secure its observance, are the following: "For in six days the Lord thy God made heaven and earth," &c. But that which is given by Moses, was the kindness of God in delivering them from Egyptian bondage. a The reason which is given by Moses why the Sabbath should be observed after the deliverance of Israel from their bondage, is clearly an additional reason. The reasons annexed to the Creation Sabbath had been repeatedly, and in circumstances the most solemn, exhibited before them; they had recently been the subjects of great and signal mercies, and as the observance of the Sabbath was an important part of divine service, what would be more reasonable than that the additional mercies they had received at the hand of God, should be stated as an additional reason, why they should serve him? Different reasons are given in different parts of the Bible, why we should embrace the gospel, but no one would infer from that circumstance that the gospel had ever been abrogated, or that our obligation to embrace it, is not perpetual.

་

Q. If the institution of the Sabbath was designed to be perpetually binding, why is it not expressly enjoined in the New Testament?

A. We are by no means willing to concede that it is not explicitly commanded in the New Testament, It must be apparent, from the remarks which have been already made, that every intimation that the law is still obligatory upon men, contains an injunction for the observance of the Sabbath. "Do we then make void the law through faith, (said the Apostle) God forbid; yea we establish the law." The whole course of his reasoning was designed to show, that he considered the obligations of the law, to be continual. Since there is not the slightest intimation, either in the giving of the law, or in any after period, that the fourth command was not

a Deut. v. 15. b Rom. iii. 31.

as sacred and as continually binding as the rest, how could we expect that this command would be singled out and explicitly enjoined? The law that regulates affinity in marriage, is not repeated, nor enjoined in the New Testament; yet who supposes from this fact, that it is repealed, and that it would now be right for a man to marry his own daughter or sister?

Q. If the Sabbath be the same institution under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations, why should it not be observed in a manner as strict and as holy, under the latter as the former; and why should not a violation of it, be punished with as severe corporeal punishments now, as it was under the former dispensation?

A. That we are not under obligation to observe the Sabbath, in a manner as holy as were the prophets, can never be proved either from the nature of the institution, or from the Bible; and of course the violation of it must be as great, if not a greater sin in us, than it was in them. Still it is far from being true, that the same kinds of punishment should be inflicted. Mankind are much more enlightened now, than they were in the days of Moses. There is an apparent propriety, in the course which God in his providence has pursued, in relation to this subject. When children are young and possess but little information, it is uniformly con sidered far more suitable to make use of corporeal punishments in correcting them, than when they are of sufficient age to weigh with seriousness, verbal reproof. Under the former dispensation, corporeal punishments were inflicted for many crimes; but under the latter, men are uniformly pointed forward for their reward, to the retributions of a future world. The case before us is not singular in this respect. The child who was disobedient to his parents, under the former, was to be stoned to death. No one can suppose that disobedience to parents is not as criminal now, as it was

then; neither does any one imagine that the disobedient child is now, to be stoned to death.

Q. What evidence have we that the day, to be observed as the Sabbath, is changed; or that to observe the first day of the week, is a compliance with the fourth command?

A. It was necessary that the day should be changed, in order that the object for which the institution was appointed, might be accomplished. It has been already shown, that the object for which the appointment was made, was to preserve the worship of the true God in the world. When this object required a change in the day, it is apparent that the nature of the institution was not effected. That the object did require this change in the day, will be seen from the following consideration.

So long as the Sabbath was observed in commemoration of the work of creation, and in this way preserved the worship of the true God, so long it remained as a test of religion. Such as observed it, gave evidence that they believed in the true God, and in all that he had revealed of himself to the world. By this means, the observance of the Sabbath became a test, by which might be determined who were the worshippers of the true God, in distinction from unbelievers. But when the Messiah appeared in the world, if the day had not been changed to commemorate his resurrection, the observance of it would not have shown who were believers, in distinction from unbelievers. It would have no longer remained as a test, to determine the true worshippers of God. Had it not been changed, such as adhered to the Jewish form of worship, and wilfully rejected Christ, could not have been distinguished by the Sabbath, from real Christians. In this case, the institution would not have answered the purpose for which it was appointed. On the other hand, it will be seen that no individual, that believed and kept the first day of the

week, in commemoration of his resurrection, would disbelieve that God had created the world; and of course, the observance of the first day of the week would accomplish all the purposes for which the Creation Sabbath was appointed. It is plain therefore, that the institution by being changed to the first day of the week, served to distinguish the real servants of God from his enemies, and answered at the same time, the same purpose as the ancient Sabbath.

2. The Sabbath was set apart or sanctified as an institution, and not the day on which it was appointed. This will be seen by a careful reading of the command that contains the institution. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." a Here it may be seen is a distinction between the seventh day, and the Sabbath day, which clearly shows that the institution, was independent of the day on which it was appointed. Although the Sabbath was then on the seventh day, it was the Sabbath, and not the seventh day that was sanctified. And if the institution existed independently of the day on which it was appointed, then the day may be changed, while the institution remains the same.

3. The change of the day, seems to be clearly intimated Concern. by the Apostle, in the fourth chapter of Hebrews. ing the Saviour he observes, "For he that has entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." As it is said in the preceding verse, "That God did rest the seventh day from all his works," it is evident, that the Apostle is here comparing the work of the Saviour in the redemption of men, with that of the Father in the creation of the world. As the Father, when he had finished his a Ex, xx 9, 11,

r

work, established a day of rest, so the Son, when he had finished his more important work, had a day appointed by the observance of which, it might be commemorated.

4. As a still more conclusive argument, it may be observed that the first day of the week, was observed by the disciples, and all the primitive Christians. It was their custom to meet on the first day of the week, to attend to the ordinances of the gospel. a It will certainly not be supposed, by any candid inquirer after the truth, that the Apostles did not understand the will of their Master. As he was pleased himself to meet with them, after his resurrection on that day, it is but reasonable to suppose that they had received his instructions on the subject. It was on this account, that the first day of the week was called the "Lord's day." It was observed to commemorate his glorious work. In addition to this, it has been already shown that all the Churches, during the first centuries, observed it as the Sabbath. It cannot be supposed that the Apostles would be left, not only to mistake the will of the Lord, but to convey to their successors, an important error in Christian practice.

Lest some should be inclined to doubt, whether the primitive Christians observed the first day of the week, we will subjoin a few extracts, from the history of those days. Ignatius, who was a companion of the Apostles, says expressly, "Let us no longer sabatize, (by which he meant keeping the Jewish Sabbath) but let us keep the Lord's day, on which our Life arose." In another passage, he calls it the " queen of days." Melito, it is said, wrote a whole book concerning the first day of the week. Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, in their Apologies for Christianity, speak expressly of stated Christian assemblies on that day. Irenæus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who lived in the second century, says, “On

a John xx. 19, 26. Acts xx. 7, and 1 Cor. xvi 2.