sanctified his Sabbath at Creation for THE man, which is a 'great truth plainly stated,' or will you through pride of opinion cling to your unwarrantable inferences which have been already exposed, and affirm that God made the Sabbath near Horeb for the Hebrews only?

We believe in the 'one Law-giver, [Jehovah,] who is able to save and to destroy.' James iv, 12. And that from him emanated the great 'CONSTITUTION.' Ex. xx. But we do not believe that either the servant, or the Son, ever set aside or abolished the constitution of Jehovah.

You make a statement of several points, which you think show conclusively that Christians are not under obligation to keep the fourth commandment. The first point presented by yourself is this:

'The New Testament does not command any to keep the Sabbath-day.'

Now let us weigh this assertion, and judge respecting its real character.

1. The fourth commandment was given by God the Father, at the same time and under the same circumstances that the precept 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' was given. Hence until its abolition is proved, it abides in force as the commandment of the Father, and needs re-enactment no more than do the precepts, Thou shalt have no other gods before me; Thou shalt not bow down to graven images; Thou shalt not blaspheme, &c.

2. But while our Lord does not quote the words of either of the first four commandments, (our duty to God,) but repeats verbatim only the last six, (our duty to our neighbor,) he does in the most solemn manner teach the duty of keeping, not merely the ones quoted, but the whole of them. After saying that he had not come to destroy but to fulfill them, and that till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle should in no wise pass till all be fulfilled, he adds: 'Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' Matt. v, 19.

3. When Jesus was asked the way to enter eternal life, he answered, 'If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments,' referring directly to the ten. There is no way that you can get the fourth excepted, unless you take the ground that when Christ proceeded to call the young man's attention to the commandments in which he was specially deficient, (his duty to his fellow man,) those which he did not name were not binding; but this would leave out the whole of the first four, (our duty to God.) Matt. xix, 16—22.

4. But lest you should say that Jesus gave this direction respecting the entrance into life eternal, before the commandments of the Father were abolished, I ask you to hear this same Alpha and Omega, in the year 96, lay down the condition of entering into life. Mark, it is Jesus that speaks the words of Rev. xxii, 13—16, and he speaks not of his own commandments, but of 'his,' the Father's: 'Blessed are they that do HIS commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.'

5. The validity of the fourth commandment is recognized this side of the crucifixion. The women that followed our Lord to the tomb returned and 'rested the Sabbath-day' (not in an ignorant, presumptuous or superstitious manner, but) 'according to the commandment,' which says, 'Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.'

6. The institution of the holy Sabbath in Eden, having been clearly established, I here remind you of a statement in your second article, that the endless

a portion of the remainder, it shall be duly considered. If the subject of keeping the commandments of God and the duties of refraining from idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, false witness &c., was the theme of Paul's discourse in Rom. xiv; Col. ii, there would be some propriety in concluding that God's Rest-day, which stands associated with these commandments, was there referred to. As his subject is the use of meats, drinks &c., it is an unwarrantable inference that his language refers to the Sabbath made for man, as it manifestly refers to the sabbaths, feasts and new moons of the hand-writing of ordinances. You continue:

"The Review says: 'Please notice, he passes over Matt. v, 17—19, where our Lord in his first sermon speaks out in distinct terms on the real point at issue.' Where in that sermon does our Lord 'speak out in distinct terms on the Sabbath? for that is the only 'point at issue.' The Sabbath is not once named nor alluded to in that whole sermon: Yet the Review finds it there 'in distinct terms!' Just so it finds in the 'royal law.' James ii, 8. Dear reader, dare you trust such an expositor of the word of God? That cause must be desperate that needs such support, and fearful, fearful will be his account who lends it."

Your attention is called to the subject while I briefly notice the above:

1. In my review of your Bible class report, I called attention to the fact that the abolition or the perpetuity of the commandments of God, was the real question in the New Testament; and that it was not whether the New Testament re-enacted the fourth commandment or not. Consequently, I remarked with reference to your first argument in the New Testament as follows: "Please notice, he passes over Matt. v, 17—19 where our Lord in his first sermon speaks out in distinct terms on the real point at issue, and begins with the accusation of Sabbath-breaking, presented by the Pharisees, and refuted by Jesus Christ."—Our Lord in the text cited, does speak in distinct terms respecting the perpetuity and immutability of the commandments of God; consequently your effort to ridicule the Review because the fourth commandment is not cited in particular, evinces a serious lack of sound argument.

2. James, in giving his account of the royal law in chap. ii, 8—12, introduces two of the original ten commandments, with a statement that he who should keep the whole law and yet fail in one precept, has become guilty of all. The way you get rid of this testimony respecting the commandments of God, is, I think, rather novel. You limit the royal law to the precept named in verse 8, and exclude the law and commandments named in verses 9—12. And while your unfortunate position compels you thus to wrest and mangle the word of truth, you elsewhere ridicule me for believing that the hand-writing of ordinances is distinct from the royal law. I cannot refrain from smiling, as I read your pathetic warning to your dear readers, to put them on their guard against what I may write. But I have sufficient respect for them to believe that it will not throw dust enough in their eyes to prevent them from seeing your real dilemma. As you and I shall be judged by this law in the day of God, [verse 12,] we shall then be convinced whether it is a light thing to violate one of its precepts or not.

In exposing your effort to prove from Matt. xii, that Christ justified the violation of the fourth commandment, I used the following language:

"In order to aid the mind of the reader, and also to make C. speak out plain, we offer him one of three positions:

Christ excused his disciples by referring to others who had done wrong. (A poor excuse truly.)
Or the law had always been relaxed, changed, superseded, or abolished. (Then it was not relaxed by Christ.)
Or the acts of the priests, the act of David, and the acts of the disciples, were not, under the circumstances in which they were placed, contrary to the law of God.

The first two positions being too absurd to need refutation, all must agree upon the third. Now look at the facts in the case. What said the law of God respecting the Sabbath? 'Six days shalt thou labor,"

and do all THY work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.' Were the priests in their act of offering up sacrifices upon the Sabbath, at work for themselves, or for God: Not for themselves, but to obey God. Num. xxviii, 9, 10. They were not doing what could be called 'thy work.' But had they been engaged in slaughtering animals for their own use on that day, would they have been guiltless then? Verily not. Look at the case of David. 1 Sam. xxi.—He was fleeing for his life from Saul, the king of Israel. 'He had need' and as an act of mercy 'for there was no bread there but the shew-bread,' the priest gave him of it to eat. This, as an act of mercy, was according to the law. 'The WEIGHTIER matters of the law' were 'judgment. MERCY and faith.' Matt. xxiii, 23. Under other circumstances, though not expressly forbidden, it would have been wrong. Christ appealed to these circumstances to show that the disciples in satisfying their hunger from the heads of wheat, were guiltless. Was there any chance 'to answer him again?' I trow not. But how 'unreasonable' it is for C. to insinuate from this chapter that any amount of labor would have been 'guiltless' on the part of the disciples. If David and the priests would, under other circumstances, have been blameless in acting as they did, then might C. offer this chapter as proof, not merely that the law was slacked up in the days of Jesus, but 'that it always had been.' Is it not 'hard for thee to kick against the pricks?' 'Mercy and not sacrifice' was not a new doctrine. Hos. vi, 6. It was one of the weightier matters of the law. Matt. xxiii, 23."

As a matter of curiosity to the reader I present your reply. Whether you have defended your position by 'plain scripture and fair argument,' or have dealt only in common-place assertion the reader will determine:

"Matt. xii, 1—8 does not present the only instance of apostolic disregard for the Sabbath: this is in keeping with the uniform treatment that institution received at the hands of Christ and his apostles whenever it came up for special notice. They always, when speaking of its authority, treat it as a superannuated institution. In its day, it could no more be disregarded with impunity than circumcision, or any other ordinance of that period: but its age was expiring and a better one was dawning, distinguished by institutions broader in their scope and more obviously merciful in their genius. Our Saviour seems some times to have almost sought opportunity, if not to violate, at least to expose and correct the Pharisees' superstitious veneration of the Sabbath."

Perhaps one or two remarks on the above may be in place.

1. According to yourself, Christ and his apostles, when speaking of the fourth article of God's constitution, treat it as a "superannuated" thing. We may conclude then, (if the reader can pardon what looks so much like blasphemy,) that the government of the Infinite Jehovah was, in the days of our Lord's ministry, in an unsettled state as his constitution was being abolished, and a broader and more merciful one about to be formed.

2. Once the fourth precept of the great constitution was of as much importance as circumcision and other ordinances; but its age was expiring and institutions BROADER and more merciful than the Sabbath which "was made FOR the man" at Creation, were to take its place. Is not the utterance of such sentiments as those, presumptuous trifling with the word of God?

3. Our Lord's exposure of the superstition of the Pharisees, is what you grasp as proof that he "almost sought opportunity" to show his disregard for the fourth commandment. John xv, 10. To break the commandments, and to teach men so, is fearful business, and needs some better apology than such assertions and inferences as those.—Your next remarks are as follows:

"If the Son of man was Lord of the Sabbath to 'cherish, protect and defend it,' as the Review says, why did not he and his apostles defend and enforce it? They speak of marriage, and enforce respect to the mutual duties and obligations of husband and wife; and not a word is said by which it could be inferred that they had become less stringent than formerly.—But the reverse is true of the Sabbath."

The following are the remarks of the Review to which you refer:

"The Son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath, even as the husband is the lord of his wife. See Mark ii, 27, 28; 1 Cor. xi, 9; 1 Pet. iii, 6; Gen. xviii, 12.—Not to abrogate, abolish,—put away, or destroy, but to cherish, protect, and defend. He is the Lord of his people—he is our Lord Jesus Christ. Not to abolish—not to abrogate—not to destroy us—but to lay down his own life for us, and to 'come again,' and take us to himself. Rom. xiv, 9; John xiv, 1—3.—'God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.'—Matt. xxii, 32. Jesus Christ is not the Lord of dead types and shadows, but of 'the lively oracles!'—Amen."

In taking leave of Matt. xii, we ask, Whether an act shown by our Lord Jesus Christ to be in accordance with that WEIGHTIER matter of the law, MERCY, and therefore no violation of the law, will justify C. in open, willful violation of the fourth commandment? If he be 'weighed in the balances' of Matt. xii, his own chosen scales, will he not be 'found wanting?'

To the above a few remarks should, perhaps, be added.

1. It was written in answer to the objection so often urged, that if our Lord was the Lord of the Sabbath, he certainly put it away and chose another, or else he abrogated and destroyed it. The facts cited above show that the term implies the reverse of all all this.

2. But our Lord did the same thing to the institution of the Sabbath, that he did to that of marriage. To correct the light esteem in which the Pharisees held the latter, he calls their attention to its original institution at Creation, and thence shows its real object and sacred character. Matt. xix, 3—8. To correct the superstitious austerities with which they had loaded the holy Sabbath, he points them to its original institution also, at Creation, in an answer that alike shuts the mouths of those who would cumber the Sabbath of Jehovah with superstitious observances, and of those on the other hand, who teach that it is one of the things AGAINST us and CONTRARY to us, which he took out of the way. Col. ii. "The Sabbath," says he, "was made FOR the man and not the man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27, 28. Satan has cared little whether men have added to, or made void the law of God.

3. Christ lays down the keeping of the commandments of God as the condition of entering eternal life. The fourth and the seventh are alike included. Matt. xix.

As you have made no effort to redeem the "expedients" to which you resorted in your Bible class report, to prove that Christ and his disciples violated the fourth article of God's constitution, I will, for the sake of brevity, pass over the rest of them, and request you to recur to the Review in which these expedients are exposed. Your concluding remarks on the Gospels are as follows:

"We have never 'charged Christ and his disciples with the sin of Sabbath-breaking.' The Pharisees did that to them, as the Review does to us; but it cannot quote the example of Christ or any of his disciples in making such a charge. As the time had come for the abrogation of the Sabbath, it was no more a sin to disregard it than to disregard circumcision and sacrifices; and as they were sometimes observed without sanctioning their perpetuity, so of the Sabbath. What is said in reference to the perpetuity or abrogation of either must decide that point."

Before quoting the language of the Review to which the above refers a few remarks may be in place:

1. You have attempted to prove that the disciples violated the fourth commandment, and that Christ justified them as its violators; and that the sin of Sabbath-breaking did not rest upon them, because it was no sin to violate the fourth commandment, though that commandment was not abolished till his death.

2. But the charge of breaking the fourth commandment, was made by the Pharisees against our Lord falsely: for I ask you as a candid man to answer the question, which of them convinced him of sin, (the transgression of the law,) or what one of their number was able to show that he had not kept his Father's commandments? John viii, 46; xv, 10.

3. But in grasping the accusation of the Pharisees as good and valid, (provided that our Lord held himself amenable to his Father's law,) and in over-looking his repeated declaration that what he did was lawful, (that is according to the law,) I ask, Do you not stand on the side of the Pharisees in their opposition to the Son of God?

4. Will you please listen to the words of the Apostle. 'Sin is the transgression of the law.' 1 John iii. Then that is its definition. 'By the law is the knowledge of sin.' Rom. iii. Then that is the way that it is made known. 'I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.' Rom. vii, 7. This is the testimony of Paul, years after the law is said to have been abolished. And he quotes from the ten commandments. Now if you openly and wilfully violate the first, second, third, fourth, or any of the commandments, Are you not a sinner, exposed to the penalty of the law—the wages of sin—which is the second death? Rom. vi, 23; Rev. xx, 14, 15.

5. If the law of God was not abolished until the death of our Lord, it was a sin to violate it before that time, as it was yet in force. But if it was abolished at the commencement of our Lord's ministry, Was it also abolished at his death? In your second article you informed your readers that Sabbath obligation terminated at the crucifixion; here you have it terminate at the commencement of Christ's ministry. As it is difficult to occupy two contradictory positions, Will you please to select the most tenable one? If the 'time had come for the abrogation of the Sabbath' at the commencement of our Lord's ministry, Will you prove the point by plain Scripture and fair argument?

6. It is worthy of notice that your concluding remark states the question in the very form for which I contended.

In conclusion I append the words of the Review to which you refer:

'We take leave of the position of C. relative to the Gospels, with these remarks:

Christ came to 'magnify the law, and make it honorable,' [Isa. xlii, 21,] but he relaxed its obligation, even before God had abolished (!) it!
He 'came to fulfill' the law, yet justified the violation of its fourth precept!!
He did more against the law than its worst enemy could have done; for while it was, yet in existence, (as all must admit,) he justified its violation, and then relaxed its claims so that it could not take hold on its transgressor.
James says that whosoever 'shall fail with respect to one precept hath become guilty of all.' [Macknight.] Jesus himself failed with respect to the fourth commandment and became guilty of all!!!
'Sin is the transgression of the law.' According to C. [note also John ix, 24,] Jesus was a sinner. But according to the beloved disciple, 'In him is no sin.' 1 John iii, 4, 5.

But as it was a mistaken notion with the Pharisees in regarding the 'mint, anise, and cummin' of the law, as above its 'weightier matter,' 'MERCY,' that led them to make these charges against him who had kept his 'Father's commandments,' and had ever done 'those things that please him,' we ask if C. may not be laboring under a similar mistake?—Whether or not that which C. has presented from the Gospels, will cause Jehovah to 'have him excused' from obeying the fourth commandment, is now submitted to the reader.'

In view of what has been said thus far from the New Testament, I submit to you the following question: Did our Lord keep the commandments and teach men so, or did he violate them and teach others so to do? J. N. ANDREWS. Rochester, N. Y., June 1852.