WE saw in our examination of this subject last week that the perpetuity of something that existed in the former dispensation, was definitely taught in this. There was not therefore at the cross of Christ a total abolition of everything that went before, as some contend, and as is essential to the positions which they take. How much then was abolished, and what remained? Of the change that then took place, the Scriptures speak as follows: "For he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Eph. ii, 14, 15. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way nailing it to his cross. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, (or sabbath-days,) which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col. ii, 14, 16, 17. That this blotting out and nailing to the cross was not an arbitrary and independent act of our Saviour's, but took place in the natural order of events, will appear from Hebrews and from reason. Paul speaks in Heb. ix, 9, 10, of a service "which stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come," &c. Again, [chap. x, 1.] "For the law having a shadow of good things to come," &c. Thus the question is narrowing down before us. We now inquire, How much, as a matter of course, and a necessary consequence, ceased at the crucifixion? Everything of course which typified Christ and his ministry; every shadow the body of which was of him, and nothing more. This is in the strictest accordance with reason; for all can see that a shadow must cease when the substance comes, and a type cannot reach beyond its antitype; and since the Scriptures point to that only as ceasing at the death of Christ which was in its nature shadowy and typical, we conclude that nothing else did there cease, except that which met its substance and body in the work of our great High Priest, commencing with his offering up himself as the great Sacrifice for the sins of the world. Concerning any institution or ceremony, then, we have only to inquire whether it was a ceremonial shadow, typical in its nature and looking forward to an antitype, to ascertain whether or not it ceased and became of no effect at the ushering in of this dispensation; and whatever it is claimed was annulled as the immediate consequence of the shedding of Christ's blood on Calvary, must be shown to be a type or ceremony pointing to scenes connected with that event. These are plain principles, and easily within the comprehension of all; and yet there are those to be found so limited and narrow in their creed, so deceived themselves in their views of Scripture, or so dishonest in their exposition, so stiff-necked and rebellious against the requirements of God's holy law, or so ignorant of their length and breadth, as to declare that whatever Christ has not explicitly, with his own mouth, in so many words, re-enacted, repeated, and enjoined upon Christians, as such, they will neither acknowledge nor obey. Would that it were possible to present in its deserved light, the unfairness and fallacy of such a course. We refer now more particularly to this manner of procedure as exemplified in relation to the Sabbath of the Lord. Why, say some, the Lord gave his disciples a commission, [Matt. xxviii, 19, 20,] to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them; and, they add, Christ never commanded them to keep the Sabbath, therefore it is not now obligatory. If by this they mean that we do not find any such words recorded of Christ, as these, "I command you, christians, to keep the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord," so much we admit; but is this sufficient ground upon which to base the above conclusion? By no means. On the contrary we can show that there is not only no necessity for such a declaration on the part of the Saviour, but that to reject the Sabbath, because we do not find it, is but a miserable subterfuge. Indeed, this is apparent from the argument already produced; for did not the Saviour in his very first discourse teach the perpetuity of a law in this dispensation which existed in the old? and did he not transmit it to all future generations in all coming time? He certainly did. Of what law did he speak? We have shown that it was moral law, the rule of our actions, the standard of our righteousness. We have also shown that when the perpetuity of a law, as a code, is taught, the perpetuity of every single commandment of that code is also taught, as much as though they were specified one by one. And is not the Sabbath commandment a part of the moral law? It is placed in the very bottom of the decalogue, and is just as moral as any other precept which regulates our duty towards God. Then where is the necessity of a re-enaction, or an express declaration of this precept, when Christ enjoins upon us the observance of the law, as a whole, which contains it, and pronounces a blessing upon all who should do and teach it? It is in reality as explicit as though it was specified by name and its observance enjoined upon us. Then we ask again where is the necessity of a re-enaction? It were trifling with the Almighty to require it, and bold presumption as well as fatal folly to break forth into open transgression because we find it not. Again: We have shown that nothing could cease at the cross, (we speak of course of religious institutions,) except that which was typical and pointed to the offering and the priestly work of Christ. But was there anything typical in the Sabbath institution? anything that prefigured the work of Christ? There was not. We defy the world to show it. Would it then cease at the cross? From the very nature of the case, it would not. And hence, even if the Saviour had not solemnly enforced upon us the precepts of the decalogue, we should have no excuse for believing them abolished, since, not being in any wise typical, the scenes of Calvary could not affect them; and there is no other time nor place nor cause given for their abrogation by the most ultra Antinomians. But, third, if the sayings of Christ are the only law of this dispensation, and all that went before is superceded and done away by these, these are new enactments for this age. But nine of the original ten commandments are now confessedly binding. These must therefore have been re-enacted; but nothing can be re-enacted before it is abolished; and there was nothing abolished, as all must agree, before the crucifixion. Subsequent to that event, then, we must look for all re-enactments; but how many of the sayings of Christ have we recorded between his resurrection and ascension, showing us our duty? How many of the commandments did he re-enact, and enforce during that time, of which we have any record? Not one. But yet they are binding. Where then is the theory under discussion? Buried beneath the weight of its own insignificance. No one can maintain that this is not the true nature of the case, and presented in a just light; but let us for the sake of argument allow our opponents for a moment a wider latitude. Admit that all the sayings of Christ during his whole ministry are to be taken into the account as re-enactments. What then? Will this theory even then hold good? Let us see. "Teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." But where has he commanded us not to have any other gods before our Creator? Where has he commanded us not to make unto us any graven image, nor how down to them? Where has he commanded us not to profane the name of God as prohibited by the third commandment of the decalogue? Where, we ask, has he given these commands in the manner in which our opponents claim that he should have given the Sabbath commandment to make it obligatory? Nowhere; but yet no moral man will contend that these are abolished. Therefore the theory is utterly at fault here. It is true the Saviour said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; [Matt. iv, 10;] but this is only what he said to Satan, to justify his own course in not falling down to worship him; and he refers for his authority to the books of Moses, "It is written," &c. But some may say, The Saviour commands us to love God with all the heart, and if we do this, we shall not break the first three commandments. Very true, we reply; neither will a person in this case break the fourth commandment. Thus we find the position of our opponents insufficient for their purpose. It is lame, and impotent, and impudent, in every particular. No principle of morality expired at the cross of Christ, and there is no new one inculcated in the New Testament. Examine well this subject, brethren. Fortify yourselves against the no-law heresy. We shall have to meet it more and more, so long as the carnal heart is stirred up to seek out devices by which to evade the principles of God's government. The word of God is the only sure foundation. It is firmer than heaven's pillars, or earth's foundation stones; for though these all should pass, that word would stand.