Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/divineauthoritypOOward 
 
No. 595. 
 
 THE 
 
 DIVINE AUTHORITY 
 
 # 
 
 AND 
 
 PERMANENT OBLIGATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SABBATH. 
 
 BY RALPH WARDLAW, D. D. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY; 
 Instituted 1799. 
 
 SOLD AT THE DEPOSITORY, 56, PATERNOSTER ROW, 
 
 and 65, st. Paul’s churchyard. 
 
 AND BY THE BOOKSELLERS. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N * 
 
 < ' 
 
 A. 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Want 
 
 THE SABBATH.* * 
 
 HE object of this tract is, to give a concise summary 
 
 ■ - of the argument in support of the early origin, and 
 
 the UNIVERSAL AND PERMANENT OBLIGATION, of THE 
 
 sabbath ; and of tne change from the seventh day 
 
 OF THE WEEK TO THE FIRST UNDER THE CHRISTIAN 
 
 dispensation. Extended and controversial discussion is 
 out of the question. 
 
 I. Early origin. It is a matter of fact, disputed by 
 none, that the seventh day sabbath was observed by the 
 Jewish people, under the ancient economy : and by none 
 who believe that economy to have been Divine is it doubted, 
 that amongst them it was not a self-authorized celebration, 
 but an institute of Jehovah. One great question, therefore, 
 is, was it peculiar to that people, Or was it, in its origin 
 and obligation, common to mankind? Did the observance 
 commence with the Divine legation of Moses, or did it 
 commence immediately after the creation of the world ? 
 This is a question of fact. The conclusions from it will 
 appear afterwards. It is the opinion of some writers, both 
 
 t recent and ancient, that the seventh day was not set apart 
 for sacred observance at the time of the creation; that 
 there was no such Divine institute till the departure of the 
 M Israelites from Egypt, two thousand five hundred years 
 afterwards; and that the historian, himself an Israelite, 
 ; in giving the inspired account of the creation, takes notice 
 of the sabbath incidentally only, and by anticipation : that 
 ' account, with which the institution was, at the future period, 
 associated, having naturally suggested it to his mind ! 
 
 Let us look, then, at that account, Gen. ii. 1—3 : Thus 
 the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host 
 ^ of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work 
 b which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day 
 
 from all his work which he had made. And God blessed 
 
 _ 
 
 * Abridged from a larger work on the subject by the author. 
 
4 
 
 NO. 595.—THE SABBATH. 
 
 the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he 
 had rested from all his work which God created and made.” 
 
 There is no dispute here about the meaning'of “ blessing’’ 
 and ‘‘sanctifying” the day. It is admitted to signify the 
 setting of it apart for religious observance. The question 
 is, Do the words record the setting apart of the day at 
 that time, or do they refer, prospectively, to its being set 
 apart thousands of years afterwards ?—And can any reader, 
 without a theory to support, hesitate about the answer ? 
 The case seems one that should not require an argument. 
 But since the latter opinion has been held, let the fol¬ 
 lowing considerations be weighed in support of the former. 
 
 1. Th e plain language of the passage. It is the lan¬ 
 guage of history. And what the historian relates about 
 the seventh day, he relates as done at the time, with the 
 very same simplicity with which he relates the associated 
 transactions of creation as done at the time. There is no 
 hint, no change of construction, nothing whatsoever, in 
 the slightest degree indicative of its being a mere allusion 
 to something that took place at a future and distant age. 
 
 2. The nature of the thing. Were there in this anything 
 that required the language to be understood as an allusion 
 to the future rather than a narrative of the present, we 
 might feel ourselves under the necessity of putting a con¬ 
 straint upon its more obvious import. Is it so, then ? 
 Quite the contrary. The nature of the thing is all in favour 
 of the simplest interpretation. If, as is admitted, the sab¬ 
 bath were a commemoration of God’s work of creation, then 
 why should not the commemoration commence from the 
 time the work to be commemorated was completed ? Was 
 it not thus with the passover? Was it not thus with the 
 Lord’s supper ? And why not with the sabbath ? 
 
 3. Our Lord's words , “ The sabbath icas made for ma?i, 
 and not man for the sabbath.” The words will come 
 afterwards to be used in evidence on another branch of the 
 subject. At present, we quote them, as plainly implying 
 that the time when man was made, was the time when the 
 sabbath was made. The words lead our minds irresistibly 
 to the time of creation. The sabbath was not first made, 
 and then man made to observe it ; but man was first made, 
 and the sabbath was made to be observed by him, and for 
 his benefit: and it is evidently implied, that it was made 
 for him at the time when he was made himself. 
 
K°. 505--THE SABBATH. 
 
 5 
 
 4. The apostle’s argument in Heb. iv. 3—8. In these 
 verses, he distinguishes the “rest,” of Canaan from the 
 previous sabbatical rest. And there is no making anything 
 of his argument, except on the assumption of the latter 
 having been entered into from the beginning. In quoting 
 God’s words, “ I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter 
 into my rest,” and marking the distinction between this 
 rest and the other, he does not say, “ Although the rest of 
 the seventh day had been instituted in the wilderness for 
 the observance of his chosen people,” but u although the 
 works were finished from the foundation of the world in¬ 
 timating most clearly, both in languageand argument, that 
 that rest had been “ entered into” from the time of the 
 finishing of creation. 
 
 5. The division of time into weeks. This division is 
 found to have existed among all nations, from the earliest 
 periods to which history and tradition reach ; together with 
 hints of the sacredness of the seventh day, and traces of the 
 practice of its observance. It is difficult, if not impossible, 
 to trace this weekly division of time to any other origin. 
 And, if this division of time had the origin thus assigned to 
 it, the reason of it must have been originally known, namely, 
 the fact of the Creator’s having made the world in six days, 
 and rested on the seventh. 
 
 6. The very terms in which the sabbath is introduced 
 by the historian of the Exodus. Had that language been, 
 in its natural and palpable meaning, the language of pri¬ 
 mary and legal institution, we might have been obliged to 
 yield up the preceding considerations, conclusive as they 
 seem. But so far is this from being the case, that we are 
 not satisfied with saying the language may be understood 
 consistently with the view we have been giving; we go 
 further, and affirm, that it cannot be understood otherwise. 
 We cannot here transcribe the whole of the sixteenth chap¬ 
 ter of the book of Exodus, which contains the account of 
 the manna, and in which the first mention of the sabbath, 
 in the history of Israel, is found. But let any man of or¬ 
 dinary common sense and candour (we ask no higher 
 qualifications) peruse that chapter, and say, whether he can 
 imagine the manner in which the sabbath is introduced to 
 be that in which an important religious observance, en¬ 
 tirely new, quite unknown before, would have been formally 
 and legally instituted. While the entire general style 
 
6 
 
 K°..595—THE SABBATH. 
 
 necessitates an opposite conclusion, there are two points to 
 which special attention may be requested. The first is, 
 the fact, that when God, in addressing Moses, enjoins the 
 gathering and preparing by the people of a double portion 
 of the manna, on the sixth day, he does it without assigning 
 any reason :—“ 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,” verse 5. 
 On the supposition of no sabbatical rest having previously 
 existed, and no distinction between the day of that rest and 
 the other days of the week, this omission of any reason is 
 very unaccountable : whereas, on the contrary supposition, 
 all is perfectly natural, and just as we might have expected 
 it to be. The second is, the further fact, that, when the 
 sixth day came, the people actually did gather “ twice as 
 much bread, two omers for one man and when they did 
 it, “all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses,” 
 verse 22. Now, what was it that the rulers reported? 
 One or other of two things. Either they told the fact of 
 this double gathering on the sixth day, as a thing which 
 they themselves had not anticipated, and which they appre¬ 
 hended might be a violation of the order respecting the 
 quantity to be collected daily; or they reported it as an 
 act of obedience, on the part of the people, to a previous 
 intimation, informing Moses that they had done as had 
 been commanded.. On the former of these suppositions, 
 it will follow, that the course pursued by the people on 
 the sixth day was pursued by them of their own accord, 
 anticipating the rest of the seventh. On the latter it follows, 
 that Moses had made known to the rulers and people the 
 intimation which Jehovah had made to himself. But 
 on either supposition the inference deducible is clear. 
 If Moses had not made known the intimation, and the 
 people gathered their double portion on the sixth day of 
 their own accord ; then the rest of the seventh day was 
 known and familiar to them. If, on the contrary, the in¬ 
 timation had been made known, and the people acted in 
 conformity to it, still the terms in which the intimation 
 had been given to Moses himself imply, with equal clear¬ 
 ness, that the sabbath of the seventh day was known and 
 familiar to him. From the manner in which the report is 
 brought by the rulers to Moses, and the manner in which 
 Moses answers them, the former supposition is by much 
 
NO. 595.—THE SABBATH. 
 
 7 
 
 the more likely. Their maimer is far more like that of 
 uncertainty and a desire of information, than that of a mere 
 matter of fact report of conformity to orders; and with 
 this the reply of Moses corresponds; affirming the pro¬ 
 priety of the people’s conduct, and adding fuller and more 
 explicit directions. 
 
 When the two passages, Gen. ii. 1*—3, and Exod. xvi. 
 are taken together, our argument receives great additional 
 strength. It cannot be, and never has been, questioned, 
 that the former, taken in its simple and natural meaning, 
 as a part of the narrative, at once assigns the reason of the 
 sabbath’s sanctification, and dates its commencement; and 
 it is not less apparent, on the very face of the narrative, 
 that the latter assumes the previous sanctification of the 
 day, as a thing well known. Thus all is easy, harmonious, 
 and consistent: and not the slightest constraint is put upon 
 either passage, to make it tally with the other. Whereas, 
 to interpret the former, as not a statement of present fact, 
 as every reader understands it, but only an allusion to a 
 fact of twenty-five centuries posterior date ; and to inter¬ 
 pret the latter as at all the style of legislative enactment, 
 or the first introduction of an unknown ordinance ; both 
 require a straining such as nothing short of absolute ne¬ 
 cessity can ever justify. And we need not say, that no 
 such necessity is here, s^ve the necessity of a theory. 
 
 7. The terms of the fourth commandment. Exod. xx. 
 8—11. We may assume that these terms are familiar to 
 our readers. It will surely not be questioned, that the 
 words “ Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy” are 
 words which pre-suppose its existence. Now we have seen 
 that the terms of the former passage, “ To-morrow is the 
 rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord,” are terms which, 
 on no natural principle, can be explained as the first enact¬ 
 ment of the sabbatic rest; but that they assume its pre¬ 
 existence as well as those before us. To what previous 
 period of institution, then, can the fourth commandment 
 refer ? What other is there, or can there be, but the 
 period of the creation. And “ the reason annexed” to 
 this commandment, accordingly, carries us back at once to 
 that time and to that event: “ 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.” This should be enough : 
 
8 
 
 NO. 595- —THE SABBATH. 
 
 but it is not all. It is as clear as day, that in the terms of 
 this “ reason annexed” there is a reference to the terms of 
 the history. The one are a quotation of the other. Moses- 
 had himself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, re¬ 
 corded the early fact: and while, in the words of the com¬ 
 mandment, “ Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy,” 
 he assumes its pre-existence; by citing the terms in which 
 he had himself recorded its origin, he shows at once its 
 high antiquity, and its primary design. The words in 
 Genesis may be justly called “the words of institution.” 
 They are there ; and there alone. There are no such words 
 of institution in Exodus xvi.: and in Exodus xx. they are not 
 words of institution; for even the miracle of the manna, where 
 the sabbath is, by our opponents, supposed to have com-, 
 menced, preceded the giving of the law ; they are only a quo¬ 
 tation of the words of institution. So that, unless the sab¬ 
 bath were instituted at the time when these words were used 
 there is no formal institution of it anywhere to be found. 
 
 That little or no notice of the sabbath is to be found in 
 the inspired account of the antediluvian and patriarchal 
 ages, may be at once admitted to be singular ; but that no 
 conclusion can be drawn from a consideration purely nega¬ 
 tive against one which rests on grounds so palpable and 
 positive, may be further shown, first, from the circumstance 
 of weeks being throughout the entire preceding history, 
 a recognised division of time; corresponding of course to 
 the creation week from which the division had its origin, 
 and which consisted of six days of work and one of rest; 
 so that every mention of weeks includes mention of the 
 
 V 
 
 sabbath ; and secondly, from the fact of there being no 
 mention of the sabbatli in the subsequent historical books 
 of Scripture, those of Joshua and Judges, for a period of 
 at least four hundred years, after its admitted institution 
 in the wilderness, and of the extremely rare and incidental 
 notice of it for even a greater number of centuries posterior 
 to the close of the book of Judges; and from the further 
 parallel facts, of there being no mention, for a period of 
 fifteen hundred years, from the birth of Seth till the flood, 
 of sacrifice; and for a similar period of fifteen hundred 
 years, from the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan till 
 the birth of Christ, of circumcision as an existing rite, unless 
 in an occasional and figurative use of the word by the his¬ 
 torians and prophets. In none of the cases is such silence 
 
NO. 595 .—THE SABBATH. 
 
 9 
 
 conclusive ; and in the case of the sabbath, the objection 
 from the silence before is completely neutralized by the 
 silence after. 
 
 But is not God said to have made known to Israel his 
 holy sabbath? Nell. ix. 14. Yes, we reply: but does 
 it follow from this that the sabbath was unknown and un¬ 
 observed before ? Without insisting on the phrase “ making 
 known” rather implying the existence already of the thing 
 made known than expressing its commencement, we may 
 reply, So is God said to have “ made known his ways 
 unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel ;” from 
 which, surely, it does not follow that none of them had 
 ever been “ made known” before ; far less that they did 
 not exist before. The sabbath, too, it is alleged, is said to 
 have been “given” to Israel, Ezek. xx. 10, 12. “Wliat 
 else,” it has been said, “ can this mean, than its being first 
 instituted in the wilderness ?” The answer is,^r^^, that 
 the same word is, in the same passage, as well as in Is eh. 
 ix., applied to God’s statutes, and judgments, and precepts, 
 and laws, generally, as well as to his sabbaths. Is it to be 
 inferred from this, that there were no Divine laws “ given” 
 to men prior to the time of the Exodus ? Not so thought 
 and taught the apostle Paul. He argues with the Jews, 
 that there was a law anterior to theirs, binding on mankind, 
 Jews and Gentiles alike, from the simple fact, that “ death,” 
 the penalty of sin, “ reigned” over all men “ from Adam 
 to Moses the penalty of sin implying the existence of 
 sin, and the existence of sin the existence of a law; seeing 
 “ sin is not imputed when there is no law,” Rom. v. 13, 14. 
 And secondly , that by our Lord himself the word “ given” 
 is expressly used respecting another rite, when it does not 
 mean, and by himself is explained gis not meaning, original 
 institution, John vii. 22 : “ Moses, therefore, gave unto 
 you circumcision—(not that it is of Moses, but of the 
 fathers)its having been given by Moses, then, does not 
 signify its having been “ first instituted” by Moses. Pre¬ 
 viously existing institutes and laws might, with all truth, 
 be represented as “ made known,” and as “ given,” to a 
 particular people, when, in a systematic and embodied form, 
 with special solemnity, and with peculiar sanctions, they 
 were delivered from heaven to that people ; and when the 
 possession of them in that form became the distinction of 
 that people from others. And on this ground too we find 
 
10 
 
 NO. 595.—THE SABBATH. 
 
 a satisfactory answer to another objection, namely, that the 
 sabbath, in different passages, is spoken of as given to be 
 “ a sign between Jehovah and the people of Israelwhich, 
 it is alleged, implies its having been, and having been de¬ 
 signed to be, peculiar to that people. Now, the same thing 
 is true of the whole law, not the ceremonial code merely, 
 nor even especially, but the moral, “ Thou shalt bind them 
 for a sign upon thine hand.” Were the precepts of the 
 moral law exclusively Jewish ? The plain truth is, that 
 whatever formed a distinction between the Israelites and 
 other nations was a sign. Such a sign were the giving of 
 the law, and the possession of it. All his institutions too, 
 and the sabbath among the rest, were a sign between God 
 and Israel, as forming a test, at once of their obedience tO’ 
 him, and of his faithfulness to them. And it is remarkable, 
 that even when the sabbath is spoken of as a sign, the 
 reason assigned for its observance, is not at all a reason 
 peculiarly Jewish, but simply the great general original 
 reason of the institution: “The children of Israel shall 
 keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their 
 generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between 
 me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the 
 Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he 
 rested, and was refreshed,” Exod. xxxi. 16, 17. 
 
 So much for the sabbath’s early origin. 
 
 II. Universal and permanent obligation. If we 
 have been successful in establishing our former position, we 
 need not dwell long on proofs of either the universality or 
 the permanence of the obligation. By the very authority 
 of those who deny the early origin, the successful demon¬ 
 stration of such an origin is admitted to be valid and con¬ 
 clusive evidence of bot^. “ If the Divine command,” says 
 Dr. Paley, “ was actually delivered at the creation, it was 
 addressed no doubt, to the whole human species alike; and 
 continues, unless repealed by some subsequent revelation, 
 binding upon all who come to the knowledge of it.” The 
 establishment of this, he grants, “ precludes all debate about 
 the extent of the obligation.” Here, then, we might leave 
 our case. We strengthen our position, however, by sundry 
 additional considerations. As, 
 
 1. The obvious universality of the object of the sabbath. 
 It is the commemorative celebration of the creation of the 
 world, and of the power and wisdom and goodness of the 
 
NO. 593 .-THE SABBATH. 
 
 11 
 
 great Creator. Can anything whatever be more com¬ 
 prehensive? To what people, or nation, or kindred, or 
 tongue, does such celebration specially pertain, more than 
 to another ? Surely, if there be aught that belongs to the 
 entire race, it is this. The duty is universal; the reason 
 of it is universal. Creation is a common theme; the 
 Creator a common object of adoration. 
 
 2. Its manifestly moral character. Look first at the 
 thing itself. What is it ? Apart altogether from the 
 moral principle involved in mercy to the brute creation, 
 and to the physically “ labouring and heavy laden” of our 
 own species, it is the setting apart of a portion of time for 
 the worship of God, and the cultivation and expression of 
 the principles and affections of piety. Can there be any¬ 
 thing more directly moral than this? We refer not to the 
 precise proportion of time to be so devoted. This we can 
 suppose to have been different, without any change in the 
 moral character of the command : although, if there be 
 anything in the specified proportion adapted to the physical 
 constitutions of man and brute, and to the most efficient 
 preservation of their physical energies, as well as discerned 
 by Infinite Wisdom to be the best fitted, in connexion with 
 these, for the spiritual ends of the day, there may even in 
 the seventh, rather than the sixth or the tenth part of time 
 be a corresponding amount of moral obligation. But at all 
 events, the worship of God, and the cultivation toward 
 Him of the principles of godliness, are decidedly moral 
 duties, and that of the highest order. And these are the 
 primary and most imperative duties of the sabbath. Look 
 next at the position the precept holds in the decalogue. It 
 is one of ten, of which all the rest are beyond contro¬ 
 versy, moral. This surely is a proof which, though it may 
 be called presumptive only, is strong, that it too is of the 
 same description. How came it there ? In the first com¬ 
 mandment we have the exclusiveness of God’s worship ; 
 in the second, the spirituality of his worship ; in the third, 
 its devout and reverential character, as well as the vene¬ 
 ration of all that is Divine ; and in the fourth, the guarantee 
 that in the midst of secular engagements it shall not be 
 overlooked and set aside, by the appropriation to it of a 
 certain fixed and regularly returning proportion of time. 
 All this is moral, clearly and divinely moral. And as such, 
 it is neither Jewish nor Gentile, but belongs to mankind ; 
 and it is, of course, permanent as well as universal. 
 
12 
 
 NO. 595.-THE SABBATH. 
 
 3. Out Lord’s representation of it as “made for man 
 
 “ Tlie sabbath was made for man, and not man for the 
 sabbath.” We have before referred to the words, as con¬ 
 taining proof that the making of man and the making of 
 the sabbath were coincident in point of time ; that when 
 man was made, the sabbath was made for him. It seems 
 impossible that in the words “man” can be understood 
 otherwise than generically. Where does either our Lord, 
 or any of the inspired penmen, use such terms in reference 
 to any institution merely Jewish? In regard to the sab¬ 
 bath, as in regard to the gospel, we might apply the ques¬ 
 tion, “ Is he the God of the Jews only ? Is he not also of 
 the Gentiles ?” And when Jesus inferentially subjoins to 
 this statement, “ therefore the Son of man is Lord also 
 of the sabbath his meaning appears to be, not that, the 
 institution being Jewish and temporary, he had authority 
 to set it aside with other ceremonial observances, seeing it 
 is not as an institution for Israel but for man that he speaks 
 of it; but rather, that, the sabbath having been instituted 
 in subserviency to the great moral ends of man’s being, 
 and his own mission, and the “ work given him to do” as 
 “ the Son of man,” being, above all the other plans and 
 doings of Jehovah, intended to promote those ends, he had 
 full authority, as the commissioned King of Zion, to in¬ 
 troduce any such changes in the observance as might coin¬ 
 cide with the special nature of his kingdom, and as might 
 thus render it the more effective for the accomplishment of 
 the moral purposes of God, with respect to man, in its in¬ 
 stitution. Such, for example, was the coming change of 
 the day. 
 
 4. The untenableness of the objections on this part of 
 our subject. It is objected, that if we are bound by the 
 law of observance, we must be bound also by the law of 
 penalty for its infraction. The obvious answer is, that 
 under the Jewish dispensation, other moral delinquencies, 
 idolatry for example, and adultery, and blasphemy, and 
 stubborn filial disobedience, were punishable with death 
 as well as sabbath-breaking. Must we, then, conclude, 
 that we are either under obligation so to punish these de¬ 
 linquencies, or under no obligation to keep the precepts of 
 which they are violations ? If the conclusion is fair as to 
 the sabbath, it must be fair in these other cases too. This, 
 we are aware, is evaded. We are bound, it is said, by the 
 moral precepts, but it is not as part of the law of Moses ; 
 
NO. 595.-THE SABBATH. 
 
 13 
 
 it is not as given to the Jews. I have called this an evasion. 
 And such it is. It is, first of all, a very plain truism, that 
 no man can be bound by a law as given to another than 
 himself; and it is as harmless as it is plain. But when 
 God made known divine truths and moral duties to his 
 ancient people, it was not truths and duties that belonged 
 only to themselves, and in which the rest of mankind had 
 no concern. His design was, to rescue from oblivion what 
 was in danger, through the corruption of human nature, of 
 being universally forgotten ; and to prepare for its still 
 fuller disclosure and more general diffusion at a future 
 period. Now, would there not be just about as much wis¬ 
 dom in a man’s saving 1 of the truths made known to the 
 Jews, “ These are, no doubt, important and valuable truths ; 
 but it is not as made known to the Jews that we are bound 
 to believe them,” as there is in his saying, respecting the 
 inculcated precepts, “ These, no doubt, are important moral 
 statutes; but it is not as given to the Jews that we are 
 bound to obey them?” The plain state of the case is, that 
 the discoveries of his character and of his will made to the 
 Israelites, were not discoveries of new truths and new 
 duties, peculiar to themselves, but of what had been truths 
 and duties from the beginning, and would continue truths 
 and duties to the end. There is no inconsistency in holding 
 ourselves bound by the moral precept, although not bound 
 by the particular penalty annexed to the violation of it; 
 in regarding the former as of universal obligation, and the 
 latter as peculiarly Jewish. The laws respecting penalties 
 arose out of that exclusively Jewish system of government, 
 the Theocracy : and no other people can be bound to con¬ 
 formity to the penal sanctions attached to the violation of 
 moral precepts under that system, unless it can make out 
 for itself the existence of a similar relation to God. But 
 this does not at all affect the universality of the obligation 
 of the commands of the moral law. 
 
 It is further objected, that if we are bound by the law 
 of the sabbath, we are bound to the observance of the same 
 day, the ancient seventh day. This at once leads us to, 
 
 III. The change of the day, from the seventh 
 
 TO THE FIRST, UNDER THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION. 
 
 It does not require to be proved, that a change of the 
 day, for any special and divinely assigned reason, makes no 
 alteration in the moral character and obligation of the 
 
14 
 
 NO. 595 .—THE SABBATH. 
 
 institution. That such a change was made, by Divine au¬ 
 thority, by the authority of Him who is “ Lord even of the 
 sabbath day,” at the commencement of the Christian dis¬ 
 pensation, is what we affirm ; and that the change was from 
 the seventh day of the week to the first. We argue this 
 on the ground, 1 . Of its own reasonableness', 2. Of recorded 
 facts and examples ; and 3. Of direct inspired authority. 
 
 1. Its own reasonableness. We mean by this its a priori 
 likelihood. There would, of course, be nothing conclusive 
 in this, were it unsupported by more direct evidence. But 
 it is a consideration, which may prepare our minds for 
 that evidence, by showing on what side the probability 
 lay. Our theory of the matter is this. At the original 
 institution of the sabbath, one special reason is assigned 
 for its celebration : “ 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,” 
 Gen. ii. 2, 3. The sabbath was thus, originally, an in¬ 
 stituted commemoration of the great work of creation, a 
 day to keep men in mind of the origin and of the Divine 
 Originator of all things, of the power, and wisdom, and 
 goodness of the all-glorious Creator, and of the duty of 
 fearing, loving, worshipping, and serving Him. This was 
 the grand primary reason of the institution; and by no 
 change has this reason ever been superseded. But when the 
 law of the sabbath was long after enjoined upon the Jews, 
 while this original reason was assigned for it, as retaining 
 all its force, an additional reason, arising out of their own 
 circumstances, and the special kindness of Jehovah towards 
 them, supervenes upon the former ; is not substituted for 
 it, but associated with it. Deut. v. 12—15 : u Keep the 
 sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath com¬ 
 manded thee. Six days shalt thou labour, 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 ; thou, nor thy son, 
 nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant nor thy maid-servant, 
 nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy 
 stranger that is within thy gates ; that thy man-servant 
 and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. And re¬ 
 member that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and 
 that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a 
 
N°. 595.-THE SABBATH. 
 
 15 
 
 mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the 
 Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath-day.” 
 That the latter reason is not a substituted but an added 
 one, is manifest from the fact, that, when the command¬ 
 ment was announced, along with the rest, by the voice of 
 Jehovah, from Sinai, the original reason alone is mentioned. 
 
 It is thus proved that, though the primary reason could 
 not be annulled, others might be added to it. If a second 
 might, so might a third. Let the supposition, then, be 
 made, that at “ the fulness of the time,” the completion of 
 the Saviour’s redeeming work had been assigned as a new 
 reason for the celebration of the sabbath, and that the day 
 had, at the same time, been retained. Had this been done, 
 we should have been in precisely the same circumstances 
 (only with the important exception of the immense supe¬ 
 riority of our additional reason to theirs) with the ancient 
 Israelites, when their deliverance from Egypt was superin¬ 
 duced upon the original reason of the sabbatic celebration. 
 But mark the difference. The transcendent excellence and 
 glory of the .work of redemption, and the surpassing' pre¬ 
 ciousness of its blessings, will not admit of its having the 
 place of a mere additional reason for the keeping of the 
 day. It must become the chief. It must have the first 
 place. It must take precedence even of creation. First 
 in the Divine estimate of greatness, it must be first in man’s 
 grateful and reverential commemoration. Flow, then, shall 
 this priority be marked ? Flow shall the superior importance 
 of redemption be recognised and testified in the celebration ? 
 Why, in order to give it the lead, the day shall be changed. 
 Creation had the day before; redemption shall have it 
 now. Not, in either case, exclusively : for as, from the 
 time of the first promise, God was worshipped as Redeemer 
 as well as Creator; so from the time of the fulfilment of 
 the promise by the finished work of Christ, He continues 
 to be worshipped as Creator as well as Redeemer. But, 
 his glory as seen “ in the face of Jesus,” in the wonders of 
 that work of salvation into which angels desire to look, 
 surpassing his glory as seen in the external universe, and 
 the benefit to man from the one so prodigiously exceeding 
 that arising to him from the provisions of the other ; He 
 is specially owned and adored, on the Christian sabbath, 
 in the character of “ the God of our salvation.” Now, 
 such an arrangement recommends itself to our minds as 
 
16 
 
 NO. 595.—THE SABBATH. 
 
 reasonable and right. From the pre-eminent place which 
 redemption holds in the revelation of God, bein<r its 
 grand discovery, and the pervading theme of its celebration, 
 it is no more than we might have been prepared to expect. 
 That the fact was in correspondence with the previous 
 probability, may appear from, 
 
 2. Recorded facts and examples. It is assumed, that 
 such facts and examples, if found recorded in the New 
 Testament, as having had place under the eye and with 
 the sanction of apostles, are equivalent to preceptive in¬ 
 junctions. What the apostles did, and what the churches 
 did under their supervision, must have been done in ac¬ 
 cordance with their Divine Master’s will. Notice, then, 
 
 (1.) Acts xx. 6, 7 : “ And we sailed away from Philippi, 
 after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to 
 Troas in five days ; where we abode seven days. And upon 
 the first day of the week, when the disciples came together 
 to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart 
 on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” 
 
 The inference from this passage is clear—we wish not 
 to press it further than it will bear—that Paul waited at 
 Troas for an opportunity of meeting with the assembled 
 church ; that the day on which he enjoyed this opportunity 
 was, not the seventh or last day of the* week in the be¬ 
 ginning of which he had arrived, but the first of the fol¬ 
 lowing week. The conclusion is, that the Christian brethren 
 were not accustomed to meet on the day of the ancient and 
 Jewish sabbath ; and that they were accustomed to meet 
 on a day of their own ; that, as their day of public worship, 
 they solemnized, not the seventh day, but the first. 
 
 (2.) 1 Cor. xvi. 1,2: u Now concerning the collection 
 for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of 
 Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week 
 let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath 
 prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 
 The same inference follows, beyond contradiction, from 
 this passage; that the first day of the week was the day of 
 their regular public assemblies for the worship of God. 
 On that day they were to lay apart a proportion of their 
 gains, as their prosperity might enable them to afford, 
 “ putting it into the treasury,” (that is of the church,) so 
 that when the apostle came, there might be no collections ; 
 that all might be ready to his hand. But while this in- 
 
NO. 595.-THE SABBATH. 
 
 17 
 
 ference is indisputable, there is another and a further one 
 
 from this passage, which is not less valid. We have here, 
 
 very evidently, the original week, with a change in the 
 
 day of rest. We have a period of secular business, during 
 
 which it is supposed they may have experienced various 
 
 degrees of prosperity in their respective callings: and we 
 
 have a day on which a proportion of the proceeds of such 
 
 business was to be set apart, and put into the church’s 
 
 treasury, for a benevolent purpose. Is not this just the 
 
 ancient arrangement, only with the change specified, 
 
 six days’ work, and one day’s rest ? Are not the apostle’s 
 
 words of much the same import as if he had said, Upon 
 
 the day of rest, put your contributions into the treasury, 
 
 conscientiously proportioning them to the measure of your 
 
 success during the days of labour? We have more, then, 
 
 in this passage, than the mere fact of the first day of the 
 
 week having been the day on which the churches met for 
 
 worship : we have the further fact established, we do not 
 
 say w ith absolute certainty, but with a probability akin to 
 
 certainty, that that day had now become the day of cessation 
 
 from the secular engagements of the other six : the ori- 
 
 e> o 
 
 ginal week, God’s instituted week, being, not merely a 
 period of seven days, but a period of six days of labour 
 and one of rest, sacred religious rest. 
 
 ! (3.) Rev. i. 10 : u I was in the Spirit on the Lore’s day.” 
 It is assumed that this w r as a natural day ; and that it was 
 the first day of the week. None will dispute this who are 
 worthy to be reasoned with. Such was the designation, 
 then, which that day had acquired among Christians at 
 that early period. And what designation could be more 
 appropriate for the day on which, after having been “ de¬ 
 livered for our offences,” he w r as “ raised again for our 
 justification?” the day which sealed the Divine acceptance 
 of his finished work, and was the prelude to his final and 
 universal triumph ? The day is his, sacred to him, and 
 to the exercise of thankful commemorative adoration for 
 the redemption effected by his death, and certified by his 
 resurrection. And with this passage, w r e cannot but con¬ 
 nect those recorded appearances of his to his disciples after 
 his rising from the dead, in which he, in a manner, prac¬ 
 tically claimed it as his own, and set the example of its 
 hallowed appropriation. He appeared to them in the even¬ 
 ing of the day of his rising. He permitted Thomas to 
 
18 
 
 NO. 505 . —THE SABBATH. 
 
 fc 
 
 remain for a week in his incredulity, and on the next first 
 day of the week, presented himself again, satisfied his doubts, 
 and received his adoring homage. His first two appear¬ 
 ances seem thus to have been designed to mark out the day 
 as henceforth the appropriate commemorative day for the 
 people of God, commemorative of his own work, the work 
 of redeeming love. And after his ascension, the glorious 
 day of the Spirit’s effusion, the blessed day of the com¬ 
 mencement of his reign, the pentecostal day, was also “ the 
 first day of the week.” And to complete this department 
 of our plea, it ought to be observed what a correspondence 
 there is between “ the Lord’s day” as the designation of the 
 Christian sabbath, and “ the sabbath of the Lord” as one 
 of the designations of the seventh day from the beginning. 
 “ My sabbath” it was called by Jehovah. Does not the 
 one thus stand for the other ? 
 
 3. Direct inspired authority. We hesitate not in 
 at once referring, for such authority, to Heb. iv. 9,10: 
 
 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 
 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from 
 his own works, as God did from his.” 
 
 Before directly stating the argument from this passage, 
 which to us appears clear and decisive, there are two re¬ 
 marks as to its phraseology which require the reader’s 
 attention. 1. The word which in the former of these 
 verses is translated rest, “ there remaineth a rest for the 
 people of God,” is not (as an English reader cannot but 
 suppose it to be) the same as that which is so rendered 
 throughout the chapter. The English reader who has a 
 Bible with marginal annotations, will see that on the mar¬ 
 gin it is rendered “ a sabbatism, or the keeping of a sab¬ 
 bath.” It is in this verse alone that this particular word 
 is used. In all the other occurrences of the English word 
 “ rest,” the Greek word is different; in verses 1st, 3rd, 5th, 
 8th, 10th, and 11th. The word in verse 9th, is a noun of 
 regular formation from the verb which, in the Septuagint 
 translation of the Old Testament, is used for keeping a 
 sabbath. We are satisfied, that there is more under this 
 change of the term, than can be accounted for on any mere 
 principle of taste in composition, or the desire to represent 
 the rest of heaven under the figure of an eternal sabbath. 
 How just and pleasing soever such a figure may be, a sound 
 reasoner will beware, without some better cause, of intro- 
 
NO. 595 .—THE SABBATH. 
 
 19 
 
 ducing into his conclusion a different term, and one capable 
 of a different meaning, from that which he had used in his 
 premises. We believe the ninth verse to be an inference 
 from what he had established in the six preceding verses; 
 while, at the same time, the inference was what he had it 
 principally in his view to bring out, from the argument 
 contained in those verses, an argument of apparent intri¬ 
 cacy, though real simplicity, into which it is impossible 
 here to enter. He is writing to Hebrews ; and reasonably 
 might it be expected that amongst the variety of topics to 
 which he adverts, connected with ancient observances and 
 the changes under the new economy, the sabbath should 
 not be without notice. Here, as we believe, it is. He 
 vindicates the observance of a new sabbath-day, under that 
 economy, by ‘‘the people of God/’ the New Testament 
 Israel. The ground of vindication we shall see presently.— 
 2. The other observation relates to the word “ remaineth,” 
 “ There remaineth therefore a sabbatism to the people of 
 God.” That the word may naturally refer to what is “ re¬ 
 served in heaven” for them, as remaining to be obtained 
 and enjoyed by them all in succession, is not denied. It is 
 enough for our purpose, that it is capable, with equal pro¬ 
 priety, of referring to what was in reserve for God’s people 
 under the new spiritual economy, called by him “ the time 
 of reformation.” Of the Old Testament saints he says, 
 “ These all, having received a good report through faith, 
 received not the promise: God having provided some 
 better thing for us, that they without us should not be 
 made perfect,” Heb. xi. 39, 40. When “the fulness of 
 the time” came, the “ promise” was “ received,” the “ better 
 things,” before “ provided,” were obtained. And in com¬ 
 memoration of the glorious accomplishment of the promise, 
 and the finishing of the work of redemption, there “ re¬ 
 mained” this new “ sabbatical rest” to “ the people of God.” 
 The word is used in a sense similar to that in which he 
 applies it, negatively, to the subject of sacrifice : “ If we 
 sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of 
 the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” The 
 “ one offering” of Christ has finished and set aside the 
 entire sacrificial system. But, on the contrary, there did 
 u remain” a special “ sabbath-keeping,” adapted to the 
 commemoration of this one offering, and of the completion 
 by it of the great work of redemption. The sacrifices. 
 
20 
 
 NO. 595.-THE SABBATH. 
 
 though not exclusively Jewish, yet being typical and cere¬ 
 monial, were set aside, as having answered their end : but 
 the sabbath, being in its character moral, and having ends 
 to serve that were as important under the last as under 
 previous dispensations, “ remained.” But it remained as a 
 new day, and with a new and special su bject of celebration 
 
 We have before taken notice of the reasonableness of the 
 appropriation of a new day to the celebration of the most 
 glorious of Divine transactions. And having thus cleared 
 our way, let the reader candidly observe, divesting himself 
 of all prepossessions in behalf of the common interpretation, 
 which has all the force of habit, and all the influence of 
 pious and delightful associations, on its side, 
 
 1. The beautiful and striking analogy between the reason 
 assigned for this new sabbatic day, and that originally as¬ 
 signed for the old: 44 There remaineth therefore a sab- 
 batism to the people of God : for he that is entered into 
 his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as 
 God did from iiis.” Just suppose Christ to be meant 
 by 44 He that is entered into his restand the analogy is 
 perfect and forcible. The very reading of the words ren¬ 
 ders the conclusion so simple as to be irresistible. As 
 when God ceased from his work of creation, the day of his 
 resting was hallowed as a sabbatism, or a day of com¬ 
 memorative rest and religious celebration ; so, when Jesus 
 finished his work, the work of redemption, and rested from 
 it in his resurrection and his reception to the right hand of 
 God, that blessed day was, in all time coming, to be the 
 day of sabbatical rest and celebration. In the ordinary 
 interpretation, the spirit of this allusion, and of the analogy 
 suggested by it, is entirely lost. There is not a vestige of 
 it left. But, interpreted as above, so completely is it pre¬ 
 served, that the language of God in Gen. ii. 1 3, might, 
 in the full spirit of it, be accommodated to the work of 
 Jesus when he rose, from the dead, and the consequent 
 sanctification of the first day of the week : 44 Thus the work 
 of redemption was finished, and all its glorious ends secured. 
 And on the first day of the week, Jesus rose from the grave, 
 and finally rested from the work he had done: wherefore 
 the ascended Lord blessed the first day, and sanctified it.” 
 
 2. The 44 For” in verse 10, is plainly designed as as¬ 
 signing a reason for what had been stated in the verse pre¬ 
 ceding. But according to the ordinary interpretation of 
 
N°. 595.—THE SABBATH. 
 
 21 
 
 the passage, it neither assigns a reason, nor adduces a proof, 
 of what is there affirmed. . The supposed affirmation is 
 “ there remaineth a rest,” the heavenly rest, u for the people 
 of God and what seems to be assigned as a reason, or 
 adduced as a proof, of this is, “ for he that is entered into his 
 rest,”—the believer, namely, who dies and goes to heaven, 
 u he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from 
 his.” Now, apart from the unnaturalness of any such 
 analogy as that between the believer’s ceasing from his 
 works on earth and God’s ceasing from the six davs work 
 of creation, and, we think we might add, the presumption 
 involved in it, we have to ask, how the believer’s ceasing 
 from his works on his entering the heavenly rest can be a 
 reason why that rest remaineth for him, or how it can be 
 a proof that it does remain for him ? What kind of argu¬ 
 ment is imputed to the inspired writer, when he is made to 
 say, u There remaineth therefore the heavenly and ever¬ 
 lasting rest to the people of God ; for the believer who 
 enters into that rest ceaseth from his own works, as God 
 did from his ?” Surely, there is here neither reason nor 
 proof. There is an unnatural and (to say the least of it) 
 sufficiently bold analogy ; and to the illative particle “ for” 
 there is left no meaning whatever: whereas, on the other 
 view, the analogy between God ceasing from the work of 
 creation, and the Son of God ceasing trom the work of re¬ 
 demption, is beautiful and striking, and the reason thence 
 arising for a new “ sabbatism to the people of God” is 
 pertinent and satisfactory. Then, 
 
 3. All other considerations are in full harmony with 
 this interpretation. The change of the word from that 
 signifying rest to that which the Hebrews could hardly fail 
 to understand as meaning the keeping of a sabbath has 
 been already adverted to. So too has the reasonableness 
 of expecting that in such an epistle, an epistle addressed to 
 Hebrews, and for the express purpose of showing the har¬ 
 mony between the old state of things and the new, and 
 reconciling their minds the more fully to the latter, some 
 notice should be found of the transition, in the worship of 
 the New Testament church, from the seventh day to the 
 first; a notice which is nowhere in the epistle, unless here. 
 We now add, that the view which we consider the passage 
 as giving of the first-day sabbath is one which accords 
 precisely with the fact as to its real nature and design. 
 
22 
 
 NO. 595.—THE SABBATH. 
 
 For wliat is that sabbath ? Is it not exactly what our 
 explanation of the passage intimates, a commemoration of 
 the finished work of Jesus, of his triumphantly u ceasing 
 from that work, and entering into his rest?” Is it not 
 just a solemn and delightful celebration of this? a rest of 
 the believing soul in the completed redemption ? in Jehovah's 
 perfect and eternal satisfaction in it, his u smelling a savour 
 of rest” in the accepted sacrifice of his Son? Is it not a 
 day of personal and social jubilee, of spiritual joy and praise, 
 in memory of Him who was u delivered for our offences, 
 and raised again for our justification ?” And did not the 
 Spirit, by the inspired psalmist, anticipate the celebration 
 of this day, wheii he dictated the prophecy, “ The stone 
 which the builders refused is become the head stone 
 of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is mar-, 
 vellous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord 
 
 HATH MADE : WE WILL REJOICE AND BE GLAD IN IT?” 
 
 There is one objection to the view given which naturally 
 occurs to the English reader, but which a single word or 
 two of explanation will be sufficient to set aside. In the 
 verse immediately subsequent to those on which we have 
 been commenting, the apostle adds, “ Let us labour there¬ 
 fore to enter into that rest.” How, it is naturally enough 
 asked, can believers be exhorted to labour to enter into 
 the keeping of a sabbath? Certainly they cannot. And 
 were the only reference of the rest in verse 11th to the 
 .sabbatism in verse 9tli, this would be fatal to our inter¬ 
 pretation. But it is not so. The objection proceeds on a 
 misapprehension. The admonition to “ labour to enter 
 into that rest” has reference, not at all to the sabbatism in 
 the 9th verse, but to the rest in the 10th, the rest into 
 which “ He who has ceased from his work” has entered; 
 a rest which his people are all destined to share with Him ; 
 and of which our sabbaths on earth, in* commemoration of 
 his work, are at once the prelibation and the pledge. We 
 commemorate Christ’s rest, and we anticipate our own. 
 
 This tract has already greatly exceeded the intended 
 limits ; yet a large field of important and interesting dis¬ 
 cussion is left untouched. Our sole object has been to 
 establish, on Scripture authority,—the only authority on 
 such a subject—the early origin, the universal and perma¬ 
 nent obligation , and the change under the Christian economy , 
 of the day of sabbatical rest. And with one reflection, we 
 
NO. 595.-THE SABBATH. 
 
 23 
 
 conclude. It relates to the talk of those who would set 
 aside the sabbath as a day of rest and religious celebration 
 on the ground of our being now under a more spiritual 
 dispensation ! Surely never was argument more self-de¬ 
 structive. Never were premises more fatal to the very 
 conclusion they are brought to support. We live under a 
 spiritual dispensation. And is the secularizing of the 
 sabbath more befitting a spiritual dispensation than the 
 religious observance of it ? more calculated to promote 
 the divine life in the soul, than the dedication of it to the 
 exercises of devotion and attendance on the means of 
 spiritual-mindedness ? Is it a characteristic of a spiritual 
 dispensation, that every day should be alike? So say some. 
 And to make the sentiment sound more spiritually, they 
 express it by every day being a sabbath. But who does 
 not see, whether judging theoretically or experimentally, 
 that every day a sabbath is the same as no day a sabbath ? 
 that every day alike is not every day alike spiritual, but 
 every day alike secular ? And is a spiritual dispensation 
 a dispensation of release from spiritual exercises, or of their 
 infrequency and abridgment? Is there a child of God 
 that can feel this a privilege, or that can so far impose upon 
 himself, and forget the deceitfulness of the heart, as to 
 fancy that he is realizing a spiritual dispensation, when he 
 puts the sabbath on a footing with other days, and professes 
 to make all alike spiritual by infusing spiritual principle 
 into secular occupation ? Alas ! for the delusion ! Can any 
 child of God really count it a privilege to be released from 
 the duty of consecrating so large a portion of his time as one 
 day in seven to the service of God, to self-examination, to ab¬ 
 straction from this world and the cultivation of fellowship 
 with the world to come ? Is this indeed a part of “ the 
 liberty” with which Christ makes his people free? What 
 conceptions must they have of Christian liberty, and of a 
 spiritual dispensation, who fancy it a part of these that 
 they are not bound by any stringent injunctions of outward 
 religious observance, or times of private spiritual occupation, 
 but that they have a larger allowance of time at their own 
 disposal, for secular and worldly pursuits ? Is it really 
 spirituality of mind that exults in such a freedom, and that 
 looks upon others as wearing chains which Christianity 
 entitles them to burst and throw off? Is there any one 
 Divine institution more eminently fitted for the advance- 
 
24 
 
 NO. 595. - THE SABBATH. 
 
 merit of spirituality of mind, than the day of God when 
 duly observed ? So strong is the impression of this on our 
 mind, both from the obvious nature of the thing, and from 
 the general experience of the children of God—an expe¬ 
 rience put on record by many a happy and grateful heart— 
 that it forms a powerful presumptive argument for the 
 unlikelihood (we had almost said the impossibility) of its 
 having, under the new economy, been set aside. A spi¬ 
 ritual dispensation, surely, is not a dispensation under 
 which the means of spirituality are taken away. And when 
 we consider the spiritual constitution of the sabbath, and 
 its admirable adaptation to spiritual improvement, along 
 with the fearfully anti-spiritual tendencies of its cessation, 
 we cannot bring ourselves to imagine that such an institu¬ 
 tion should be ranked among the worldly rites of a trans¬ 
 itory ceremonial, the “ beggarly elements” of an intro¬ 
 ductory and carnal dispensation, the burdensome observance 
 of u a yoke of bondage!” That a Christian should be 
 solicitous to add as much more of his time for the cultiva¬ 
 tion of the principles and affections of godliness as he can 
 redeem from the necessary engagements of this world, we 
 can easily understand. But that such a man, a man under 
 the real power of heart-felt evangelical piety, can listen 
 with complacency to reasonings that would rob him of a 
 portion of his spiritual enjoyment, and abridge the instituted 
 means of his advancement in grace, and in u meetness for 
 the inheritance of the saints in light,” it is surely no very 
 wide or unwarrantable breach of charity to doubt. A more 
 convincing proof could not be furnished of secretly begun 
 spiritual declension, than the manifestation of a disposition 
 to insinuate doubts about the obligation of the sabbath, 
 and to do this without any apparent concern or trembling 
 of heart at the conclusion: nor can a clearer evidence ap¬ 
 pear in any Christian church of a mere “ name to live,’"' or 
 a symptom more ominous of its approaching darkness and 
 desolation, than the prevalence of such a spirit,—the rise 
 and progress of a tendency to speculate about the abroga¬ 
 tion, or even the curtailment, of the sabbath of the Lord, 
 “ the Lord’s day.” 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY. 
 
 56, PATERNOSTER ROW, AND 65, ST. PAUL’S CHURCHYARD 
 [Price 6s. per 100.]