p. 1 | The Sabbath by J. M. Aldrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 14, 1865

The Sabbath.

By J. M. Aldrich

A Discourse by J. M. Aldrich, delivered in the Baptist Church, Somerset, N. Y., in review of a discourse delivered at the same place by a Rev. Mr. West, of Fulton Co., N. Y.

I NEED not inform you, my hearers, that it is with no little embarrassment that I appear before you this evening; for you can well imagine that such is the case. You are well aware that I am not accustomed to speaking before public audiences; and much less am I in the habit of standing in the place of the clergy to speak on a question like the one before us; a question commonly supposed to belong exclusively to their jurisdiction. Indeed never before did I venture before an audience to speak on a Bible question; and never, as at the present time to review a learned and talented clergyman. The idea has doubtless occurred to most of you, that I have undertaken too big a job,—that it is presumptuous in me, to undertake a thing of this kind. And this idea has in fact, stood out quite prominently before my own mind, since I have had this matter under contemplation. But

when I consider the stand I have taken in your midst for a few years past, in regard to this question, viz., the Sabbath, and the importance that I attach to it; and when I consider again, the attempt that was made here to strike a death blow to the Sabbath of the Bible, and indeed the whole moral law, I have resolved, for this once at least, to claim jurisdiction of the case, and shall banish for the time being the idea of presumptuousness; and shall endeavor to recover myself from embarrassment as far as possible, and proceed in the laudable attempt to discharge a duty that I believe I owe to myself, and my neighbors, to God and the truth. Your attention and forbearance I therefore crave.

I have met you here, then, this evening, for the purpose of reviewing a discourse that was delivered in this place a short time since, on the question of the Sabbath, by one Rev. Mr. West, a gentleman I suppose of conceded talent and ability. I am glad, that for some cause our Baptist friends in this place, have seen proper to have their side of the Sabbath question presented before the people of this vicinity. I regret that it was not their privilege to have a larger audience present to hear the same. A discourse on this subject containing their views was certainly due this people; for a prominent member remarked, after the discourse, that their side had not been presented before, for quite a number of years. Why, I ask, has this question thus been permitted to remain silent in the church, these many long years? Surely not because they regard it a question of no importance; for during all its silent slumberings in their midst, they have professed to regard the Sabbath. Every recurring first-day has witnessed to their profession on this question. And surely not because their first-day Sabbath is so plainly and palpably a matter of revelation;—so plainly and unmistakably marked on the page of inspiration, that the mere novice, or the wayfaring man need not err in regard to it; or yet that the man of riper years and understanding need have no doubt in regard to its divine authority and sanction; for such is manifestly not the case as all will admit.

If any point of doctrine pertaining to their faith, need to be expounded from time to time, surely the origin and design of their first-day Sabbath needs at least an occasional explanation, that common minds may the more readily see that the same is in perfect harmony with the letter and spirit of divine inspiration!

But I apprehend that not only our Baptist friends but others, here and elsewhere, are rather willing to remain silent on this question, than to undertake to surmount the many serious difficulties that lie in their way. This idea is somewhat strengthened by the fact that our friends at last felt the need of sending to a distant part of the State, to procure a man sufficiently resolute to undertake the job so long on their hands. And indeed it is a little singular that they should consider it needful to take the pains to import a speaker on this question. There is no question in the Bible that both people and priest should be more familiar with than the Sabbath.

Not only the prominence given to it in the Bible, but its regular weekly recurrence, and the peculiar claim that it makes to a seventh part of our whole time, should lead every person of common intellect to inquire well into its nature, origin, and design. It would seem then that there ought to be no lack of competent speakers on this question;—that every township in fact ought to afford plenty of village preachers fully competent to discuss the Sabbath question in a most thorough and satisfactory manner.

But the difficulty lies not in the Sabbath of the Bible; for no question is plainer, or more easily to be understood; but the trouble lies rather in the necessity of rooting out the Sabbath of the Bible, or the Jewish Sabbath as our opponents are pleased to term it; to give place to the first-day or Christian Sabbath, so called,—an institution not founded in reason or the Bible, but wholly in tradition and the imagination. To thus lay violent hands on this moral law; this law which the great God spoke in terrible majesty with his own voice, and engraved with his own finger on tables of stone, and which law even in this dispensation, the chief apostle calls holy, just and good; would need at least a person of more than usual courage and boldness. And to make a fair show of having performed the task of rooting out the Sabbath of the Lord from his holy law, and building up an institution of the imagination in its place, would require at least a skillful hand. Hence I do not so much wonder that our friends took the trouble to look about them for a suitable person. Such a man they found in the person of this Rev. Mr. West; saving only the requisite skill to make a decent show of having performed the job undertaken.

Now, although it is claimed that your side of the Sabbath has been presented, I can hardly make myself believe that you will accept it as such. I cannot believe that you will consent to such merciless torture of scripture, and sound reason. I have a better opinion of your judgment, your good sense, and understanding of the scriptures. I cannot believe that you have so far wandered from the old paths as to rest your authority for the Sabbath on the flimsy foundation the gentleman afforded you. And indeed, your high regard for the claims of orthodoxy, must constrain you to reject his theory and reasoning.

The gentleman was not so dull as not to be aware that his theory needed propping. So at the outset he informed us of the peculiar advantages that he had enjoyed for becoming posted on this subject, even from the days of his youth; thus endeavoring to forestall his hearers with the important fact that unusual weight should be given to his testimony. His father he said, was once an observer of the seventh day—a strict Sabbatarian; but finally saw the error of his way and embraced the Christian Sabbath. He was also brought up in a neighborhood of Sabbatarians. Now all I have to say on this point is, that if his testimony here on the subject of the Sabbath, was the result of parental example and instruction, in the days of his youth, it were far better for him, and the cause he advocates, had his father turned from the error of his ways before his youthful days arrived. But if this statement of his be good against the seventh day, then I have an argument equally weighty in my reply against the first day. Not only was it my lot during my youthful days to live exclusively among first-day observers, but such has been my fortune, during all my riper years, even to the present time, with but a very slight exception. More than this, I was reared in your Sunday-school. Here I was taught to repeat the fourth commandment; "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." In those days allow me to say,

you were pleased to apply this commandment to the first day of the week. Then, indeed, you claimed your authority for the Sabbath from the fourth commandment. But now, alas, we are informed that the Sabbath of the Bible is Jewish;—that it had its origin and end with the Jewish dispensation. That now the fourth commandment has no claims upon our regard, and has no binding force whatever upon us. Do you believe it? I know you do not.

My friends, I am happy to say that I still reverence the Sabbath of the Bible,—the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. The same God that spoke this commandment over 6000 years ago in the presence of all his people, speaks it to us to-day. The same reason that existed for its observance then, exists in all its force to-day. Is it possible, my friends, that the holy Sabbath, which for ages, mankind have been wont to revere as sacred to the Lord, is now to be expunged from the law of God, and thus the sabbatic institution at this late day to be frittered away and become merely a thing of the imagination, instead of a divine reality? Is it possible, that notwithstanding the high profession of all Christendom on this subject, we have no thus saith the Lord, for such an institution in this dispensation? No Sabbath indeed, except such as man in his weakness, has wrought out from reasons unknown and foreign to the original institution? Thus we were gravely informed by the Rev. gentleman who addressed us.

But I will now proceed to notice more particularly his arguments. The texts which he brought forward as the foundation of his discourse, were Exodus twentieth chapter, and first clause of the eighth verse, being a part of the fourth commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," and Col. ii, 16 and 17: "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 Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

In regard to his first text I have only to remark, that justice to the fourth commandment, and the subject of his discourse, require that he should bring forward the whole of this commandment, instead of a part; for as a whole it is a sufficient commentary of itself. No language in the whole Bible is more explicit. Read it for yourselves.

With reference to his second text, he saw fit to make a criticism on its rendering from the Greek, that is worthy of note. "Let no man therefore judge you . . . in respect of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." He informs us that the word days is a supplied word and does not occur in the original, and that the text should therefore read Sabbath, instead of Sabbath days. It is true that the word days is a supplied word; but it is not true that it should be left out of the text, and the word Sabbath remain in the singular number. For the original word Sabbath is plural and should be rendered Sabbaths or Sabbath days as in the text. Hence no violence is done to the rendering of this text. From the gentleman's criticism on this text, one of two things is apparent. He either understands the Greek, and hence is dishonest, in that he made a false statement concerning it, or he does not understand the Greek and is therefore but a pretender. But why did he make this criticism? The reason is obvious. He desires if possible to bring some show of scripture to bear against the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; he therefore brings forward this his second text for the purpose of spiking his first text. Sabbath days, here, are declared to be a shadow; now if he can make you believe that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is thus referred to in this text, he gains quite a point; but as he seems to be quick to discern trouble ahead, he sees that Sabbath days here in the plural, are fatal to his purpose, not agreeing with Sabbath day in the singular, as it stands in the commandment; and thus he seeks to remedy the difficulty by disposing of the word days as I have stated. But this will not answer. The text is correct.

But allow me to say that the Sabbath days of this text have no reference to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Some of you may not be aware of this fact, but such is the case. There is another class of Sabbaths mentioned and referred to in the Bible, besides the seventh-day Sabbath; and the Sabbath days of the text are of this class. I refer to the annual sabbaths of the Jews, that were part and parcel of the ceremonial law; and which occurred on certain days of the month in every year, and hence on no stated day of the week, and which were associated with meats and drinks, new moons, &c. These sabbaths had their origin with the Jews, and grew out of matters pertaining to their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and were appointed as feast days in commemoration of various events connected with such deliverance. Much might be said of interest concerning these annual sabbaths of the Jews;—their nature, origin, and design, and the many points of contrast between them and the seventh-day Sabbath, but want of time forbids me to make the attempt. I will refer you for proof on this point to the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus. You will there notice that a marked distinction is made between the Sabbath of the Lord and these annual sabbaths. Thus, "These are the feasts of the Lord which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations . . . besides the Sabbaths of the Lord." You will notice, that the sabbath days in the text under consideration, are associated with meats and drinks, new moons and holy days (or feast days as this word is rendered in every other instance where it occurs in the Greek, which is twenty-seven times). And it was these meats and drinks, and feast days, and these annual sabbath days that were shadows of things to come, and not the seventh-day Sabbath; for that was not a shadow as we shall see hereafter. Hence the skillful argument he sought to force from this text falls to the ground.

The gentleman informs us that a great mistake is made by many in supposing that the Sabbath was instituted at creation. This is indeed a sad mistake that very many have made, if his theory be true. But I object to his theory; and I insist that we have abundant proof that the Sabbath was instituted at creation, although he asserts there is none whatever. Let us see. Gen. ii, 2, 3: "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made, and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

Here we learn that at the close of creation, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, and the reason assigned was because that in it he had rested from all his work. Eld. West objects to the institution of the Sabbath in this passage, because nothing is said in it about the Sabbath, and that what is said pertains simply to the seventh day. This is certainly a dodge, unworthy a theologian. Let us read the latter part of the fourth commandment in connection with this text. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Here then in the commandment we learn that God blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it, and the same reason is assigned as in Genesis, viz., because that in it he rested. Here let me say that the word hallowed in the commandment and sanctified in Genesis is the same word in the original, so that both texts in that particular read alike. Now let me repeat: In the text in Genesis we learn that the seventh day was God's rest-day and that because it was his rest-day, he blessed and sanctified it. In the commandment we learn precisely the same fact, viz., that the seventh day was God's rest-day, and that therefore he blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day, i. e., his rest-day, for Sabbath day means rest-day,—Sabbath meaning rest. Now I ask you in the light of this testimony, when did God bless and sanctify the Sabbath-day, or rest-day? I presume that there is not one in this audience, but that will say at creation, or at the close of the first week of time. Then surely the Sabbath must have been instituted at creation, or God could not have blessed and sanctified it at that time.

But there is still more on this point, that I shall offer against the repeated assertion of Mr. West, that there is no evidence that there was any precept given for the observance of the seventh day at creation. The text in Genesis says, "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." Now what is it to sanctify a thing? Webster says, it is "to separate, set apart or appoint to a holy, sacred or religious use." Then to sanctify the seventh day would be to separate it, set it apart, and appoint it to a holy, sacred, or religious use. But the very essence of the act must consist in telling somebody that it was thus set apart and appointed to a holy and religious use, and consequently to be thus observed. Hence, when God set apart the seventh day to a holy use, the very essence of the act consisted in his telling Adam that he should use this day only for sacred purposes.

A most striking illustration of the meaning of the word sanctify may be found in the record of the sanctification of mount Sinai in the nineteenth of Exodus. When God was about to speak the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel, he sent Moses down from the top of mount Sinai to restrain the people from touching the mount. "And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai, for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it."

Turning back to the verse where God gave this charge to Moses, we read: "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it." Hence to sanctify the mount was to command the people not to touch even the border of it, for God was about to descend in majesty upon it. In other words to sanctify or set apart to a holy use mount Sinai, was to TELL the people that God would have them treat the mountain as sacred to himself, and thus also to sanctify the rest-day of the Lord, was to TELL Adam that he should treat the day as holy to the Lord.

But our friend urges as an objection to the Sabbath from creation, the fact that the book of Genesis contains no command for its observance. I admit the fact; but there is a defect in this argument not noticed by those who use it. The book of Genesis was not given to the patriarchs to walk by, on the contrary, it was written by Moses 2500 years after creation, and long after the patriarchs were dead; consequently the fact that certain precepts are not found in this brief record of so many years, is no evidence that they were not obligatory upon the patriarchs. Thus the book does not command men to love God with all their hearts and their neighbors as themselves; nor does it prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, adultery, theft, false witness or covetousness. Who will affirm from this fact that the patriarchs were under no restraint in these things?

As a mere record of events, written long after their occurrence, it was not necessary that the book should contain a moral code. But had the book been given to the patriarchs as a rule of life, it must of necessity have contained such a code. It is a fact worthy of especial notice, that as soon as Moses reaches his own time in the book of Exodus, the whole moral law is given. The record, and the people were then contemporary, and ever afterward the written law is in the hands of God's people, as a rule of life, and a complete code of moral precepts. The argument then under consideration is unsound. 1. Because based on the supposition that the book of Genesis was the rule of life to the patriarchs. 2. Because if carried out it would release the patriarchs from every precept of the moral law except the sixth. Gen. ix, 5. 3. Because the act of God in setting apart his rest-day to a holy use, as we have seen, necessarily involves the fact that he gave a precept concerning it to Adam in whose time it was thus set apart. And hence, though the book of Genesis contains no precept concerning the Sabbath, it does contain direct evidence that such precept was given to the head and representative of the human family.

The gentleman refers us to the sixteenth of Exodus, claiming that here is made the first reference to the Sabbath; and insists that the language used in this chapter clearly implies that the Sabbath was here first instituted; that it was here sprung upon the Israelites as a new and mysterious institution. A critical analysis of this chapter might be interesting and profitable, but I must desist from such an undertaking. I will however, make a few remarks that the gentleman's reference to this chapter seems to require. I affirm that the language of this chapter unmistakably proves the previous existence of the Sabbath and also that the Israelites had knowledge of the past, and that some of them were disposed to observe it. When the host of

Israel had pitched in the wilderness of Sin, and there set up their rebellious murmurings for bread, and doleful sighings for the flesh-pots of Egypt, the Lord saw fit, not only to provide them food in a miraculous manner, but in so doing proposed to give them a test of obedience to his law. In the 4th and 5th verses we hear the Lord saying to Moses, "Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them whether they will walk in my law or no. And it shall come to pass that on the sixth day, they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily." Here the Lord tells Moses what the test shall be, and also what will be the result of a faithful compliance therewith. This language proves beyond controversy, first, that God had a law previous to that time; secondly, that that law contained a precept relative to the Sabbath, although no direct mention is made of the Sabbath. For the test of obedience that was given, related exclusively to the Sabbath and could relate to nothing else. What was this test? Why "gather a certain rate every day that I may prove them." There had been no significance in their daily gathering as a test, or proof of obedience, did it not relate to the Sabbath.

Again, what the Lord said to Moses with regard to the preparation that should take place, or come to pass, on the sixth day proves that the Sabbath was an existing institution. And the bare fact that no direct mention is made of the Sabbath in this passage is proof, that it was not then and there instituted.

Now when the sixth day arrives, we find that the people did of their own accord gather twice as much bread as on the preceding days. Verse 22. "And it came to pass that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses." No mention is yet made of the Sabbath in direct terms, and no precept yet given; but does not this text prove most conclusively that the Sabbath was known to the people and that they were disposed to observe it? What object had they in gathering a double portion on the sixth day, except as a preparation for the approaching Sabbath? Dr. Clarke in commenting on this text very justly remarks, that "This they did that they might have a provision for the Sabbath." Another important item is proved by this text in support of the fact that the Sabbath was instituted at creation; viz., The reckoning of the week had been rightly kept, for the people knew when the sixth day arrived; and it is not a probable conclusion that the week should be thus retained without the Sabbath, by which alone the week is marked.

But it is objected by our friend that nothing was known about the Sabbath, from the fact, that the rulers came and told Moses that the people had been gathering a double portion of bread. Now this is a mistake. It does not prove that they were ignorant of the Sabbath, but rather that they were ignorant of any requirement to gather a double portion of bread on the sixth day, as in fact no such requirement had yet been made; and indeed this gathering of two omers for one man on the sixth day, was seemingly against the instructions that Moses had given on that point. For in verse 16, Moses says, "Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man." So we can readily see why the rulers came to Moses with such information. God had designedly omitted to give a precept on this point, for as we have seen, he designed to prove his people in the matter. And the people we see, or at least the Sabbath-loving portion of them, took the wise precaution to make the necessary provision for the Sabbath on the sixth day, and thus prove themselves loyal to the law of God.

After the people had thus proved themselves and the test thus been applied, and the rulers came to see Moses in regard to the matter, we see that Moses no longer remains silent on the subject; but informs them at once, that "This is that which the Lord hath said." When did the Lord say this? I answer he said it to Moses, in the fifth verse, about a week before this, when he proposed to prove his people, saying, "And it shall come to pass on the sixth day," &c.

After Moses had thus informed his informers of what God had revealed to him in the matter, he simply reminds them that "to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord," and that therefore "ye must bake that ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe."

Again, when the seventh day arrives, we learn from the record, (verse 27) that some of the people went out on that day to gather bread. Then, the Lord says, "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?"

Eld. West informs us that this language relates exclusively to the violation of that single Sabbath, which view his theory compels him to adopt; for if that was the first Sabbath, they could not of course have violated any other. But I submit that this language "How long refuse ye;" clearly implies that they had been accustomed to this sin, and that the Lord had long borne with them on the account of it.

I will close what I have to say on this point, by saying that this sixteenth chapter of Exodus, which is claimed as giving the origin of the Sabbath, is in striking contrast with the twelfth chapter of the same book which relates the origin of the passover. If you will compare the two chapters you will see the difference between the origin of an institution, as given in Ex. xii, and the familiar reference to an existing institution as in Ex. xvi. If you will also compare Gen. ii, with Ex. xii, you will see that the one gives the origin of the Sabbath, in the same manner that the other gives the origin of the passover.

We are next gravely informed that God blessed and sanctified simply the seventh day,—not the seventh day of the week,—but the seventh day of the history of the world; and that this is merely a historical fact, and therefore has no further claim to our regard. Well, I have this much to say at least, that it so happens that the first seventh day of the world, fell exactly on the first seventh day of the week. Evidently the gentleman has no clear idea respecting the nature and design of the blessing and sanctification of the seventh day.

In further reply to this point I would remark that the time when God blessed the seventh day is worthy of special notice. It was after he had accomplished his rest on the first seventh day of time. Proof. Gen. ii, 3. "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work." Hence the blessing and sanctification of the seventh day do not relate to the first seventh day of time, or the seventh day in the history of the world, as Mr. West claims, but to the seventh day of the week for time to come; for as we have seen, the act of sanctifying the day consists essentially in giving a precept for its sacred observance, which could not be the case with respect to the first seventh day of time, for that was already in the past, when God blessed and sanctified the seventh day, and thus laid the foundation for the Sabbath institution.

We were next treated to the assertion that the term day, in the narrative of creation does not mean a period of twenty-four hours. The term day is used in various senses, both in Scripture, and in common language. The gentleman quoted several texts wherein the word was thus used, from which he attempted to draw the conclusion that in the narrative of creation, the term was used to represent an indefinite period instead of twenty-four hours. But since his texts and his arguments failed to prove such fact, I deem it sufficient to let the record speak for itself.

I will notice however, his effort to do away with a fatal objection to his indefinite period theory; viz., the noted expressions evening and morning, by which each of the days of creation are unmistakably measured. He claims that as the sun did not appear in the heavens till the fourth day, there could not have been measured off days and nights, and consequently there could not have been any evenings and mornings to the first four days of creation. But how horribly his position conflicts with and contradicts the record if his view be correct, we ought to have a second Moses to revise and correct the narrative which we now have. But whatever view may be taken in regard to the sun's appearance in the heavens, it is a fact that on the very first day of creation, there was both light and darkness and also night and day. The first day commenced with darkness. Light was then caused to exist, and whether this light proceeded from the sun, or some other source, it matters not, for God pronounced it good. The light he called day and the darkness night. It is then said the evening and the morning were the first day. Here then we have a succession of darkness and light, night and day, evening and morning, whether or not it be through the aid of the sun.

To be more concise on the morning and evening question, he says they are the two equal parts of a day, and then to illustrate, he says, every man has his day; i. e., the morning and the evening. But his illustration is not good, as it conflicts with God's arrangement of the day. The morning of the Bible day succeeds the evening, or in other words the Bible day commences with the evening. But in his illustration, according to the common usage of language, a man's day, or man's existence, is said to commence with the morning and end with the evening.

To make a finish of this question, he then assures us that no mention is made of the evening of the seventh day, and therefore the seventh day of creation week is not ended yet, and consequently man would have to keep a long Sabbath if he kept God's Sabbath! The gentleman shows himself a bungler in this statement in at least two particulars.

First, if the sixth day of creation is past, as all will concede, then the seventh day has its evening, whether it be so stated in the record or not; for as soon as the sixth day is past, the evening of the seventh commences; for according to Bible reckoning, as we have stated, the evening is the first part of the day.

Secondly, the record is, that "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," because that in it he had rested from all his work, showing conclusively from his accomplished rest, that the seventh day, like all the rest of the days of creation week, is entirely in the past; therefore God's Sabbath is not so long by several thousand years, as the gentleman supposes. He says further, that God's Sabbath will not end till the consummation of all things. How is this? In the fourth commandment we learn that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." There is no other Sabbath declared to be God's Sabbath in the whole Bible.

But the gentleman claimed and endeavored to show that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was a shadow reaching only to Christ. He also asserted that this Sabbath was a type of the rest in Christ in the gospel, and is done away and superseded by the gospel. Now if his own showing be correct, then God's Sabbath was long since ended. How is it, then, that he says it will not end till the consummation of all things? Error, is indeed full of contradictions.

But now let us for a few moments consider the question of the Sabbath being a type or shadow. Great stress is laid upon this claim by many who urge objections against the seventh day. But a single consideration ought to suffice to nail this claim to the wall. Types and shadows, you are aware relate to man's redemption from the fall. From the fact that sin had entered into the world, and thereby made a great work of redemption necessary, a system of types and shadows was introduced, for the purpose of typifying, and shadowing forth the Redeemer of mankind, and the various acts embraced in the plan of redemption, whereby fallen man might manifest his faith in the same. But before sin entered into the world, whilst in Eden, man walked uprightly before God, there was no need, nor was there in fact, any such thing as a system of types and shadows, pointing out redemption; for at this time man was not in need of redemption. But as I have shown, the Sabbath was instituted at the close of creation, and before sin had entered into the world and man became a fallen being, hence before types and shadows were instituted; wherefore the Sabbath is not a type or shadow pointing forward to man's redemption. The Sabbath, instead of pointing forward, ever points backward to the great work of creation.

God will ever be worshiped in an understanding manner by his intelligent creatures. If the Sabbath was a shadow of man's redemption from the fall, man in his unfallen state could never observe the Sabbath as a delight, but ever with deep distress, as reminding him that he was soon to apostatize from God. I trust the fact, and the considerations that I have named are sufficient to forever do away with the quite common idea that the Sabbath is a type or shadow.

(To be continued.)