BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 12, 1864

BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.

By Editor

Review of T. M. Preble.

(Concluded.)

Preble.—"TWO OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.—The first is founded on Matt. xxiv, 20: 'But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.' The Sabbatarian contends that by this passage the Saviour recognized the sacredness of the seventh-day Sabbath up to this time, surely. But we shall see. Two distinct things Jesus told the disciples to pray for. This is plain. All, I presume, understand that Christ had told the disciples that Jerusalem was to be destroyed by the Roman army; and when they, the disciples, should see Jerusalem compassed with armies,' then they must 'flee to the mountains.' But, in doing so, they were liable to meet with two obstacles, and only two. Therefore they must pray. Pray for what? Pray that your 'flight be not in the winter, neither on the SABBATH DAY.' If their flight should happen in the winter, it would be difficult for the disciples, with their families, to live in the mountains. If their flight should happen on the Sabbath day, they would find it extremely difficult to 'flee' out of Jerusalem, as the gates would be closed, according to Jewish law and custom. (See Ex. xvi, 29; Neh. xiii, 15–22). This being the case, Jesus knew well that those who were so tenacious of their traditions of the Sabbath as to lead them to condemn him as a Sabbath-breaker for restoring the withered hand, so that it was made 'whole, like as the other,' and for making a woman straight whom Satan had bound and bent over, or bowed together, so that she could in no wise lift up herself for eighteen years, and all this just because Jesus had done these acts of mercy on the Sabbath. I say, Jesus knew well that such hypocrites would be a great hindrance to the disciples if their flight should take place on the Sabbath. Now consider, Christ had told the disciples to leave Jerusalem when they should see it compassed with armies. Was Christ Lord also of the Sabbath? So he had once said. Why, then, should he direct his disciples to pray that their flight might not occur on the Sabbath day? The just inference is this: Christ really being 'Lord of the Sabbath,' the disciples would have a perfect right to leave Jerusalem at any time when Christ told them to. And, therefore, if the Jews would not let them leave when Christ had ordered it, it proves that those old hypocrites had so monopolized all the privileges of that day by their traditions, that even the disciples could not obey the Lord Jesus without praying to God to prevent them from falling into the hands of such wicked men, who were so outrageously bigoted in regard to the Sabbath that they would neither let Christ or his followers do that which was right on that day. Hence, the Sabbatarian finds nothing here to prove a sacred regard for the seventh-day Sabbath, but a wicked persecution of all its rights, by a class of men who were enemies to God, and violent opposers of his people."

REPLY.—This labored attempt to prove that Christ, in Matt. xxiv, 20, did not recognize the existence of the Sabbath at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, shows that it rests with some weight upon the mind of Eld. P., and must in some way be disposed of. He avails himself of the usual and only method of attempting to evade its force. Now, if his explanation should turn out to be not in any wise valid, it follows that the testimony must stand as an express recognition on the part of the Saviour of the existence of the Sabbath, and a declaration to his disciples of his tender regard for that sacred institution. Had Eld. P. made himself acquainted with a few facts connected with the siege and fall of Jerusalem, we think he never would have offered the explanation of this language that he has here given us. The subject is so well and briefly set forth in the History of the Sabbath, that we can do no better than to quote from that work, pp. 134–138:

"But it is replied that this last petition has reference only to the fact that the Jews would then be keeping the Sabbath strictly, and, as a consequence, the city gates would be closed that day, and those be punished with death who should attempt to flee; and, hence, this petition indicates nothing in proof of Christ's regard for the Sabbath. An assertion so often and so confidently uttered should be well founded in truth; yet a brief examination will show that such is not the case.

1. The Saviour's language has reference to the whole land of Judea, and not to Jerusalem only: 'Let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.' The closing of the city gates could not therefore affect the flight of but a part of the disciples.

2. Josephus states the remarkable fact that when Cestius was marching upon Jerusalem, in fulfillment of the Saviour's token, and had reached Lydda, not many miles from Jerusalem, 'he found the city empty of its men, for the whole multitude were gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles.' (Jewish War, book ii, chap. xix.) The law of Moses required the presence of every male in Israel at this feast, in Jerusalem (Deut. xvi, 16); and thus, in the providence of God, the disciples had no Jewish enemies left in the country to hinder their flight.

3. The Jewish nation being thus assembled at Jerusalem, did most openly violate the Sabbath a few days prior to the flight of the disciples; a singular commentary on their supposed strictness in keeping it at that time. Thus Josephus says of the march of Cestius upon Jerusalem, that

" ' He pitched his camp at a certain place called Gabao, fifty furlongs distant from Jerusalem. But as for the Jews, when they saw the war approaching to their metropolis, they left the feast, and betook themselves to their arms; and taking courage greatly from their multitude, went in a sudden and disorderly manner to the fight, with a great noise, and without any consideration had of the rest of the seventh day, although the Sabbath was the day to which they had the greatest regard; but that rage which made them forget the religious observation [of the Sabbath] made them too hard for their enemies in the fight.' Jewish War, book ii, chap. xix.

"Thus, it is seen that on the eve of the disciples' flight the rage of the Jews toward their enemies made them utterly disregard the Sabbath!

4. But after Cestius encompassed the city with his army, thus giving the Saviour's signal, he suddenly withdrew it, as Josephus says, 'without any reason in the world.' This was the moment of flight for the disciples, and mark how the providence of God opened the way for those in Jerusalem:

" ' But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his, they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their horsemen and footmen: and now Cestius lay all night at the camp at Scopus, and as he went off further next day, he thereby invited the enemy to follow him, who still fell upon the hindermost and destroyed them.' Jewish War, book ii, chap. xix.

"This sally of the excited multitude in pursuit of the Romans was at the very moment when the disciples were commanded to flee, and could not but afford them the needed facility of escape. Had the flight of Cestius happened upon the Sabbath, undoubtedly the Jews would have pursued him upon that day, as under less exciting circumstances they had, a few days before, gone out several miles to attack him upon the Sabbath. It is seen, therefore, whether in city or country, the disciples were not in danger of being attacked by their enemies, even had their flight been upon the Sabbath day.

"There is, therefore, but one view that can be taken relative to the meaning of these words of our Lord, and that is, that he thus spake out of sacred regard for the Sabbath. For, in his tender care for his people, he had given them a precept that would require them to violate the Sabbath, should the moment for flight happen upon that day. For the command to flee was imperative the instant the promised signal should be seen, and the distance to Pella, where they found a place of refuge, was at least sixty miles. This prayer which the Saviour left with the disciples would cause them to remember the Sabbath whenever they should come before God. It was, therefore, impossible that the apostolic church should forget the day of sacred rest. Such a prayer that they might not at a future time be compelled to violate the Sabbath was a sure and certain means of perpetuating its sacred observance for the coming forty years, until the final destruction of Jerusalem, and was never forgotten by that early church, as we shall hereafter see. The Saviour, who had taken unwearied pains during his whole ministry to show that the Sabbath was a merciful institution, and to set aside those traditions by which it had been perverted from its true design, did, in this, his last discourse, most tenderly commend the Sabbath to his people, uniting in the same petition their own safety and the sacredness of the rest-day of the Lord."

Preble.—"The second objection is, 'THE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE.' What is this third angel's message? Why, a late theory has been started, which claims that Rev. xiv, 12, has special reference to a particular class of persons who believe in keeping 'the commandments of God,' as mentioned in this verse; and that these commandments have special reference to the 'Seventh-day-Sabbath.' The passage reads:—'Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.' It will be seen by the passage itself that it refers to the 'commandments of God'—all of them—and not to any particular one. How, then, shall we determine what commandments are referred to? Please notice the last clause in the verse, 'and the faith of Jesus.' This proves that the commandments referred to are those of the New Testament; for there was no 'faith of Jesus' before Christ came the first time. Be not alarmed, kind reader, this will be proved by the word of truth, an unerring guide. Hear:—'But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterward be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.' Gal. iii, 23–25."

REPLY.—Eld. P. has scarcely succeeded in concealing the latent feeling of contempt with which he speaks of the "third angel's message." Says he, "What is this third angel's message? Why, a late theory has been started," &c. But one thing is certain. There is an angel brought to view in Rev. xiv, the third of a series, who has the most terrific warning to utter that can anywhere be found in the word of God. It signifies something, and the nature of the warning renders it of the utmost importance that we should understand it. Sneers will not set it aside nor destroy its signification. It would be better for Eld. P. to have told us what it does mean, if our exposition of it is not correct, than to have treated it as he has. One singular misstatement needs correcting on the start. This "late theory," he asserts, claims that "these commandments have special reference to the seventh-day Sabbath." Where did he learn this? He certainly did not get it from any Seventh-day Adventist writings. It would be agreeable if our opponents would not manufacture so many positions for us. We believe it has no more special reference to the Sabbath than to the other nine commandments. But we do believe that the commandments there referred to, mean specifically the ten commandments of God, all of them, Sabbath with the rest. We have more to say, of course, about the Sabbath commandment than about the others; because that is the one which the world has been taught to violate, and on which consequently, light needs to be given.

In connection with this misstatement in fact we must mention a misstatement in logic, which Eld. P. has made in putting forth his effort to prove that the commandments referred to are the commandments of the New Testament. The clause "and the faith of Jesus," he says, "proves that the commandments referred to, are those of the New Testament; for there was no faith of Jesus before Christ came the first time." We would fain believe that from some cause Eld. P. overlooked the little word "and"; for certainly no one who gets a clear idea of the construction of the language, can draw from it the conclusion presented by Eld. P. It does not read, Here are they that keep the commandments of God—the faith of Jesus; but the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. The commandments of God are one thing, the faith of Jesus another. Now what is this faith of Jesus? We affirm that it embraces all the precepts and teachings of Christ given us in the New Testament; and if this be so, the commandments of God spoken of in connection, are not the same thing, but commandments brought over from the Old Testament. Let any one apply it to any other than the ten commandments if he can.

Preble.—"No one need be surprised to see men, and women too, run into error when they will keep themselves 'shut up unto the faith,' but never come to it. Why will men be so blinded as to have faith in the visions of women instead of the visions of John? Why

follow the teachings of the old dead 'schoolmaster' instead of following the LIVING JESUS? They thus give countenance to the system for taking away sins on the head of a live goat! I would exhort all such to—'BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD.' John i, 29."

REPLY.—When Eld. P. commenced his articles against the Sabbath of the Lord, we had hoped he would be able to go through with them without descending to the contemptible practice so common with a certain class of our opponents, of appealing to the prejudice of narrow minds, by heaping slurs upon the visions. But it seems he has not succeeded. The intense desire to give the "visions of women" at least one thrust, before closing his argument against the Sabbath, overcame him, and hence this exhibition of himself. It only confirms our opinion that it is scarcely possible for the opponents of the law of God, to write to any length against the Sabbath, without betraying the spirit spoken of in Rev. xii, 17. At least we have yet to see such an article where this spirit did not in one part or another unmistakably crop out: The text referred to says that the dragon was wroth, and went to make war with the remnant of the church "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." And the testimony of Jesus Christ is defined in chap. xix, 10, to be the "spirit of prophecy."

There are those who are constantly watching for just such things as Eld. P. has here thrown out, and great is their glee when they can find a morsel over which to gloat. Accordingly no sooner had the above remark appeared in the Crisis from the pen of Eld. P. than the Millennial Harbinger announced in a most jubilant strain that Eld. Preble had written through the World's Crisis, a series of articles against the Sabbath, and the visions of E. G. White. So soon did this one remark against the visions become expanded into a series of articles! We hope Eld. P. will not feel flattered at this appreciation of his efforts. We would that it might open his eyes to the nature of the work in which he is engaged.

But again the "old dead schoolmaster" is brought on to the stage and a new application made of his mortal remains. This time he is set forth to represent "the visions of women!"

Preble.—'THE CONTEXT.—The objector may ask, why there is such a contrast between my present views and those advocated by me when I observed the seventh day? as strong grounds are taken in both instances; and both arguments are drawn from the Bible. The answer is obvious. In my former argument, in favor of the seventh day, I had for my basis the Old Testament. And as my premises were false my conclusions were wrong! But in my present position my basis is the New Testament; consequently, as my premises are now true, my conclusions are therefore right!'

REPLY.—Eld. P. should not be quite so fast here. It is true that false premises lead to wrong conclusions; but it is by no means as certain that, if a person's premises are correct, his conclusions will be right, for conclusions are often drawn as wide of the premises as the east is from the west, and the reader has had sufficient evidence that Eld. P. sometimes draws conclusions with quite a rapid hand. But what does he mean about his basis being the Old Testament, and consequently his premises false? Is the Old Testament false? Is it opposed to the New? We had supposed that the Bible was one harmonious whole, not two parts arrayed in antagonism to each other. Then we repeat a question or two which we have already asked: Where, except in the Old Testament, do we find any law prohibiting the worship of images; or where else any regulations prohibiting consanguinity in marriage?

But in looking at Eld. P.'s former argument, we fail to see that his basis was the Old Testament. We have his tract before us. The first part of the tract is an extract from the writings of Wm. Miller, in which there are eight references to the Old Testament and four to the New. In what Eld. P. himself wrote we find twenty-two references to the New Testament, and only two to the Old. One of these was to the fourth commandment, which he quoted on his title-page, and the other was to Dan. vii, 25, to show that the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, by the papal power, was in fulfillment of that prophecy.

What his basis was, will still further appear from a couple of extracts from the tract referred to, which the reader will be pleased to see in this connection. In a prefatory note to the reader he says:

'A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE READER TO ANSWER, BEFORE READING THE FOLLOWING PAGES.—What authority have you in the Old or New Testament to keep any day as a Sabbath, or day of rest? Do you find any command in the New Testament? If not, why do you not observe the day that is appointed in the fourth commandment? Has the day ever been changed? If so, when and where? Please point to the chapter and verse.'

Yes, we would like the chapter and verse. We will let the reader decide whether Preble of 1864 is able to answer the questions of Preble of 1845. Again, he says, p. 7:

'In relation to the practice of the apostles, there is but one meeting of the disciples on the first day of the week mentioned in the New Testament, and that is in Acts xx, 7. But there are many meetings recorded which they held on the Sabbath. I know 1 Cor. xvi, 2, is considered proof respecting the first day; but when examined, I think it proves the contrary. It says, "Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him," &c. The expression, "lay by him in store," I think plainly implies that they were at home, rather than at meeting. Rev. i, 10, is the only other place that can be construed to favor the first day. John says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Now, who knows whether he meant the first or the seventh day? I think the latter, because it is called "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," but the first is nowhere called so!! In regard to the Sabbath, Christ says, "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Not a Sabbath, but the Sabbath. He says also, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27, 28. He does not say, the Sabbath was made for the Jews, and a Sabbath for the Gentiles, but "The Sabbath was made for man"—all mankind.'

It will be seen from the above that Eld. P. once occupied a position for which he could give a valid reason. He has exchanged it, alas! for one for which no just ground can be found, either in nature, reason, history or revelation.

Preble.—'In conclusion. I now propose to all Sabbatarians, as I have spoken once more upon the subject of the Sabbath, that if they think my present position is unscriptural, and can be shown to be such, I will just say, without bigotry or vanity, that if they desire, and will present a man well qualified to defend their side of the question, I will, by the Lord's permission, meet him at any proper time and place, and we will have this matter tested.'

REPLY.—With this closing paragraph, a reviewer, of course, has not much to do. Sincerely believing his present position to be unscriptural, we have endeavored to present a few reasons for so regarding it. If Eld. P. is not satisfied, men will not be wanting, at any proper time and place, to further test this matter with him.

We are thus brought to the conclusion of Eld. P.'s effort against the Sabbath. The reader now has before him, from the pen of a representative man, arguments which have been set forth with all confidence as sufficient to overthrow the seventh-day Sabbath. Let us, in a brief retrospect, look at some of their main features in connection.

1. In the first place, the Sabbath is set forth as a type. But to make this position even appear plausible, the question of its origin must be kept out of sight; for the Bible distinctly places the origin of the Sabbath in Eden; but it is impossible that any type should originate before the fall. And further, the Sabbath as a type is said to foreshadow the future thousand years of millennial rest and glory. But the idea must be maintained that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross; hence, we have a break, a great gulf of over eighteen hundred years, between the shadow and the substance!

2. The Sabbath is incorporated into the very bosom of the decalogue, one of those precepts which God distinguished above all others by speaking them with his voice, and writing them with his finger, thus showing that, one and inseparable, they were in their nature moral, immutable, and perpetual. But the Sabbath must be abolished, hence the whole decalogue must be abolished; for it is impossible to show any action in regard to one commandment which does not equally affect them all. This is the reason we hear so much about the ten commandments being abolished. It is simply and exclusively to get rid of the Sabbath, which is such a trouble to the lawless and disobedient. And having abolished the decalogue, mark the dilemma they are in, and the work they make in trying to extricate themselves from it. The law must be re-enacted, or a new one given. When? Some say by Christ, during his public ministry; but this was before the crucifixion, where only the abolition of the old can be placed; hence, we have a re-enactment some years before the old was abolished. Others, therefore, contend that the apostles gave the new law; but this was many years this side the crucifixion, leaving a large space in which God had no law for the government of his creatures! And the thought also occurs that for the former age, an age, as they hold it, of comparative darkness, God gave his law himself; but for this age of further light and glory, he retires upon the background, and leaves the giving of his law to men!—positions, all of them, too absurd for sane and sensible men to give them a moment's adherence.

3. Christ is also, in reality, set forth as dying to abolish his Father's law, which, if it could by any means have been abolished, he need not have died.

4. The original decalogue is denounced as a yoke of bondage, the letter that killeth, a curse, the old law of works, the "old dead school-master," &c.; but their law of the New Testament, which they must contend is exactly identical with it, only the obligation of the Sabbath is transferred to another day,—that is the law of faith, the law of liberty, the Spirit that giveth life, more glorious! &c. Such is the consistency of their theory.

5. The arguments they use destroy each other. Being compelled to admit that the Sabbath is a moral law, that nullifies the argument that it is a type; for moral laws have nothing typical in their nature. Then Paul's language is applied to the Sabbath, "Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind," to show that the observance of days is a matter of entire indifference; which, interpreted in accordance with their theory, must insist that we must observe Sunday, but need not keep the seventh day. We shortly find that if we observe the seventh day, we fall from grace, and will surely be accursed; and, finally, that by so doing we tread under foot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant wherewith we were sanctified an unholy thing, and do despite unto the spirit of grace! Thus it becomes the most heinous crime against God, to keep a command under this dispensation, which under the former was the delight of both God and man, and for a violation of which, God visited his ancient people with frequent and severest wrath! And more than this, while we must not keep the seventh day, the divine law for which never has been repealed, we must keep Sunday, for which no divine law or command ever has been given!

Such are a few of the crooks and contradictions which attach to any theory devised to overthrow the Sabbath. They are inherent in the system, if it may be called a system, and no man, however able and sound in other respects, who undertakes to defend such views, can run clear of them. And if the reader, in following the arguments of Eld. P., has often been surprised at the inconsistency and weakness of his positions, attribute it not to the man, but the unfortunate side of the question upon which he labors. For no man of his age and ability, of his fairness and candor in every other respect, of his experience in the things of God, and especially in connection with the great truth of the second coming of the Saviour,—no such man, we say, with truth on his side, would advance the incongruous positions, and the lame and halting arguments which he has presented. But error disarms the strongest, and renders him who would be a host, if battling for the right, weak and impotent in its unworthy defense. For this reason, we are sorry to see Eld. P. where he is, and for his own sake, and

the good he would be able to do, we would that he might return to his first love, and again take up his position in the stronghold of truth.

Says the apostle, "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father." In the spirit of this injunction, Eld. P. will suffer us to address a few words to him.

We fear, Eld. P., that you do not realize the nature of the work in which you are engaged. It is a negative work, akin to that of the skeptic and infidel. It is tearing down, not building up. And you well understand that it is vastly easier to hurl an objection here and there against any system than it is to present another harmonious system to take its place. And such is the opposition to the seventh-day Sabbath, whether it take the form of no-Sabbath, or of a first-day Sabbath. It consists principally in throwing out objections, one text here and another there, which is supposed to bear against the great system which sustains the seventh day from Genesis to Revelation. And it matters not if these objections contradict and devour each other; as there is no harmonious system on that side to build up; but if they work confusion in the mind of the reader or hearer, and shake his confidence in the Sabbath, the object is gained. And who are the persons, Eld. P., who especially delight in your effort against the Sabbath? Answer. Those who believe in no-Sabbath. What care they for a poor apology for Sunday? They know that if the seventh day is not the Sabbath, there is none. Hence, they seize upon every objection that you raise against the Sabbath as sustaining them in their position. Thus are you confirming men in this species of infidelity; bolstering them up in the idea that the holy and beneficent institution of a day of rest has ceased to exist. And while this negative work is so easily accomplished, it is not so easily counteracted; as it is well known that an objection may be stated in one line, which it would require pages to answer. To illustrate: One man can tear up more railroad track than ten men can lay down; one incendiary can burn more buildings than a hundred men can build; and it requires only a few hours' work of the club and torch of the Goth and Vandal, to deface or ruin the stately edifice, which it has cost years of toil, and the mightiest efforts of art, to rear. Such, Eld. P., and we say it with all kindness, is the nature of your opposition against the Sabbath. But amid all the controversy and excitement which this subject is producing with various classes, we are happy to be able to say that

Like some fair monument of towering form, The Sabbath stands unmoved amid the storm; While round it fierce the noisy rabble crowd With tumult wild, and imprecations loud; Their missiles at it hurl with venomed spite, To mar its beauty and obscure its light; And "More Confusion," is their proper label, "Than ever babbled 'round the tower of Babel."

You must not, therefore, be surprised if in some portions of our reply to your remarks, we have manifested more than wonted earnestness, and if our words may have seemed sharp and severe. Be assured that nothing has been set down in unkindness or malice. While we have endeavored to expose faithfully wrong premises and wrong conclusions, it has been with no hard or bitter feelings against their author. We have spoken only as the occasion seemed to demand. For when we saw you yielding to a class of ideas which led you to apply to Seventh-day Adventists, those who are endeavoring to regulate their lives by the highest moral code yet known on earth,—to apply to this class the language of Paul to the Philippians, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil-workers, beware of the concision," &c., it seemed to us time that the inherent falsity and unsoundness of such positions should with an unsparing hand be laid open to public view.

With no less sincere feelings of regard for your position, age and experience, have we reviewed your arguments, than we felt when, at the home of the writer, in West Wilton, N. H., twenty years ago, you made known in clearness and power the doctrine of the Lord's soon coming; or when you laid your hand upon his head, and said, "Bub, do you love the Lord Jesus?" We can now answer that question. We do love him. We take him for our Saviour. And while endeavoring to keep the law of God, we rely upon the merits of Christ's atoning blood for the forgiveness of our sins.

And the more we love him, the less consistent can we make it appear that by obeying the law of the Father, we thereby ignore or trample under foot the atoning work of the Son.

In contrast with the lack of harmony involved in the opposition to the Sabbath, look at the few following harmonious facts connected with the view we hold of this sacred institution.

1. The Sabbath was given to man in Eden, ere yet he had fallen from his innocence.

2. A law for its observance was given to Adam, and through him, as he then stood in Eden, of course for all his posterity.

3. When the moral law was given to the world in tangible form, we behold the Sabbath, in its very bosom, the golden clasp to bind together the two tables of the decalogue.

4. God declared to Israel that he would take the Sabbath commandment above all others to be the badge or sign of his loyal people.

5. We see the Sabbath, with the other nine commandments, everywhere kept distinct from the ceremonial law, which regulated, not obedience to God, but the way to approach unto him for pardon.

6. And when Christ came and introduced a new and better way of approach to God, he was careful to hold up the law of his Father, unchanged in the slightest particular, as still the great rule of rectitude, and the condition of everlasting life. If thou wilt enter into life, said he to the young man, keep the commandments. And he then pointed him to the decalogue to show him to what commandments he referred.

And 7. When the prophet Isaiah looks beyond this present evil world, beyond the reign of corruption and error, beyond the dominion of sin and sinners, when he looks forward to a new earth reposing in untold loveliness and beauty beneath a new heaven, he gives us a final view of the Sabbath in that glorious and eternal state: "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.

Thus while the Sabbath was placed like a bright coronet upon the brow of the first creation, ere Paradise was lost, while it has been, and still is, "the song of the church in the house of her pilgrimage," in Paradise restored it again appears, prominent among the blessings of the great restitution, and the prophet points to it as a season of hallowed repose and worship for the saints of God forever and ever.

We trust you still adhere to the noble sentiment expressed in your tract of 1845: "Truth is what I am after; and if I had but one day on this earth to spend, I would give up error for truth as soon as I could see it." We therefore pray you to review carefully your present position, and, as you then prayed, "May the Lord give you wisdom and help you to keep all his commandments, that you may have right to the tree of life." Rev. xxii, 14.

And when the faithful servants of God shall have finally entered into rest, as they look back upon their journey through this revolted world where disloyalty to the government of Heaven was the prevailing sin, and where opposition to God's law was the malignant principle which the enemy labored hardest to instil into the hearts of men, and as they think that then they tried to show their loyalty to God by loving his law and reverencing his Sabbath, that thought will be to them an exceeding joy.