Earlier text: Remarks of O. R. L. Crozier on the Institution, Design and Abolition of the Sabbath1. "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." 2. But the sixth commandment embodied in this covenant, was expressly given to Noah and to his posterity, Gen. ix, 6. 3. Therefore the moral duties embodied in the holy law of God (which was the condition, or terms of agreement of the covenant Ex. xix; xx) may have been binding before they were given in this most solemn manner. The covenant made (if you wish me so to speak) "for the Hebrews" in Horeb, either did, or did not, institute the duties of the moral law. 1. If it did institute them, then it enables C. to prove that the Sabbath, with all the rest of the moral precepts in the law of God, 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 this, and were not then wrong for "any other people than the Hebrews." This is every way as absurd as it would be to obey the fourth commandment. 2. But if the covenant made at Horeb ONLY EMBODIED those moral duties WITHOUT creating them, then C. has not in this text, ONE FRACTION OF proof that the Sabbath was made in Horeb for the Jews. The reader will notice that the idea of C. is a mere 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. [See Ex. xvi.] And with the established fact before us, that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation, how absurd and ridiculous is the idea that it was made at Sinai "for the Hebrews!" Because God saw fit to make a distinct revelation of his moral law to Israel, and to make a covenant with them, on condition that they would keep it, [Ex. xix; xx,] the law of God is in no wise affected by the question, whether they kept that covenant or not. Nor does the fact, that when the new covenant based on better promises is made, when God shall put his law in the heart of his people, prove, that it shall then be abolished. It proves that it shall then be in existence. Amen. The question whether the fourth commandment pertained merely to the Jews, or alike to all men, really grows out of another, viz: Did the law of God pertain merely to the Jews, or did it actually pertain to all men? for the fourth commandment is as broad as the others. If the law of God was confined to the Jews, then the Gentiles were not amenable to it. But "where there is no law, there is no transgression." And the Gentiles around them must be considered as moral beings, but not accountable to any higher authority than that of their kings! But what then should we make of that statement of Paul, that those who had not the written law had "the work of the law written in their hearts?" [Rom. ii.] Or of his testimony, that, though the Jews had the advantage in that "the oracles of God" were committed to them, yet by the law the whole world was condemned and shown to be guilty before God. [Rom. iii.] But if C. should admit that the Gentiles were amenable to the law of God, then we add, the fourth commandment is an important part of that law. Having noticed the inferential testimony presented by C. we now proceed to examine that which is "direct and positive," "plain Bible testimony." It is of the same nature as that which the Sadducees presented to our Lord to disprove the resurrection, and which Prof. Bush has used to show the impossibility of such an event. The argument of the Sadducees is familiar to all. [Matt. xxii, 23—25.] Those who have read Bush's Anastasia, will recollect that he presents "unanswerable" objections to a literal resurrection of the body! He proceeds to demonstrate from a great number of ingeniously devised "considerations," that such an event is absolutely impossible! (For he knows not the Scriptures nor the power of God.) While obedient faith has ever said "Speak Lord thy servant heareth," and has ever regarded a divine requirement as quite too sacred to be trifled with, or to be explained away; but it has ever been the part of unbelief to cavil at, and by some means evade what God has said. We will present a summary of the "considerations" by which he proves that the Sabbath of the Lord "was not adapted to all climates and latitudes, therefore it could not have been designed for universal man," but was instituted for the Hebrews in the land of Palestine. Fires were forbidden, without which it would be impossible to live in some climates; near the poles the sun rises and sets but once a year, so that the sun (the only guide in the Sabbath law) would give them but one Sabbath in seven years—day and night comprising a whole year there, and it would be impossible to regulate the time by clocks to correspond to Palestine—and finally a day may be gained or lost by circumnavigating the globe to the east, or to the west! We cannot forbear to repeat the old adage that "Necessity is the mother of invention." What could not be found in the word of God to show that the Sabbath was made merely for the Jews, to be kept in Palestine only, is abundantly proved by "these considerations!" "Fire was not to be kindled on the Sabbath." Was that a part of Jehovah's "royal law," or was it a part of the "hand-writing of ordinances" containing directions "for a particular people" to observe in a "particular country?" It is given in connection with the penalty of temporal death for a violation of God's Sabbath, and also in connection with directions respecting the Tabernacle, and evidently pertains to none but the Hebrews. (The distinction between "the hand-writing of ordinances," and "the royal law," also the fact that the real penalty of the law was the second death, will be noticed in their place.) This direction was not burdensome to them in that land. As well might it be said, because they were directed to make extra offerings on that day, and as these offerings were not to be observed by other people, that the Sabbath was not designed for the Gentiles. But had C. "rightly divided the word of truth," he would have put some difference between the holy and the profane, and not have hid his eyes from God's Sabbath. One of the great ideas of the grand Sabbath Law, the fourth Commandment, is MERCY; and it is as much the act of mercy to kindle a fire in this climate as it was for the Pharisees to pull an ox from a pit, and it is less labor. 2. Relative to the people that have but "one Sabbath in seven years," we ask whether this statement made by C. was in sober earnest, or thrown in for effect. Look at the Sabbatic law. We are to work six days because God made heaven and earth in six days—not in six thousand years—nor yet in six years; and we are to rest the seventh day—not a thousand years—nor yet one year, but one day, just as God did. That is the guide, "given in the Sabbath law." The first three days of the Creation week were reckoned without any sun. When the plagues were poured out on Egypt there were three days of total darkness. These according to the view of C. made but one long night! And there is yet to be in the fearful scene before us, a period when the vials of unmixed wrath from Jehovah's temple, shall be poured out on the worshippers of the Beast, and of his Image, and on those who have his Mark, when the kingdom of the Beast shall be full of darkness, and they shall gnaw their tongues for pain. But we ask, may not time be reckoned even then, by those to whom "the plagues shall not come near"—could it not be reckoned in Egypt—was it not reckoned in the week of Creation? And finally, Cannot Sunday be reckoned in the polar regions, or do men who have spent a year there, reckon it but one day? We notice two methods of reckoning time: (1.) By the sun. This would lead us to keep the seventh day AS it comes to us. (2.) To regulate our time by Palestine. This would lead us to keep the Sabbath in part BEFORE the seventh day should come to us. The first is doubtless the scripture method; let either be correct, it can be followed.—(See articles in "Review and Herald" Vol. 1, Nos. 9, and 12, "The time of the Sabbath.") 3. Relative to circumnavigating the globe, we ask C. a question: Suppose that men were able to encompass the globe with the speed of a telegraphic despatch; suppose they could, for instance be able to encompass it twenty-four times in one day, and thus gain twenty-three days, we ask how much weight such a circumstance would have in deranging dates?—How much weight would it have in deranging his or your reckoning of Sunday? Verily none at all. It is doubtless very difficult to keep God's Sabbath in the polar regions, (it is here,) but it is not difficult to keep the day of apostolic "preference" either there or in circumnavigating the globe! When you are called to circumnavigate the globe or to visit the polar regions we will try to aid you further; till then we earnestly suggest the propriety of your obeying God. We turn from the "oppositions of science, falsely so called," and listen to the "Scriptures of truth." The Holy One of Israel hath spoken on this point: "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. Then if the Holy One of Israel with whom a lie is impossible be credited, we may consider one point established. When the dominion of Christ is from sea to sea, and from the river to the end of the earth, and the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, shall have been given to the people of the saints of the Most High, ALL FLESH shall come to worship before Jehovah from Sabbath to Sabbath, and from new moon to new moon. Then it is possible for the human family to observe the Sabbath over the whole globe! We appeal to C. if it be not so! All flesh will have the Sabbath and the Tree of Life, as first designed, both of which were made before the fall. The Tree of Life shall yield86its fruit every month, and thus shall its fruit be ready for those who shall come up from one new moon to another. Greatly indeed, must that heart be changed that fights God's Sabbath now, before it can be admitted to enter where the whole family of the redeemed shall observe it, and have free access to the Tree of Life. Fully do we coincide with the words of Jesus, the "Alpha and Omega;" "Blessed are they that do his (the Father's) commandments, that they may have right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through the gates into the City." Rev. xxii, 13—16. C. having presented a groundless inference, and an amount of "philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ," we inquire, Does not the word of God contain some better answer than all this?—Yea verily. The beloved Son of God has told us for whom the Sabbath was made, and his testimony would not have been disregarded, and an inference from the words of Moses chosen in its stead, were it not for the vain hope of making the "Servant" contradict the "Son." Jesus was with the Father at Creation, [John i, 1—3] he is competent to testify. The Father says of him, "This is my beloved Son, HEAR him." We respond, Amen. He testifies in so many words; (his testimony is ultimate truth;) "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark ii, 27; 1 Cor. xi, 9. Now look at one or two Bible instances of such expressions. "Man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more." Job xiv, 12. "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man." 1 Cor. x, 13. "It is appointed unto men once to die." Heb. ix, 27. We offer the following grammatical rule from Barrett's Principles of English Grammar, p. 29. A noun without an adjective is invariably taken in its broadest extension, as: "Man is accountable." With the following points we submit the second question: 1. All flesh shall yet come to worship before Jehovah on the Sabbath.—God the Father. 2. The Sabbath was made for man.—Son of God. "3. Does the New Testament require us, as Christians, to keep the Sabbath day?" The artful manner in which this question is stated, is worthy the admiration of all Sophists. We have seen that the Sabbath was sanctified at Creation—made for man—embodied in Jehovah's royal law. The question before us therefore is not, Does the New Testament re-enact the fourth, or any other of the commandments? but it is this, Does the New Testament abolish the law of God, and give us another in its place? The burden of proof therefore belongs to the opponents of the fourth commandment. For God having enacted his holy law and proclaimed it in person, it is the part of its opponents to show that it is abolished; not the part of its friends to show its re-enactment. We believe in its perpetuity and immutability, not in the re-enactment of any part of it. For it is not like God to abolish a law and then re-enact it! This is something that he never yet did. The laboring oar is then in the hand of C. Witness the effort which he makes to escape from the fourth commandment. He shows how lightly God the Father had ever regarded his Sabbath; he shows that the Lord Jesus Christ, the disciples, the holy women, who "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment," and the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, all disregarded the Sabbath! And all of the above named, Paul and his company excepted, disregarded it before it was abolished! Apostolic preference for the first day of the week is then proved from Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2. He then proves from 2 Cor. iii that the ten commandments were all abolished, and then all but the Sabbath commandment are introduced into the new covenant! Then Rom. xiv is brought forward to prove that there is no difference in days, each being at liberty to keep, or to refrain from keeping, any day he pleases. The distinction between the royal law and the hand-writing of ordinances is next disproved! He sums up his argument and concludes with a chapter of Sabbath keepers' absurdities! It is not without a serious effort that he excuses himself from keeping the fourth commandment. The attention of the reader is called to his excuses, while we weigh them in the scales of truth. Will they screen him from wrath in the day when "the penalty of the law" shall be inflicted on "every soul of man that doeth evil,"—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 accusations of Sabbath breaking, presented by the Pharisees, and refuted by Jesus Christ. "On this question Matt. xii, 1—8 was first read. The Pharisees accused the disciples to the Saviour of breaking the Sabbath day; and he excused them by referring to David's eating the shew-bread when he had need, and to the priest's customary profanation of the Sabbath by doing more labor on that day than on any other (Num. xxviii. 5, 10.) and tells the Pharisees that if they had understood the great doctrine of 'mercy' which he came to establish, they would not have condemned the 'guiltless.'—He pronounced his disciples guiltless in doing what they did, and does not say but they would have been equally guiltless in doing any amount of labor." In order to aid the mind of the reader, and also to make C. speak out plain, we offer him one of three positions: 1. Christ excused his disciples by referring to others who had done wrong. (A poor excuse truly.) 2. Or the law had always been relaxed, changed, superseded, or abolished. (Then it was not relaxed by Christ.) 3. 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 shewbread," 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. "Instead of affirming, even by implication, the Sabbath law, all he says goes to relieve them from its obligations. He says he is greater than the temple, hence has a right to change or supersede its ceremonies; and that he is Lord even of the Sabbath-day, hence has a right to dispose of it as he pleases—even to abrogate it—he and his disciples are not subject to it. It is not recorded that either he or his disciples refrained from doing any thing on the seventh day because it was the Sabbath, except the women who delayed going to anoint his body till the Sabbath was over; but they probably did this more from fear of the Jews than for reverence for that day; for Jesus and his disciples often did more than that on that day. He healed on the Sabbath-day and commanded the healed to carry their beds, and justified his conduct by saying, "my Father worketh hitherto and I work; as if he had said, my Father is not subject to the Sabbath law neither am I; and as he is so are his disciples." We have already shown that there was no act of relaxing or destroying the "Sabbath of the Lord," on the part of Jesus. He justified the disciples on the same ground that he justified the priests in the temple, and David's act of eating the shew-bread; so that the law was no more relaxed or slacked up then, than it always had been! The fourth commandment was no more a temple ceremony than were the other nine! But even with the temple ceremonies Jesus did not meddle; he was not a priest upon earth; his priesthood which was to "supersede" the Levitical, did not commence till his ascension. Heb. viii. 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 or 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 wilful 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?" "It is not recorded that either he, or his disciples, refrained from doing any thing on the seventh day because it was the Sabbath." (Witness the art used here; why did he not show where they ever violated the fourth commandment?) But we ask where is it recorded that they refrained from theft out of respect to the eighth commandment? Nay is it not written that one of the twelve was a thief? John xii, 6. How far would that fact go to show that he relaxed the eighth commandment? He repeated it indeed, as he did all the commandments on the second table, but we inquire respecting his acts. Why not prove from John viii, 11; Matt. xxi, 31, that Jesus relaxed the seventh commandment? Or from Luke xiv, 26, that he relaxed the fifth? We regret that the Sabbath is so far from being a "delight" to C., [Isa. lviii, 13,] that he even calls in question the motives of those who observe it!—The holy women did not keep the commandment because they wished to obey God. O no—it was "from fear of the Jews." We have read, indeed, that the disciples were once assembled on the first day of the week with closed doors "for fear of the Jews," [John xx, 19,] but of the women who were fearless enough to follow their Lord at an hour when his disciples forsook him and fled, it is recorded that they "rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment." Whether an outward act "for fear of the Jews" would be "according to the commandment," may be judged from reading the commandment itself. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." The holy women kept the fourth commandment—the Holy One and the Just had done no less. John viii, 29, 46. Jesus "healed on the Sabbath-day!" True he did. Was it not "lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day?" Luke xiv, 1—6. Nay was it not in an eminent degree proper, that the day which was hallowed for man, should be honored with the most of his merciful acts? We can hardly refrain from expressing the opinion, that, had the first day of the week been thus honored, C. would have urged that consideration in its behalf! Jesus directed a man to carry his bed on the Sabbath. Very good. This, like the work of the priests on the Sabbath, was not an act of his own pleasure or profit. The carrying of the bed, considered as a burden, was a mere trifle. That it was not such a burden as God had forbidden may be seen by comparing Jer. xvii, 21—27; Neh. xiii, 15—20. But God the Father highly esteemed the Sabbath-day. "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." How had God the Father worked hitherto? By his acts of Providence, and by the acts of his mercy continued to the human family, as well on the Sabbath as on other days. The earth continues its revolution on its axis, and in its orbit; the moon also, and the planets continue their usual course, impelled by the power of God; the rain falls, vegetation continues its growth as usual, and God watches over, and preserves the lives of men. These acts may in the estimation of C. show Jehovah's total disregard for his Sabbath, but we ask if so, did they not also on the first seventh day of time, albeit it is said he rested? Jehovah's own language, however, may be read in "the Scripture of the prophets." Isa. lvi; lviii; Jer. xvii. Jesus, who upholdeth "all things by the word of his power," [Heb. i,] broke the Sabbath in the same manner that his Father had. For he performed many good works on the Sabbath, and declared (this is something that the Pharisees and our opponents have always denied) that "it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day." But he declares that he had kept his Father's commandments. John xv, 10. Shall it be said of him, as it may too often be said of men who make a like declaration, that his acts directly contradict his profession? Or will it be said that the fourth is not one of his Father's commandments? But it will be noticed in the text quoted, that we are required to keep his commandments, even as he had kept his Father's commandments. If he kept only a part of them, and abode in his Father's love, we may pursue a similar course with the commandments of Jesus, and abide in his love. But who does not know better than that? "This is the love of God, [the Father] that we keep his commandments." 1 John v, 3. "If ye love me, [Jesus,] keep my commandments." John xiv, 15. And we add, those that retain that which they "have heard from the beginning" [John ii, 1; Gen. i, 1; ii, 1—3] will "continue in the Son, and in the Father." 1 John ii, 24. They will "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Rev. xii, 17. Christ was made subject to the fourth commandment, in the same sense that he was to the whole law. Hear the apostle Paul: "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Gal. iv, 4. The disciples were not greater than their Lord. We take leave of the position of C. relative to the Gospels, with these remarks: 1. Christ came to "magnify the law, and make it honorable." [Isa. xlii, 21.] but he relaxed its obligation, even before God had abolished, (?) it! 2. He "came to fulfill" the law, yet justified the violation of its fourth precept!! 3. 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. 4. 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!!! 5. "Sin is the transgression of the law." According to C., [note also John ix, 21.] 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. The patient attention of the candid is asked, while we now attempt to follow C. through the book of Acts. We will present as concise and definite a statement of his views as possible. 1. The meetings attended by the apostles on the Sabbath were generally under the control of the Jews. This accounts for them. 2. The historical mention of the Sabbath, proves no more for it than a similar mention of the Passover, Pentecost &c. proves for them. The same argument from the New Testament that would prove the perpetuity of the Sabbath, would prove the perpetuity of the Jewish feasts also. This proves too much, therefore proves nothing to the point. 3. Paul traveled on the Sabbath (Acts xiii, 13, 14,) and "chose a time to start from Philippi to Troas (a sail of five days) that would cause them to sail on the Sabbath day!" Acts xx, 6, 7. 4. They then waited at Troas six days till the time for the disciples meeting some, which was the first day of the week. "No mention is made of their having a meeting there on the Sabbath. This shows that the apostles and disciples did not respect the Sabbath, as such, either as to traveling or as a day of worship, but chose to meet on the first day of the week in preference." We have often heard it remarked that drowning men will catch at straws, but we are sorry to see it so clearly proved in the case before us. We have traced the windings of C. through the Gospels, and shown (as we trust) the falsity of the view that charges Christ and his apostles with the sin of breaking the fourth commandment. He now tries from the Acts of the apostles to show that THEY had no regard for the Sabbath, but preferred the first day of the week in its stead. He has not told us what had become of the fourth commandment; perhaps he is preparing the way to do so.871. That many of the meetings attended by the apostles were under the control of the Jews is very true. But it is quite remarkable that while we read of Paul's sojourn at Corinth (the very place where C. will show hereafter, that they were "accustomed to meet on the first day for worship") we read that he wrought at his trade, and preached in the synagogue EVERY SABBATH. And this he did for a year and six months, persuading both Jews and Greeks, thus spending 78 Sabbaths. Acts, xviii, 1—11; xvii, 1—3. As this was Paul's manner respecting the Sabbath, we ask what was his manner respecting Sunday? Not one word is uttered respecting stated, or indeed any worship on that day, and it is not improbable that it was one of the days on which he wrought at his trade. This may not prove that the fourth commandment is binding on us, but it does indicate that Paul's preference for Sunday was not very strong. But let us look a little further. Paul tells the Ephesians that he had "kept back nothing that was profitable" unto them.—Acts xx, 20. But did he ever intimate to them that Sunday had taken the place of the Sabbath of Jehovah? But let us find a place where the apostles preached to the Gentiles,—We pass over the account in Acts xvi, 13, and notice the account given in Acts xiii, 42—44. We then learn that Paul after preaching on the Sabbath in the synagogue, was requested by the GENTILES to preach to them the next Sabbath, which he accordingly did. Is it not remarkable that he should not have said, You need not wait the space of a week, TO-MORROW is the day of apostolic preference on that day therefore come and hear! What would C. have said had a like request been made to him by those who do not regard the Sabbath? Have we found any thing as yet to excuse C. in wilful disobedience to the fourth commandment? 2. The book of Acts, indeed, contains the record of institutions which are done away, as well as of those still in force. The institution of the Sabbath, made for MAN at Creation; the ordinance of circumcision, made in the days of Abraham, for his literal seed; the ordinances of the Jewish church, made for it at the Exode; the ordinances of the Christian Church made for it by our Lord, are all mentioned. Shall we conclude then that all are abolished, or that all are in force? We will do neither. The Apostle to the Gentiles speaks; hear him: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Eph. ii, 14—16. The ordinances of the Jewish church were abolished; the ordinances of the Christian Church have taken their place. The Sabbath is not a church ordinance, but, like the rest of the moral law, pertains to men as men, not as members of any church, but as moral beings accountable to God's government. Hence it is not relaxed, amended or abolished, by any change of dispensation! The feasts of the Jews, the Passover and unleavened bread, the Pentecost &c. were embodied in the hand-writing of ORDINANCES. The Sabbath is embodied in the fourth commandment of the royal law. The hand-writing of ordinances is abolished, Col. ii. The royal law is in full force. James ii. It is submitted, therefore, whether the same argument that establishes the ancient Sabbath of Jehovah, establishes the Jewish feasts also. We have been looking for something against the fourth commandment. C. has discovered that Paul did not keep the Sabbath. We will now examine his proof. 3. As proof that Paul did not regard the fourth commandment C. presents Acts xiii, 13, 14, to show that Paul arrived at Antioch in Pisidia on the Sabbath, and thus broke the rest of the Lord's Sabbath. Is this inference sufficient to prove that Paul violated the law of God? Rom. vii, 25; viii, 1—7. Is it stronger than that by which infant baptism is proved? Acts xvi, 15, 33. Or the one by which purgatory is proved? Matt. xii, 32. Or the doctrine of probation for the dead? 1 Pet. iii, 19, 20. Or the doctrine of the transmigration of souls? John ix, 1—3.—Would the rulers of the synagogue have been very likely to extend to Paul a courteous invitation to speak if he had just broken the Sabbath? The account of Paul's voyage from Philippi to Troas next claims attention. We inquire then, did Paul by this act break the fourth commandment and teach men so? That he journeyed on the Sabbath from choice, is all assertion! Before it can be proved that there was any act of breaking the fourth commandment on the part of Paul, it ought to be shown that the distance was such that he could not expect to reach the port of Troas before the Sabbath; (Acts xvi, 11, 12;) as it now stands they might have been driven of adverse winds, as he was on his voyage to Rome, so that a sail of two or three days might have been more than doubled.—And even then, there is no evidence that they might not have kept the fourth commandment on the water, by resting on the Lord's day, and by solemnly dedicating themselves to him. The moral character of Paul ought not to be impeached without better testimony! Why did not C. discover that the children of Israel, while carrying the Ark of God around Jericho, were violating the fourth commandment contained in that Ark? For one of the seven consecutive days on which they carried it, must have been the Sabbath. Josh, vi. But as Paul, a long time after this, speaks directly on the point, he shall have liberty to defend himself. Hear him: "I have committed NOTHING against the people, or customs of our fathers." Acts xxviii, 17. And if even the Jews neither spake nor showed any harm of him, [verse 21,] we think the fact ought to "shut the mouths of gainsayers," and convince them that they have laid a "grievous complaint against Paul, which they cannot prove!" Acts xxv, 7. Perhaps however false witnesses might be set up, as in the case of Stephen, [Acts vi,] to testify that he had not ceased to speak blasphemous words against the law. Rom. vii, 12. Shall this kind of proof that Paul violated the Sabbath be called "plain Bible testimony?" We assure all that if it cannot stand NOW, assuredly it will not, when "the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the water shall overflow the hiding place." Isa. xxviii, 15—17; Rev. xvi, 17—21. Would it not be better to make the truth your refuge against that fearful scene? Ps. xci; cxix, 142, 151; cvi, 7, 8; Isa. xxiv, 5, 6. Having endeavored to vindicate the character of Him who has ever "magnified his word above all his name," also that of the Messiah, the disciples, the holy women, and the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, from the serious aspersions thrown upon them, we take leave of this part of the subject, requesting the candid reader to decide whether they are on the side of the fourth commandment, or on the side of those who trample it under foot? Ps. 1, 21, 22. 4. We now inquire into the evidences on which it is asserted that Paul preferred the first day of the week, to the day that Jehovah hallowed for man. As C. has nowhere shown what has become of Jehovah's Sabbath, except that Christ relaxed it, and that his followers did not keep it "according to the commandment," we feel interested to see what he will make out for its apostolic rival, the first day of the week. The silence of Scripture respecting the manner in which Paul spent the six days at Troas cannot be taken as evidence that they had no meetings during this time. For consider that Paul was on his journey, hastening if it might be possible "to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost." Verse 16. That that numerous company of brethren should be waiting there six days in order to have Sunday come, (a day which God had never set apart,) in order to get the disciples together, would indicate that the disciples were much more attentive to worldly business, than to the company of the great Apostle. But the same silence is preserved respecting his abode in Greece three months, his abode at Tyre seven days, his sojourn at Cesarea many days. Verse 3; xxi, 1—10; ix, 43. As there is no precept for Sunday keeping, those who wish to observe it, have but one way to obtain directions. How did Paul in this the only instance that can be hunted up, keep the Sunday? For it is not to be presumed that Paul's example can be improved upon, otherwise it is an imperfect example, and should not be followed. We inquire then respecting their coming together to break bread. As we are to follow this pattern, we ask, When did Paul break bread? If our method of reckoning time (from midnight) was followed, which is not very probable, then this act of breaking bread was upon the second day of the week, as it took place AFTER midnight. The question would then be fairly before the mind. Shall we be governed by apostolic preference for Monday, or by our preference for Sunday? But if the Bible method of reckoning time (from six o'clock P. M.) was followed, which is much more probable, it would then appear that they came together at the close of the holy Sabbath, for an evening meeting. (Does it not read like one?) Paul preached to them, broke bread early Sunday morning, and then started off on his long journey to Jerusalem!! Then it would be clear that he waited till "the Sabbath was past," had a farewell meeting all night with the disciples, and started "early in the morning, the first day of the week," for the city of his fathers. Suppose however that the example on which C. rests could be well sustained. How much does it prove, when we consider that "the breaking of bread" was instituted on Thursday eve, [Matt. xxvi, 26—30,] and at one period celebrated daily, not merely by the church at Troas, but by the apostolic church at Jerusalem? Acts ii, 41—47. We hope to be pardoned for the following quotation; it is the best summing up of the evidence from this text, that we have ever seen. It was not written by a Sabbath-keeper. "You who infer, because St. Paul, and the disciples at Troas, spent the whole night of the first day of the week in praying, preaching, and heavenly conference, in regard he was to leave them and depart on the morrow; therefore, St. Paul and the disciples at Troas met that night to keep holy the day past; therefore, the disciples at Troas met every first day of the week, to keep that day holy; therefore the Church at Philippi, the Church in Cilicia, and all Christian Churches, did then keep holy the first day of the week; therefore all the apostles did constantly keep holy that day; therefore Christ and his apostles appointed the first day of the week to be forever celebrated, instead of the Sabbath. Is not this pitiful logic? Do you not befoal and mislead the people?"—Edward Fisher, 1653. There would be a pyramid of evidence in the above, could we begin with the last conclusion, and reason back to the first statement. But as it now stands, the pyramid rests upon its apex, not upon its base, and those who stand upon it, are "on slippery places," and in imminent danger of being cast "down into destruction." Ps. lxxiii, 18. Can it be said that C. has proved his point by "plain Bible testimony?"—If it be so, then, verily, (as a universalist once told me,) "it takes little to prove the truth." Whether the straws that C. has gathered from the book of Acts will save him from the abyss of the Roman decretals, the reader must judge. But he has further testimony to offer for this apostolic institution. Hear him: "Paul's instruction to the churches in Galatia and Corinth is in keeping with this, 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2. The collection for the saints was to be taken on the first day of the week.—This clearly implies that they were accustomed to meet on that day of the week, not to keep the Sabbath, but worship God and attend to the services and duties of the Christian Church." The text quoted above does not, to be sure, prove that the people might not have gone to meeting after every one had laid by him in store, though it does not even intimate any thing of the kind, but it does prove that at the time when this injunction, "every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him," should be obeyed, each must be at his own home!! Having done this they could, when Paul should come, each take to him what they had gathered, as easily as we can take our Bibles with us to meeting. There would be nothing ostentatious about this manner of acting. Public contributions were forbidden by our Lord. Matt. vi, 3, 4. "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly." Paul did not contradict this injunction of our Lord, nor does he even seem so to do. (We would commend the direction of Paul to the conscientious observer of the fourth commandment.) "Thus easily," as J. B. Cook remarks, "is ALL the wind taken from the sails of those who sail, perhaps unwittingly, under the Pope's Sabbatic flag." This uses up all the inferences presented by C. with which to construct a first-day institution out of apostolic "preference." If C. be still bent on doing this, we now suggest that "the successor to the chief Apostle" can furnish any amount of evidence desired. ("The Catholic church commands all her children to keep the Sunday, and the festivals of the saints.") The Sabbath of the Elders rests(?) upon a rolling pebble: the Sabbath of Jehovah rests upon a SOLID ROCK. They are now submitted for choice. 1 Kings xviii, 21.