Produced by Heiko Evermann, Lisa Reigel, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net









                                 THE

                         SEVENTH DAY SABBATH


                                  A

                            PERPETUAL SIGN

             FROM THE BEGINNING, TO THE ENTERING INTO THE
                        GATES OF THE HOLY CITY

                    ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT.


                           BY JOSEPH BATES.


     "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old
     commandment which ye had from the _beginning_. The old
     commandment is the WORD which ye have heard from the
     _beginning_." _John_ ii: 7.


     "In the _beginning_ God created the heaven and the earth."
     _Gen._ i: 1. "And God blessed the seventh day, and rested from
     all his work." ii: 3.


     "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have
     right to the tree of life and enter in," &c. _Rev._ xxii: 14.


                [SECOND EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED]

                             NEW BEDFORD:
                      PRESS OF BENJAMIN LINDSEY
                                 1847




[ii]PREFACE

TO THE LITTLE FLOCK.


"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." "Six days work may be done,
but the SEVENTH is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not
do any work." This commandment I conceive to be as binding now as it
ever was, and will be to the entering into the "gates of the city." Rev.
xxii: 14.

I understand that the SEVENTH day Sabbath is not the LEAST one, among
the ALL things that are to be restored before the second advent of Jesus
Christ, seeing that the Imperial and Papal power of Rome, since the days
of the Apostles, have changed the seventh day Sabbath to the first day
of the week!

Twenty days before God re-enacted and wrote the commandments with his
finger on tables of stone, he required his people to keep the Sabbath.
Exo. xvi: 27, 30. Here he calls the Sabbath "MY COMMANDMENTS AND MY
LAWS." Now the SAVIOR has given his comments on the commandments. See
Matt. xxii: 35, 40.--"On these two (precepts) hang ALL the law and the
prophets." Then it would be impossible for the Sabbath to be left out. A
question was asked, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Says Jesus,
"If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments"--xix. Here he
quotes five from the tables of stone. It is still clearer in Luke x. 25,
28. "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" Here he gives the
Savior's exposition in xxii. Matt. as above. Jesus says, "Thou hast
answered right, this do and live." See also Matt. v: 17, 19, 21, 27, 33.
PAUL comments thus. "The law is holy, and the commandments holy, just
and good." "Circumcission and uncircumcission is nothing but the keeping
the commandments of God." "All the law is fulfilled in one word: thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." JOHN says, "the old commandment is
the WORD from the beginning."--2, 7.--Gen. ii: 3. "He carries us from
thence into the gates of the city." Rev. xxii: 14. Here he has
particular reference to the Sabbath. JAMES calls it the PERFECT, royal
law of liberty, which we are to be doers of, and be judged by. Take out
the fourth commandment and the law is imperfect, and we shall fail in
one point.

The uncompromising advocate for present truth, which feeds and nourishes
the little flock in whatever country or place, is the restorer of all
things; one man like John the Baptist, cannot discharge this duty to
every kindred, nation, tongue and people, and still remain in one place.
The truth is what we want.

FAIRHAVEN, AUGUST, 1846.

JOSEPH BATES.




[iii]PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

TO THE LITTLE FLOCK.


My reasons for issuing a second edition of this book are, First, the
increasing demand for them, from different quarters. Second, it affords
me an opportunity of spreading additional light from the Word on this
important subject of present truth. Much more is said about it than any
doctrine in the bible, beginning in Genesis, and continuing down to the
closing up of the last message which God ever gave to man, proving
clearly that the doing of these commandments saves the soul; showing it
more clearly than a strict adherence to the Constitution of these United
States proves the man a sound patriot. Therefore in this sense they are
strictly the constitution of the bible, the everlasting covenant between
God and man, and can never be changed or altered while man is stamped
with the image of God. Why then has the church lost sight of them? or
rather the Covenant in them of the 7th day Sabbath? See history 43d
page, and Dan. vii. 25. Well then how does it come to be understood at
this point of time? Answer.--The angel Gabriel told Daniel that
knowledge should increase in the time of the end. This of course
included the scriptures, particularly since the proclamation of the
everlasting Gospel in Rev. xiv: 6, 13. It is well known how this
knowledge has increased since 1840. These ten Commandments being the
foundation of the scriptures. (See Matt. xxii.) God, in a peculiar
manner, to instruct his honest, confiding children, shows them
spiritually under the sounding of the seventh Angel, the ark of his
testament after the temple of God was opened in heaven. xi: 19. These
are the ten commandments. Here then I understand is where the spirit
made an indelible impression to search the scriptures for the TESTIMONY
of God. It was done, and published to the world by many, that the
professed church had been walking in open violation of the fourth
commandment since the days of the Apostles.--Every one that has read the
history of this TESTIMONY of God in the ark, must see the mighty power
that accompanied it through Israel and Philistine, one of the greatest
wonders that ever existed [iv]in this world, a pattern only of what was
seen in the opening of the Temple in heaven. In the xiv: 12, John sees
them obeying its dictates. In the xv ch. he describes the division as in
the xiv ch. they were rejoicing over the victory of the beast, (got out
of the churches,) standing on or by the sure word of prophecy, (some say
immortality.) The 4th v. says, "for all nations SHALL come (in the
future) and worship before thee." "After that I looked and behold the
Temple of the Tabernacle of the TESTIMONY in heaven was open," 5th v.
(that is after their songs of rejoicing.) The Temple which contained the
Tabernacle, the ark of the testimony, or ten commandments was open. Now
this Temple without doubt is the new Jerusalem. Who cannot see that this
Temple has been opened for some purpose, but not to be entered by man
until the seven last plagues are fulfilled. Here is a space of time in
which the commandments will be fully kept. I do not say that this view
of the Ark in Rev. is positive, but I think the inference is strong. I
cannot see what else it refers to.

On pages 15, 16, I have added about 24 lines in further explanation of
Coll. ii: 14, 17. On 16th page, I have also added about as much more to
illustrate and distinguish the Sabbath feasts of the Jewish nation. On
the nineteenth page I have given about forty lines on the 2d Cor. iii,
which I think must settle these points fully.

The last fourteen pages are principally devoted to the covenants and
what they are intended for. The two covenants made with man in this
state of mortality, is first by God delivered to Moses. The second or
new, by Jesus Christ and his disciples. Paul in speaking of them to the
Gal. iv: 24, says these are THE TWO COVENANTS. All the others belong to
the Saints after the second advent.

If any of the brethren feel it a duty to help pay for the paper and
printing of this edition the way is open, otherwise it will be done by a
few individuals here, as was the first edition. This work is sent forth
gratuitously, with a fervent prayer that these present precious truths
may be set home on the soul preparatory to the coming judgment.

Since issuing the first edition in August last, we have publicly called
on all the advent lecturers and believers to show us if we were wrong on
the Lord's Sabbath. Once more we now challenge the Christian world to
show us if they can from the Bible, where we have taken a wrong view of
the seventh day Sabbath.

Fairhaven, Jan. 1847.

J. B.




[5]THE SABBATH


FIRST QUESTION IS, WHEN WAS THE SABBATH INSTITUTED?

Those who are in the habit of reading the Scriptures just as they find
them, and of understanding them according to the established rules of
interpretation, will never be at a loss to understand so plain a passage
as the following: "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: 3. Moses, when referring to it, says to the children of
Israel. "This is that which the Lord hath _said_, to-morrow is the REST
of _the_ holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Exod. xvi: 23.

Then we understand that God established the seventh day Sabbath in
Paradise, on the very day when he rested from all his work, and not one
week, nor one year, nor two thousand five hundred and fourteen years
afterwards, as some would have it. Is it not plain that the Sabbath was
instituted to commemorate the stupendous work of creation, and designed
by God to be celebrated by his worshipers as a weekly Sabbath, in the
same manner as the Israelites were commanded to celebrate the Passover,
from the very night of their deliverance till the resurrection of Jesus
from the dead; or as we, as a nation, annually celebrate our national
independence: or as type answers to antetype, so we believe this must
run down, to the "keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God" in the
immortal state.

It is argued by some, that because no mention is made of the Sabbath
from its institution in Paradise till the falling of the manna in the
wilderness, mentioned in Exo. xvi: 15, that it was therefore _here_
instituted for the Jews, but [6]we think there is bible argument
sufficient to sustain the reply of Jesus to the Pharisees, "that the
Sabbath was made for MAN and not man for the Sabbath." If it was made
for any one exclusively it must have been for Adam the father of us all,
two thousand years before Abraham who is claimed as the father of the
Jews was born. John says, the old commandment was from the beginning--1;
ii: 7.

There is pretty strong inference that the antideluvians measured time by
weeks from the account given by Noah, when the waters of the deluge
began to subside. He "sent out a dove which soon returned." At the end
of _seven_ days he sent her out again; and at the end of _seven_ days
more, he sent her out a third time. Now why this preference for the
number _seven_? why not five or ten days, or any other number? Can it be
supposed that his fixing on upon _seven_ was accidential? How much more
natural to conclude that it was in obedience to the authority of God, as
expressed in the 2d chap. of Gen. A similar division of time is
incidentally mentioned in Gen. xxix; "fulfil her _week_ and we will give
thee this also; and Jacob did so and fulfilled her _week_." Now the word
_week_ is every where used in Scripture as we use it; it never means
more nor less than _seven_ days (except as symbols of years) and one of
them was in all other cases the Sabbath. But now suppose there had been
an entire silence on the subject of the Sabbath for this twenty-five
hundred years, would that be sufficient evidence that there was none. If
so, we have the same evidence that there was no Sabbath from the reign
of Joshua till the reign of David, four hundred and six years, as no
mention is made of it in the history of that period. But who can be
persuaded that Samuel and the pious Judges of Israel did not regard the
Sabbath. What does God say of Abraham? that he "obeyed my voice, and
kept my charge, my _commandments_, my _statutes_ and my _laws_." (See
what he calls them in Exo. xvi: 27, 30.) This, of course, includes the
whole. Then Abraham reverenced God's Sabbath. Once more, there is no
mention of the circumcision from the days of Joshua till the days of
Jeremiah, a period of more than eight hundred years. Will it be believed
that Samuel and David, and all those pious worthies with the whole
Jewish nation, neglected that essential seal of the covenant for eight
hundred years? It cannot be admitted for a moment. How [7]then can any
one suppose from the alleged silence of the sacred history that Adam,
Enoch, Noah and Abraham, kept no Sabbath because the fact was not
stated? If we turn to Jer. ix: 25, 26, we find that they had not
neglected this right of circumcision, only they had not circumcised
their hearts; so that the proof is clear, that silence respecting the
keeping any positive command of God, is no evidence that it is not in
full force.

Again, if the Sabbath was not instituted in Paradise, why did Moses
mention it in connection with the creation of the world? Why not reserve
this fact for two or three thousand years in his history, until the
manna fell in the wilderness, (see Exo. xvi: 23) and then state that the
seventh day Sabbath commenced, as _some_ will have it? I answer, for the
very best of reasons, that it did not commence there. Let us examine the
text. "And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as
much bread as on any preceding day, and _all the rulers of the
congregation came and told Moses_. And he said unto them this is that
which the Lord hath said, _to-morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath_,
bake that which ye will bake, &c. &c." If this had been the establishing
of the holy Sabbath and Moses had said to-morrow _shall be_ the Sabbath,
then would it have been clear; but no, he speaks as familiarly about it
as we do when we say that to-morrow is the Sabbath, showing conclusively
that it was known before, or how could the people have known that they
must gather two day's manna on Friday the sixth day, unless they had had
some previous knowledge of the Sabbath? for Moses had already taught
them not to "leave any of it until the morning"--v. 19. The 20th verse
shows that the Sabbath had not yet come since their receiving the manna,
because it spoiled and "bred worms by the next morning;" whereas, on the
Sabbath morning it was found sweet and eatible--24th v. This was the
thirtieth day after leaving Egypt (1st v.) and twenty days before it was
given on Sinai. The weekly Sabbath then was appointed before this or
before the days of Moses. Where was it then? Answer in the second
chapter of Genesis and no where else; and the same week on which the
manna fell, the weekly Sabbath was revived among or with God's chosen
people. Grotius tells us "that the memory of the creation's being
performed in seven days, was preserved not only among the Greeks and
Italians, but among the Celts and Indians." Other [8]writers say
Assyrians, Egyptians, Arabians, Britons and Germans, all of whom divide
their time into weeks. Philo says "the Sabbath is not peculiar to any
one people or country, but is common to all the world." Josephus states
"that there is no city either of Greeks or barbarians or any _other
nation_, where the religion of the Sabbath is not known." But as they,
like the great mass of God's professed people in christendom, paid
little or no heed to what God had said about the particular day, (except
the Jews, and a few others) they (as we are informed in history) adopted
peculiar days to suit themselves, viz: the christian nations chose to
obey the Pope of Rome, who changed the _seventh_ day Sabbath to the
first day, and called it the holy Sabbath; the Persians selected Monday;
the Grecians Tuesday; the Assyrians Wednesday; the Egyptians Thursday;
the Turks Friday, and the Jews the seventh day, Saturday, as God had
commanded. Three standing miracles a week, for about forty years
annually, ought to perpetuate the Sabbath. 1st, double the quantity of
manna on the sixth day; 2d, none on the seventh; 3d, did not spoil on
the seventh day. If it does not matter which day you keep holy to the
Lord, then all these nations are right. Now reflect one moment on this,
and then open your bible and read the commandment of the God of all
these nations! "REMEMBER! (what you have been taught before) _the
Sabbath day to keep it holy_;" (which day is it Lord?) "_the_ SEVENTH
_is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant nor thy maid
servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger, that is within thy gates_."
Who is the stranger? (Gentiles.) Now the reason for it will carry us
back to paradise. "_For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the
sea, and all that in them is; and rested on the_ SEVENTH; _wherefore the
Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it_." "Wherefore 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 _forever_." (Why is it Lord?) "_For in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the_ SEVENTH _day he rested
and was refreshed_." Exo. xx and xxxi.--Which day now will you choose?
O, says the reader, the seventh if I knew which of the days it was. If
you don't know, why are you so sure that the _first_ day is right? O,
[9]because the history of the world has settled that and this is the
most we can know. Very well then, does not the _seventh_ come the day
before the eighth? If we have not got the days of the week right now, it
is not likely that we ever shall. God does not require of us any more
than what we know; by that we shall be judged. Luke xxii: 55, 56.

Once more; think you that the spirit of God ever directed Moses when he
was giving the history of the creation of the world, to write that he
(God) "blessed the _seventh_ day and sanctified it, because that in it
he had rested from all his work." unless he meant it to be dated from
that very day? Why, this is as clear to the unbiassed mind as it is that
God created man the sixth day. Would it not be the height of absurdity
to attempt to prove that God only intended Adam should be created at
some future period, or that the creation of the heavens and earth was
not in the beginning, but some twenty five hundred years afterwards? All
this would be as cogent reasoning as it would be to argue that God did
not intend this day of _rest_ should commence until about twenty-five
hundred years afterwards. (The word Sabbath signifies rest.)

It follows then irresistibly, that the weekly Sabbath was not made for
the Jews only, (but as Jesus says, for 'man') for the Jews had no
existence until more than two thousand years after it was established.
President Humphrey in his essays on the Sabbath says, "That he (God)
instituted it when he rested from all his work, on the _seventh_ day of
the first week, and gave it primarily to our first parents, and through
them to all their posterity; that the observance of it was enjoined upon
the children of Israel soon after they left Egypt, not in the form of a
new enactment, but as an ancient institution which was far from being
forgotten, though it had doubtless been greatly neglected under the
cruel domination of their heathen masters; that it was re-enacted with
great pomp and solemnity, and written in stone by the finger of God at
Sinai; that the sacred institution then took the form of a statute, with
explicit prohibitions and requirements, and has never been repealed or
altered since; that it can never expire of itself, because it has no
limitation."

In Deut. vii: 6-8, God gives his reasons for selecting the Jews to keep
his covenant in preference to any other nation; only seventy at
first--x: 22. God calls it his "Sabbath," and refers us right back to
the creation for [10]proof. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth and sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the _seventh_,"
&c. Here then we stand fixed by the immutable law of God, and the word
of Jesus, that "the Sabbath was made for man!" Paul says, "there is no
respect of persons with God." Rom. ii: 11. Isaiah shows us plainly that
the Jew is not the only one to be blessed for keeping the Sabbath. He
says "Blessed is the _man_ (are not the Gentiles men?) that keepeth the
Sabbath from polluting it." "Also the sons of the stranger, (who are
these if they are not Gentiles?) every one that keepeth the Sabbath from
polluting it, (does he mean me? yes, every gentile in the universe, or
else he respects persons) even them will I bring to my holy mountain and
make them joyful in my house of prayer; for my house shall be called an
house of prayer for _all_ people." Isa. lvi: 2, 6, 7. If this promise is
not to the Gentile as well as the Jew, then "_the_ house of prayer for
all people" is no promise to the Gentile.

Now we ask, if God has ever abrogated the law of the Sabbath? If he has
it can easily be found. We undertake to say without fear of
contradiction, he has not made any such record in the bible; but on the
contrary, he calls it a perpetual covenant, a "sign between me and the
children of Israel forever," for the reason that he rested on the
seventh day, Exo. xxxi: 16, 17. Says one, has not the ceremonial law
been annulled and nailed to the cross? Yes, but what of that? Why then
the Sabbath must be abolished, for Paul says so! Where? Why in Cols. 2d
chapter, and xiv. Romans. How can you think that God ever inspired Paul
to say that the _seventh_ day Sabbath was made void or nailed to the
cross at the crucifixion, when he never intended any such change; if he
did, he certainly would have deceived the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in
the promise which he made them about two thousand four hundred and
forty-six years ago! Turn now to Jer. xvii: 25, and tell me if he did
not promise the inhabitants of Jerusalem that their city should remain
forever if they would hallow the sabbath day. Now suppose the
inhabitants of Jerusalem had entered into this agreement, and entailed
it upon their posterity (because you see it could not have been
fulfilled unless it had continued from generation to generation,) to
keep the Sabbath holy, would not God have been bound to let Jerusalem
remain forever? You say yes. Well, then, I ask you to show how he could
have [11]kept that promise inviolate if he intended in less than six
hundred and fifty years to change this seventh day Sabbath, and call the
first day of the week the Sabbath, or abolish it altogether? I say,
therefore, if there has been any change one way or the other in the
Sabbath, since that promise, it would be impossible to understand any
other promise in the Bible; how much more reasonable to believe God than
man. If men will allow themselves to believe the monstrous absurdity
that FOREVER, as in this promise, ended at the resurrection, then they
can easily believe that the Sabbath was changed from the _seventh_ to
the first day of the week. Or if they choose the other extreme,
abolished until the people of God should awake to be clothed on with
immortality. Heb. iv: 9.

Now does it not appear plain that the Sabbath is from God, and that it
is coeval and co-extensive (as is the institution of marriage) with the
world. That it is without limitation; that there is not one thus saith
the Lord that it ever was or ever will be abolished, in time or
eternity.--See Exod. xxxi: 16, 17; and Isa. lxvi: 22, 24; Heb iv: 4, 9.
But let us return and look at the subject as we have commenced in the
light of Paul's argument to the Romans and Collossians, for here is
where all writers on this subject, for the change or the overthrow of
the _seventh_ day Sabbath attempt to draw their strong arguments. The
second question then, is this:


HAS THE SABBATH BEEN ABOLISHED SINCE THE SEVENTH DAY OF CREATION? IF SO,
WHEN, AND WHERE IS THE PROOF?

The text already referred to, is in Rom. xiv: 5, 6.--"One man esteemeth
one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man
be persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it
unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord, he doth
not regard it." Does the apostle here mean to say, that under the new or
Christian dispensation it is a matter of indifference which day of the
week is kept as a Sabbath, or whether any sabbath at all is kept? Was
that institution which the people of God had been commanded to call a
delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, now to be esteemed of so
carnal a nature as to be ranked among the things which Jesus "took out
of the way, nailing it to [12]his cross." If this be true, then has
Jesus, in the same manner, abolished the eight last verses in the
fifty-eighth of Isaiah, and the 2d, 6th and 7th verses of the 56th
chapter have no reference to the Gentile since the crucifixion. O Lord
help us rightly to understand and divide thy word. But is it not evident
from the four first verses in the same chapter of Romans, that Paul is
speaking of feast days; Hear him explain. "Destroy not him with thy
_meat_ for whom Christ died. For the kingdom of God is not meat and
drink." 15, 17 v, also 20, 23. Giving them again in substance the
decrees which had been given by the Apostles in their first conference,
in A. D. 51; held at Jerusalem. See Acts xv: 19. James proposes their
letter to the Gentiles should be "that they abstain from pollution of
Idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood;"
to which the conference all agreed. Now please read their unanimous
_decrees_ (xvi: 4,) from twenty-three to thirty verses. "For it seemed
good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than
these necessary things." "That ye abstain from meats offered to Idols,
and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from
which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well." Reading along to the 13th
of the next chapter, we find Paul establishing the Churches with these
decrees; (see 4, 5,) and at Philippi he holds his meeting, (not in the
Jews Synagogue) but at the river's side, on the _Sabbath_ day. A little
from this it is said that Paul is in Thesalonica preaching on the
Sabbath days. Luke says this was his _manner_. What was it? Why, to
preach on the Sabbath days (not 1st days.) Observe here were three
Sabbaths in succession. xvii: 2. A little while from this Paul locates
himself in Corinth, and there preaches to the Jews and Greeks (or
Gentiles) a year and six months _every Sabbath_. Now this must have
been seventy-eight in succession. xviii: 4, 11. Does this look like
abolishing the Sabbath day? Has anything been said about the 1st day
yet? No, we shall speak of that by and by.

Before this he was in Antioch. "And when the Jews were gone out of the
synagogue the GENTILES besought that these words might be preached to
them the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole
city together to hear the word of God." xiii: 42, 44. Here is proof that
the Gentiles kept the Sabbath. Now I wish to place the other strong text
which is so strangely adhered to for abolishing or changing this
Sab[13]bath along side of this, that we may understand his meaning.
"Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his
cross."

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a
holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." Coll. ii: 14, 16.
Now here is one of the strong arguments adhered to by all those who say
the seventh day Sabbath was abolished at the crucifixion of our Lord:
while on the other hand by the great mass of the Christian world, (so
called,) the seventh day Sabbath ceased here, and in less than
forty-eight hours the change was made to the first day of the week. Now
remember Paul's manner, (before stated) itinerating from city to city
and nation to nation, always preaching to Jews and Gentiles on the
seventh day Sabbath, (for there is no other day called the Lord's
Sabbath in the Bible.) Now if the Apostle did mean to include the
Sabbath of the Lord God with the Jewish feasts and Sabbaths in the text,
then the course he took to do so, was the strangest imaginable. His
_manner_ always was, as recorded, with the exception of one night, to
preach on the very day that he was laboring to abolish. If you will look
at the date in your bibles, you will learn this same apostle had been
laboring in this way as a special messenger to the Gentiles, between
twenty and thirty years since (as you say) the Sabbath was changed or
abolished, and yet never uttered one word with respect to any other day
in the week to be set apart as a holy day or Sabbath. I understand all
the arguments about his laboring in the Jewish Synagogue on their
Sabbath, because they were open for worship on that day, &c., but he did
not always preach in their Synagogues. He says that he preached the
Kingdom of God, and labored in his own hired house for two years. He
also established a daily meeting for disputation in the school of
Tyranus.--Acts xix: 9. Again he says, I have "kept _back_ NOTHING that
was PROFITABLE _unto you_. (Now if the Sabbath had been changed or
abolished, would it not have been _profitable_ to have told them so?)
and have taught you publicly, and from house to house." "For I have not
shunned to declare unto you ALL the council of God."--Acts xx; 20, 27.
Then it is clear that he taught them by example that the Sabbath of the
Lord God was not abolished. Luke says it was the _custom_ (or manner) of
Christ [14]to teach in the synagogues on the Sabbath day. iv: 16, 31.
Mark says, "And when the Sabbath day was come he began to teach in their
synagogue." Mark vi: 2.--Now if Jesus was about to abolish or change
this Sabbath, (which belonged to the first code, the moral law, and not
the ceremonial, the second code, which was to be nailed to his cross, or
rather, as said the angel Gabriel to Daniel, ix: 27, "he (Christ) in the
midst of the week shall cause the _sacrifice_ and _oblation_ to cease,"
meaning that the Jewish sacrifices and offerings would cease at his
death.) Jesus did not attend to any of the ceremonies of the Jews except
the passover and the feasts of tabernacles. Why did he say, "Think not I
am come to destroy the _law_ or the prophets? I am not come to destroy
but fulfill. One jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the _law_
until all be fulfilled." "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments" &c. Did he mean the ten commandments? Yes; for he
immediately points out the third, not to take God's name in vain; sixth
and seventh, not to kill nor to commit adultery, and styles them the
_least_. Then, the others, which include the fourth, of course were
greater than these. Matt. v; 17-19, 21, 27, 33, and were not to be
broken nor pass away. Then the Sabbath stands unchanged.

Almost every writer which I have read on the subject of abolishing or
changing the seventh day Sabbath, calls it the Jewish Sabbath, hence
their difficulty. How can it be the Jewish Sabbath when it was
established two thousand years before there was a Jew on the face of the
earth, and certainly twenty-five hundred before it was embodied in the
decalogue, or re-enacted and written in stone by the finger of God at
Sinai. God called this HIS _Sabbath_, and Jesus says it was made for
man, (not particularly for the Jews.)

"Well," says one, "what is the meaning of the texts which you have
quoted, where it speaks of Sabbaths?"--Answer: These are the Jewish
Sabbaths! which belong to them as a nation, and are connected with their
feasts. God by Hosea makes this distinction, and says, "I will also
cause all _her_ mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and _her_
Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." These then belong to the text
quoted, and not God's Sabbath. Do you ask for the proof? See xxiii
Levit. 4. "_These are the_ FEASTS _of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim
in their [15]seasons_, EVERY THING UPON HIS DAY"--37th v. (May we not
deviate a little? If you do it will be at your peril.) Fifteenth and
sixteenth verses give them a fifty day's Sabbath; twenty-fourth verse
says: "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying in the seventh month in
the first day of the month, shall ye have a _Sabbath_, a memorial of
blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation."

"Also on the tenth day of the seventh month there shall be a day of
atonement. It shall be unto you a _Sabbath_ of rest." 27, 32.

"Also on the fifteenth day of the seventh month when ye shall have
gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord
seven days. On the first shall be a Sabbath, and on the eighth day shall
be a Sabbath. 39th v. And Moses _declared_ unto the children of Israel
the FEASTS of the Lord." 44th v. Now here we have FOUR kinds of _Jewish_
Sabbaths, also _called_ "FEASTS _of the Lord_," to be kept annually. The
first fifty days or seven weeks Sabbath ends the third month, seventh.
In three months and twenty-four days more commences the second Sabbath,
seventh month, first; the next, the tenth; the last the fifteenth of the
month. Between the first two Sabbaths there is an interval of one
hundred and twelve days; the next two, ten days, and the next, five
days. Now it can be seen at a glance, that neither of these Sabbaths
could be on the seventh day any oftener than other annual feast could
come on that day. These then are what Hosea calls HER Sabbaths. Paul
calls them HOLY DAYS, _new moons, and sabbaths_; and this is what they
are stated to be. The first day of the seventh month is a _new moon_
SABBATH, the tenth is a Sabbath of rest and Holy convocation, a day of
atonement, and the fifteenth a feast of Sabbaths. Do you ask for any
more evidence that these are the Jewish Sabbaths, and that God's Sabbath
is separate from them? Read then what God directed Moses to write in the
third verse: "Six days shall work be done, but the _seventh_ day is the
Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation, ye shall do no work therein, it is
the Sabbath of the LORD in your dwellings." Now Moses has here declared
from the mouth of the Lord, that these are ALL the feast of the Lord,
(there is no more nor less) and every thing is to be upon _his day_, and
he has clearly and definitely separated his Sabbath from the other four.
But let us look at the text again. Coll. ii; 14-16. See 17 v.
[16]"which are a _shadow_ of things to come." What did the apostle say
were _shadows_? Why, meat, drink, holy day, new moon, sabbath days. 16th
v. Heb. ix: 10. What does he mean by shadow? See Heb. x: 1, 2. Just what
I have stated on page 14. Now here we have one _clear_, positive point.
If the seventh day Sabbath is included in the 17th verse, then it must
be a _shadow_; if it is not a _shadow_, then Paul has no reference to
it, and it stands forever! Moses says the ten commandments were written
by the finger of God on tables of stone; whatever God has done with his
own hand is stamped with immortality, and is as enduring as the sun,
moon and stars. Psl. viii: 3. But if the 4th commandment, the Sabbath of
the Lord is a _shadow_ then all the other nine commandments _must_ be.
Let us look at what are called by our Lord the least commandments, the
6th and 7th. "Thou shalt not kill."--"Thou shalt not commit adultry."
Math. v: 19, 21, 27. Are these _shadows_? Is there an individual with
common sense in the world that dare risk his reputation in such kind of
logic? Then it is as clear as a sun beam that all the others are
tangible substances, and will continue in full force while immortality
endures; especially the 4th commandment, the Sabbath. See Isa. 66: 23,
Heb. iv: 9, Rev. 22: 14. And in the 28th and 29th chapters of Numbers
the sacrifices and offerings for each of these days are made so plain,
beginning with the Sabbath, 9th v. that we have only to read the
following to understand. 26. xxix: 1. First day, seventh month, (new
moon;) 7th v., 10th day Sabbath; 12th v., 15th day Sabbath, and 35th v.,
23d day Sabbath. I will endeavor to present it in a clearer point of
view:

     Feast by fire connected with the Lord's and the Jewish
     Sabbaths.

     The Daily or continual [always] 2 lambs morning and evening.

     3 quarts of flour for a meat offering, 2-1/2 pints of oil, 5
     pints of wine--xxviii: 3-7.

     THE SABBATH DAY. 2 lambs, and six quarts of flour with oil.

Here follow the Jewish feasts with their Sabbaths:

     1st.--7th week Sabbath, 2 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 lambs, 1 goat, 24
     quarts of flour--xxviii: 16, 17.

     2d.--7th month Sabbath, 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, 1 kid, 36
     quarts of flour--xxix: 1-5.

     3d.--10th of 7th month Sabbath, 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, 2
     kids, 36 quarts of flour--7-11.

     4th.--15th of 7th month Sabbath, 13 bullocks, 2 rams, 14
     lambs, 2 kids, 4-1/2 bushels of flour--12-16.

     5th.--8th day Sabbath, 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, 1 goat, 36
     quarts of flour--35-39.

[17]"And Moses told the children of Israel according to all that the
Lord commanded Moses." Here is the 8th day Sabbath, which makes 5 Jewish
Sabbaths, every one of them differing from the other and the Lord's
Sabbath, no more connected with them than in the xxiii of Levit. just
named. Here then is an unanswerable argument for a separation of the
Jewish from the Lord's Sabbath, and shows conclusively what Paul calls
"shadows" in ii Col: 17, and Hosea "her Sabbaths." And in the days of
Nehemiah when Ezra had read the law to the people, viii (more than one
thousand years after they were promulgated,) they bound themselves under
an oath "to walk in God's law which was given _by the hand of Moses_,
the servant of God." "And to observe and _do all the commandments_ of
the Lord, our Lord." x: 29. And that there might be no misunderstanding
about the kind of Sabbaths, they say, "If the people bring ware or any
victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on
the Sabbath or on the holy day," (31 v.) but they would "charge
themselves yearly with a third part of a shekel" (to pay for) "the burnt
_offerings_ of the _Sabbaths_, of the _new moons_, for the _set
feasts_," &c. (33 v.) for the house of God, including what has already
been set forth in Leviticus and Numbers. Now as their feast days
commenced and ended with a Sabbath, so when their feasts ceased to be
binding on them these Sabbaths must also, and all were "nailed to the
cross." Now I ask if there is one particle of proof that the Sabbath of
the Lord is included in these sabbaths and feast days?--Who then dare
join them together or contradict the Most High God, and call HIS the
_Jewish_ Sabbath? _Theirs_ was nailed to the cross when Jesus died,
while the Lord's is an _everlasting_ sign a _perpetual covenant_. The
Jews, as a nation, broke their covenant. Jesus and his disciples were
one week (the last of the seventy) that is seven years, confirming the
new covenant for another people, the Gentiles. Now I ask if this
changing the subjects from Jew to Gentile made void the commandments and
law of God, or in other words, abolished the fourth commandment? If so,
the other nine are not binding. It cannot be that God ever intended to
mislead his subjects. Let us illustrate this. Suppose that the Congress
of these United States in their present emergency, should promulgate two
separate codes of laws, one to be perpetual, and the other temporary, to
be abolished when peace was proclaimed between this country and Mexico.
The time _comes_, the temporary laws are [18]abolished: but strange to
hear, a large portion of the people are now insisting upon it that
because peace is proclaimed that both these codes of laws are forever
abolished; while another class are _strenuously_ insisting that it is
only the _fourth_ law in the perpetual code that's now abolished, with
the temporary and all the rest is still binding. Opposed to all these is
a third class, headed by the ministers and scribes of the nation, who
are writing and preaching from Maine to Florida, insisting upon it
without fear of contradiction, that when peace was proclaimed this
fourth law in the perpetual code was to change its date to another day,
gradually, (while some of them say immediately) and thenceforward become
perpetual, and the other code abolished; and yet not one of these is
able to show from the proceedings of Congress that the least alteration
had ever been made in the perpetual code. Thus, to me, the case stands
clear that neither of the laws or ten commandments in the first code,
ever has or ever can be annulled or changed while mortality is stamped
on man, for the very reason that God's moral law has no limitation.
Jesus then brought in a new covenant, which continued the Sabbath by
writing his law upon their hearts. Paul says, "written not with ink, but
with the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy
tables of the heart." 2 Cor. iii: 3. And when writing to the Romans he
shows _how_ the Gentiles are a law unto themselves. He says, they "shew
the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences always
bearing them witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else
excusing one another," (when will this be Paul) "in the day when God
shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."
ii: 15, 16. How plain that this is all the change. The Jews by nature
had the law given them on tables of stone, while the Gentiles had the
law of commandments written on their hearts. Paul tells the Ephesians
that it was "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," (ii: 15)
not on tables that were nailed to the cross. If the ten commandments,
first written by the finger of God on stone, and then at the second
covenant on fleshy tables of the heart, are shadows can any one tell
where we shall find the substance? We are answered, in Christ. Well,
hear Isaiah. He says, "that he (Christ) will magnify the law and make it
honorable." xlii: 21. Again, I ask, where was the necessity and of what
use were the ten commandments written on our hearts, if it was not to
render perfect obedience to [19]them. If we do not keep the day God has
sanctified, then we break not the least, but one of the greatest of his
commandments. Before we leave this part of our subject let us examine 2
Cor. iii: 7, 9, 11, 15. I have been told that these verses clearly prove
the abolition of the 10 commandments. It is admitted by all our
opponents, that the change which they so much insist upon, respecting
the commandments, took place at the crucifixion of our Lord. It is clear
from ii Col: 14 that the hand-writing of ordinances (the law of Moses)
was then taken out of our way, and all that was contrary to us, but the
10 commandments were never contrary to us, especially the 4th, the
Sabbath, for "it was made for man." The 2d or Gospel Covenant Paul tells
the Hebs. is written upon our hearts. viii: 10. This is the same ten
commandments; then instead of being taken away or abolished they are
still nearer to us. See also 3d v of 2d Cor: iii. If Paul was laboring
here to show the abolition of the ten commandments in A. D. 60, (look at
the top of your bible for the date) pray tell me if you can what he
meant by writing to the Romans the very same year and telling them that
"the _law was holy, and the commandments holy, just and good_." That he
meant no other than the _Law_ and _Commandments_ in the decalogue, see
xiii: 8, 9. About four years after this he is exhorting the Ephesians to
the keeping the 5th commandment. He says it is the "first commandment
with promise." vi: 2. The same year that he writes the Romans he dates
his 1st Epistle to the Cor. in ch. vii: 19, and says circumcision is
nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, (what _is_, Paul?) but the
_keeping the commandments of God_. Now all this was certainly more than
twenty-five years after the crucifixion. Is not the proof then positive
and forever established that Paul's preaching is right to the point in
establishing the commandments of God instead of abolishing them? If I
have not made it plain here, I would just say once more, that the
Apostle's argument where he refers to the abolition of the law in Rom.,
Cor., Gall., see v: 14, Eph. and Heb. he always means the carnal
commandments and laws of Moses, and not the commandments of God, as he
has shown. See Acts xxi: 20, 21. Here is circumcision, and the customs,
the _law_ of Moses, and not one breath about the Sabbath. But if you
will trace back to the xviii: 4, 11, you will see that instead of
abolishing THE Sabbath, Paul had just come from Corinth, where he had
been preaching for 78 Sabbaths in succession. O Lord help thy people
[20]to see THESE truths and keep thy law! Still, there are many other
texts relating to the law, presented by the opposite view, to show that
the law respecting the Sabbath is abolished. Let us look at some of
them. But it will be necessary in the first place, to make a clear
distinction between what is commonly called the


MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAW.

Bro. S. S. Snow, in writing on this subject about one year ago, in the
Jubilee Standard, asks "by what authority this distinction is made." He
says, "neither our Lord or his apostles made any such distinction. When
speaking of the law they never used the terms moral or ceremonial, but
always spake of it as a _whole_, calling it _the_ law," and further
says, "we must have a 'thus saith the Lord' to satisfy us." So I say. I
have no doubt but thousands have stopped here; indeed, it has been to me
the most difficult point to settle in this whole question. Now let us
come to it fairly, and we shall see that the old and new testament
writers have ever kept up the distinction, although it may in some parts
seem to be one code of laws.

From the twentieth chapter of Exodus, where the law of the Sabbath was
re-enacted, and onward, we find two distinct codes of laws. The first
was written on two tables of stone with the _finger_ of God; the
_second_ was taken down from his mouth and recorded by the hand of Moses
in a book. Paul calls the latter carnal commandments and ordinances,
(rites or _ceremonies_) which come under two heads, religious and
political, and are Moses's. The first code is God's. For proof see Exo.
xvi: 28, 30. "How long refuse ye to keep _my_ commandments and _my_
laws: see for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath--and so the
people rested on the Sabbath day." Also in the book of Leviticus where
the law of ceremonies is given to the levites or priests, Moses closes
with these words "_These_ are the commandments which the Lord commanded
Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai"; in Heb. vii: 16, 18,
called carnal commandments.

Again, "the Lord said unto Moses, come up to me into the Mount, and be
there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments
which I have written." Exo. xxiv: 12. Further he calls them the ten
commandments--xxxiv: 28. And Moses puts them, "into the ark"--xl: 20.
_Now for the second code of laws._ See Deut. xxxl: 9, 10; and xxiv: 26.
"And when Moses had [21]finished writing the law, he commanded them to
put _this book_ of the LAW (of ceremonies) in the side of the ark of the
covenant to be read at the end of every seven years."--This is not the
song of deliverance by Moses in the forty-four verses of the
thirty-second chapter. For, eight hundred and sixty-seven years after
this, in the reign of Josiah, king of Israel, the high priest found this
book in "the temple," (2 Chron. xxxiv: 14, 15) which moved all Israel.
One hundred and seventy-nine years further onward, Ezra was from morning
till noon reading out of this book. Neh. viii: 3; Heb. ix: 19. Paul's
comments.

Bro. Snow says in regard to the commandments, "The principles of moral
conduct embraced in the law, were binding before the law was given,
(meaning that one of course at Mount Sinai) and are binding _now_; it is
immutable and eternal! They are comprehended in one word, LOVE." If he
meant, as we believe he did, to comprehend what Jesus did in the xix.
and xxii. chap. Matt. 37-40, and Paul, and James, and John after him,
then we ask how it is possible for him to reject from that code of laws,
the only one, _the seventh day rest_, that was promulgated at the
_beginning_, while at the same time the other nine, that were not
written until about three thousand years afterwards, were eternally
binding; without doubt, the whole ten commandments are coeval and
coextensive with sin.--Again he says, "We readily admit, that if what is
called the decalogue or ten commandments be binding on us, _we ought_ to
observe the seventh day, for that was appointed by the Lord as the
Sabbath day." Let us see if Jesus and his apostles do not make it
binding. _First then, the distinction of the two codes by Jesus._

The Pharisees ask the Saviour why his disciples transgress the tradition
of the elders? His answer is, "Why do ye transgress the commandment of
God?" and he immediately cites them to the fifth commandment, Matt. xv:
4. Again, "the law and the prophets were until John; since that time the
kingdom of God is preached," &c.--Luke xvi: 16. Jesus was three years
after this introducing the gospel of the kingdom, unwaveringly holding
his meetings on the Sabbath days, (which our opponents say were now
about to be abolished; others say changed,) and never uttering a
syllable to show to the contrary, but this was and always would be the
holy day for worship. Mark says when the Sabbath (the Seventh day, for
there was no other,) was come, he began to teach in the Synagogue, vi:
[22]2. Luke says, "as his _custom_ was, he went into the Synagogue and
taught on the Sabbath day." iv: 16, 31. Will it be said of him as it is
of Paul on like occasions, some thirty years afterwards that he
uniformly held his meetings on the Sabbath because he had no where else
to preach, or that this day was the only one in the week in which the
people would come out to hear him? Every bible reader knows better;
witness the five thousand and the seven thousand, and the multitude that
thronged him in the streets, in the cities and towns where they listened
to him; besides, he was now establishing a new dispensation, while
theirs was passing away. Then he did not follow any of their customs or
rites or ceremonies which he had come to abolish.

I have already quoted Matt. 5: 17, 18, where Jesus said he had come to
fulfil the law, and immediately begins by showing them that they are not
to violate one of the least of the commandments, and cites them to
some--see v: 19, 21, 27, 33. Again, he is tauntingly asked "which is the
great commandment in the law: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. This is the _first_ and great commandment. And the second is like
unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets." xxii: 36, 40. Here
Jesus has divided the ten commandments into two parts, or as it is
written on two tables of stone. The first four on the first table treat
of those duties which we owe to God--the other six refer to those which
we owe to man requiring perfect obedience.

Once more, "One came and said unto him, good master what good thing
shall I do that I may have eternal life? He said, If thou wilt enter
into life keep the commandments. Then he asked him which. He cited him
to the last part of what he called the second, loving his neighbor as
himself." If he had cited him to the first table, as in the xxii, quoted
above, he could not have replied "_all_ these have I kept from my youth
up." Why? Because he would have already been perfect, for Jesus in reply
to his question, what he should do to inherit eternal life, said he must
"keep the commandments." Matt. xix: 16-20.--Is not the Sabbath included
in these commandments?--Surely it is! Then how absurd to believe that
Jesus, just at the close of his ministry, should teach that the way, the
only way, to enter into life, was to keep the commandments, [23]one of
which was to be abolished in a few months from that time, without the
least intimation from him or his Father that it was to take place. I say
again, if the Sabbath is abolished, we ask those who teach it to cite us
to the chapter and verse, not to the law of rites and ceremonies which
are abolished, for we have already shown that the Sabbath was instituted
more than twenty-five hundred years before Moses wrote the carnal
ordinances or ceremonies. God said, "Abraham kept _my_ charge, _my_
commandments, _my_ statutes, and _my_ laws." Gen. xxvi: 5. This must
include the Sabbath, for the Sabbath was the first law given, therefore
if Abraham did not keep the Sabbath, I cannot understand what
commandments, statutes, and laws mean in this chapter. Jesus says, "As I
have kept my Father's commandments," John xv: 10. Did he keep the
commandments? Yes. Mark and Luke, before quoted--(but more of this in
another place.)

In John vii: 19, Jesus speaks of "Moses law," "_your law_," x: 34.
Again, "_their_ law." xv: 25. Here then we show that Jesus kept up a
clear distinction between what God calls _my_ law and commandments and
Moses law, "_their_ law," "_your_ law." Let us now look at the argument
of the Apostles. Paul preaching at Antioch taught the brethren that by
Jesus Christ all who believe in him "are justified from all things from
which ye could not be justified by the _Law of Moses_." Acts xiii: 39.

The Pharisee said "that it was needful to circumcise them and commend
them to keep the _Law of Moses_." xv: 5.

Again, when Paul had come to Jerusalem the second time, (fourteen years
from the time he met the Apostles in conference where they established
the decrees for the churches. See Acts xx: 19; Gal. ii: 1,) the Apostles
shewed him how many thousands of Jews there were which believed and were
zealous of the _law_; "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest
_all_ the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake _Moses_ and the
_customs_." xxi: 20, 21. Any person who will carefully read the eight
chapters here included, must be thoroughly convinced that the Apostle's
troubles were about the law of ceremonies written and given by Moses,
and nothing to do with the ten commandments. For you see a little before
he comes to Jerusalem, he had been preaching at Corinth every Sabbath
for eighteen months. xviii: 4, 11. And this, be it remembered, was more
than twenty years after the Jewish Sabbaths and ceremonies were nailed
to the cross.--And [24]you see that Paul was the man above all the
Apostles to be persecuted on account of the abolition of the Jews' law
of ceremonies, for he was the "_great_ apostle to the Gentiles:" and if
the "Sabbath of the Lord our God" was to have been abolished when the
Saviour died, Paul was the very man selected for that purpose. It is
clear, therefore, that he did not abolish the seventh day Sabbath among
the Gentiles. This same Apostle tells the Romans "that Christ is the end
of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." x: 4. Again,
that "sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the
_law_ but under grace." vi: 14. Once more: He says the Gentiles having
not the _law_, are a _law_ unto themselves.--Why? Because, he says in
the next verse, it shews the _law_ written on their hearts. The law of
ceremonies? No that which was on tables of stone. ii: 14-16. We might
quote much more which looks like embracing the whole law. Let us now
look at a few texts in the same letter, which will draw a distinguishing
line between the two codes of laws. Paul, in the vii ch. 9-13v, brings
to view the carnal commandment, and the one unto life, and sums up his
argument in these words: "Wherefore the _law_ is holy, and the
commandment holy and just and good." In the 7v he quotes from the
decalogue. Again, he that loveth another hath fulfilled the _law_. How?
Why thou shalt not steal, nor commit adultery, nor bear false witness,
nor covet, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Therefore _love_ is
the fulfilling of the law. Rom. xiii: 8, 10.--This then is what the
Saviour taught the young man to do--to secure "eternal life." Matt. Once
more, in concluding a long argument on the law in Rom. iii: 31 he closes
with this language: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God
forbid ye, _we establish the law_."--What _law_ is here established? Not
the law of rites and ceremonies. What then, for Paul means some law. It
can be no other than what he calls the law of "life," of "love," the ten
commandments. How could even that be established twenty-nine years after
the crucifixion if one of the _greatest_ commandments had been abolished
out of the code, that is the Sabbath.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians teaches that "circumcision is nothing,
and uncircumcision is nothing, but the _keeping_ of the commandments of
God." vii: 19. Again, in his epistle to the Galatians, his phraseology
is somewhat changed, but the argument is to the same point, although
[25]some passages read as though every vestage of _law_ was swept by the
board when Jesus hung upon the cross. For instance, such as the
following: "But that no man is justified by the _law_ in the sight of
God it is evident, for the just shall live by faith, and the LAW is not
of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live by them." "Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the _law_, being made a curse for us."
"But before faith came we were kept under the _law_, shut up unto the
faith which should afterwards be revealed." "Wherefore the law was our
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by
faith, but after that faith has come we are no longer under a
schoolmaster." Gal. iii: 11-23, 23-25. Again: "For as many as are of the
works of the _law_ are under the curse." 10v. Now are we to understand
from these texts that whosoever continueth in the _law_ is cursed, and
that the law _the whole law_, was abolished when Christ came as our
schoolmaster, he being the "end of the law?" Rom. x: 4. If so, how is it
possible for any man, even Paul himself, to be saved. But we do not
believe that Paul taught these brethren any different doctrine than what
has already been shown in the Acts, Romans, and Corinthians, and also
the Eph., Phil., Col., and Heb. If he did not mean the law written by
the hand of Moses, distinguishing it from the _law_ of the ten
commandments, written by the finger of God on tables of stone, then pray
tell me if you can, what he means (in the closing of this argument,) by
saying, "For _all_ the LAW is FULFILLED in one word, even this: Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." v: 14. Surely he is quoting the
Saviour's words in Matthew xxii: 39, relative to the commandment of the
Lord our God.--To his son Timothy he says: "Now the end of the
commandment is charity," (love) meaning of course the last part of the
ten commandments. In vi: 2, he says: "Bear ye one anothers burdens and
so fulfil the _law_ of Christ." Does this differ from the _law_ of God?
Yes, a little, for it is the new commandment, (some say the eleventh.)
See John xiii: 34. "A new commandment I give unto you, (what is it,
Lord?) that ye love one another." And also xv: 12. The other is to love
our neighbor as ourself.--John says: "And this commandment have we from
him (Christ,) that he who loveth God loveth his brother also." John iv:
21, and ii: 8-11. In his letter to the Ephesians he says: "Having
abolished in his flesh the _enmity_ even the law of commandments
contained in [26]ordinances." ii: 15. See the reverse in vi: 2 v. To
the Collossians he asks, "Why as though living in the world, are ye
subject to ordinances which all are to perish with their using?" And
says: "Touch not, taste not, handle not." (Does Paul here teach us to
forsake the ordinances of God, instituted by the Saviour--Baptism and
the Lord's Supper? Yes, just as clearly as he does to forsake the whole
law.)

When writing to the Hebrews more than thirty years after the
crucifixion, he calls these ordinances _carnal_, imposed on them (the
Jews) until Christ our High Priest should come. ix: 10, 11. He also
calls the law of commandments carnal too, and says: "For there is verily
a disannulling of the commandments going before, for the law made
nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." vii: 16,
18-19. "For when Moses had spoken _every precept_ to all the people
according to the _law_ he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the BOOK and all
the people." ix: 19. Now we see clearly that the book of the law of
Moses, from which Paul has been quoting through the whole before
mentioned epistles, is as distinctly separate from the tables of stone
(or fleshly table of the heart,) as they were when deposited in the Ark
thirty-three hundred years ago. Therefore we think that here is clear
proof that he has kept up the distinction between the "handwriting of
ordinances" (meaning Moses' own handwriting in his book,) and the "ten
commandments writen by the finger of God."

Let us now turn to the Epistle of James, said to be written more than
twenty-five years after the law of ceremonies was nailed to the cross,
and see if he does not teach us distinctly, that we are bound to keep
the commandments given on tables of stone. He says, "the man that shall
be a DOER of the _perfect law_ of liberty shall be blessed in his deed."
i: 25. "If ye fulfill the royal _law_ according to the scripture, thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well." Why? Because the
Saviour in quoting from the commandments, in answer to the Ruler, what
he should do to inherit eternal life, taught the same doctrine. Matt.
xix: 19. Further: "For whosoever shall keep the whole _law_ and yet
offend in one point, shall be guilty of _all_." In the next verse he
quotes from the ten commandments again, namely, Adultery and Murder
(what the Saviour in the fifth chapter of Matt. calls the [27]least,
that is the smallest commandment,) and says if we commit them we become
transgressors of the _law_. Of what _law_? Next verse says the _law_ of
_liberty_ by which we are to be "judged." ii: 8, 11.

Now will it not be admitted by every reasonable person that James has
included the whole of the ten commandments, by calling them the perfect
law of liberty. 2d, "The royal _law_ according to the scripture," and
3d, "the _law of liberty_ by which we are to be judged." (Royal relates
to imperial and kingly.) Perfect means COMPLETE, _entire_, the WHOLE.
Then I understand James thus: This _law_ emenated from the king, the
Supreme Ruler of the universe, and to be perfect must be just what it
was when it came from his hand, and that no _change_ had, or could take
place, (and remember now, this is more than twenty-five years since the
ceremonies with the Jewish Sabbaths were nailed to the cross,) for the
very best of reasons, until the Judgment, because he shows we are to be
judged by _that law_. Then I ask by what parity of reasoning any one can
make the law of the ten commandments perfect, while they at the same
time assert that the fourth one is abolished? and that on no better
evidence than calling it the Jewish Sabbath. Now let us look at the
Apostle John's testimony.

"And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments. He
that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments is a LIAR, and
the truth is not in him." Now no man, more especially one who professes
to abide by the whole truth, feels entirely easy if he is called a
_liar_. Now John please explain yourself.--Hear him: "Brethren, I write
no new commandment unto you, but an _old_ commandment that ye had from
the beginning. The old commandment is the _word_ which ye have heard
from the BEGINNING." What do you mean by _beginning_? Turn to my gospel,
1st ch. "In the _beginning_ was the word,"--"the same was in the
_beginning_ with God." 1, 2. See Gen. i ch: "In the _beginning_ God
created the heavens and the earth." Then you are pointing us to the
seventh day of creation, in which God instituted the seventh day Sabbath
of rest, for the _old_ commandment in the _beginning_. ii: 3. Certainly
there is no other place to point to. Does not Jesus point to the same
place for the _beginning_ when marriage was first instituted. Matt. xix:
4. In my second letter to the church, I have taught the same doctrines:
viz. "This is the commandment that as ye [28]have heard from the
_beginnings ye should walk in it_." (practice it.) ii: 5, 6. "A _new_
commandment I write unto you." ii: 8 v. This is the one that Jesus gave
us on that memorable night in which he was betrayed, after he had
instituted the sacrament and washed our feet. He said "By this shall all
men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another." xiii:
34, 35. The first then teaches us, Love to God; 2d, to Love our neighbor
as ourself; "on these two commandments (says Jesus) hang all the law and
the prophets." Then we understand this is the essence of the ten
commandments, and if we do not keep the Sabbath we do not love God.
Jesus says, "If ye love me keep my commandments." We are repeatedly told
that the Sabbath was changed or forever abolished, at the crucifixion of
our Lord; and it is stated by the most competent authorities that John
wrote this epistle about sixty years afterwards, and that about six
years after this our blessed Lord revealed to him the state of the
Church down to the judgment of the great day. In the xiv ch. Rev. 6-11,
he saw three angels following each other in succession: first one
preaching the everlasting gospel (second advent doctrine); 2d,
announcing the fall of Babylon; 3d, calling God's people out of her by
showing the awful destruction that awaited all such as did not obey. He
sees the separation and cries out, "Here is the patience of the Saints,
here are they that keep the _commandments_ of God and the faith of
Jesus." And this picture was so deeply impressed upon his mind, that
when the Savior said to him "Behold I come quickly and my reward is with
me," he seemed to understand this, saying--"Blessed are they that _do_
his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may
enter in through the gates into the city." Now it seems to me that the
seventh day Sabbath is more clearly included in these commandments, than
thou shalt not steal, nor kill, nor commit adultery, for it is the only
one that was written at the creation or in the _beginning_. He allows no
stopping place this side of the gates of the city. Then, if we do not
keep that day, John has made out his case, that we are all _liars_. We
say in every other case the type must be continued until it is
superseded by the antetype: as in the case of the passover, until our
Lord was crucified. So then, as Paul tells us, "there remaineth a
keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God;" and that we believe will
be in the Millenium, the seven thousandth year, so that the seventh
[29]day Sabbath and no other will answer for the type, and those who
keep the first or the eighth day Sabbath cannot consistently look for
the antetype of rest or the great Sabbath, short of one thousand years
in future.

Again: Isaiah says: "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not
according to his word it is because there is no light in them." viii:
20. Now if the Gentiles are under no law, as is asserted, pray tell me
what right, the Gentiles, have we to appeal to the law and testimony, or
to this text.

In the xxiv. of Matt. our Saviour says to his disciples in answer to
their questions, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign
of thy coming and the end of the world? "When ye therefore shall see the
abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the
holy place," &c. 15v. "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,
neither on the Sabbath day." 20v. The first question is, at what age of
the world is this, where our Lord recognizes the Sabbath. 1st. It is
agreed on all hands that this time to which he here refers, never
transpired until the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, about 40
years after his crucifixion. 2d. Some others say down to the second
Advent! The first mentioned is safe ground and sufficient for our
purpose; nor need we stop to inquire why our Lord gave these directions,
it is forever settled that he directed the minds of his followers to
THE, not _a_ Sabbath. Keep it in remembrance, that he told the Pharisees
that he was Lord, not of _a_, but of THE Sabbath, meaning that one which
of course had already been established. The 2d question is, did our Lord
ever trifle with or mislead his disciples? The response is No! Then it
is clear that if he taught them to pray at all, it must be in faith, and
he of course would hear them and mediate with the Father to change the
day of their flight. I ask what kind of a prayer and with what kind of
faith would his disciples have asked to have this day changed, if, as we
are told, it was abolished some forty years before, and they had,
contrary to the will of God, persisted in keeping up the seventh day
Sabbath. Any one who has confidence in God's word, knows that such a
prayer never would be answered. What if you do say the Jews always kept
that Sabbath, and it was the same seventh day Sabbath that they kept
when he was teaching them in their synagogues? I say so too! and that
fact will be presented by and by, in its place. This does not touch the
point. Jesus was here, giving instruction to his [30]followers, both
Jew and Gentile, respecting _the_ Sabbath which they would have to do
with. It is immaterial what kind of sophistry is presented to overthrow
the point, nothing can touch it short of proving it a mistranslation.
Jesus did here recognize the perpetuity of the _seventh day Sabbath_.
And John will continue to make all men liars that say they know him, and
refuse the light presented and disregard this commandment. If God
instituted the Sabbath in Paradise and has not abolished it here, then
it must be _perpetual_. If Paul's argument in iii. Rom. that the law is
established through faith, is correct, then it is _perpetual_. If James'
royal _perfect law_ of liberty, which we are to be doers of, and judged
by, means the commandments, then is the Sabbath _perpetual_. If the
Apostle John has made out a clear case by citing us back to the
_beginning_ of creation, and by walking in and doing these commandments,
we shall have right to the tree of life and enter in by the gates into
the city; then it must be _perpetual_. If the earthly Sabbath is typical
of the heavenly, then must it be _perpetual_. If not one jot or one
tittle can ever pass from the law, then must it be _perpetual_. If the
Saviour, in answer to the young man who asked him what he should do to
inherit _eternal life_, gave a safe direction for Gentiles to follow,
viz: "If thou wilt enter into _life_ keep the commandments" (and these
included those commandments which his Father had given,) then, without
_contradiction_ the Sabbath is _perpetual_, and all the arguments which
ever can be presented against the fourth commandment being observed
before God wrote it on tables of stone to prove that it is not binding
on Gentiles, fall powerless before this one sentence: _If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the Commandments._ I say the proof is positive
that the Sabbath was a constituent part of the commandments, and Jesus
says the Sabbath was made for man. The Jews were only a _fragment of
creation_.

"The principle is settled in all governments that there are but two ways
in which any law can cease to be binding upon the people. It may expire
by its own limitations, or it may be repealed by the same authority
which enacted it; and in the latter case the repealing act must be as
explicit as that by which the obligation was originally imposed." Now we
have it in proof that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, the
_first_ of all laws without any limitation, and no enactment by God to
abolish it, unless what we have already referred to can be considered
proof. One more passage which I have not alluded to, will show that
[31]it was not abolished at the crucifixion, for his disciples kept the
Sabbath while he was resting in his tomb. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. Let us
now pass to another part of the subject. The third question:


WAS THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH EVER CHANGED? IF SO WHEN, AND FOR WHAT
REASON?

Here we come to a question which has more or less engaged the attention
of the whole christian world, and the greater portion of those who
believe in a crucified Saviour say that this change took place, and is
dated from his resurrection. Some say subsequently, while a minority
insist upon it that there is no proof for the change. Now to obtain the
truth and nothing but the truth on this important subject, I propose to
present, or quote from standard authors on both sides of the question,
and try the whole by the standard of divine truth. 1st. Buck's
Theological Dictionary, to which no doubt thousands of ministers and
laymen appeal to sustain their argument for the change, says: "Under the
christian dispensation the Sabbath is _altered_ from the _seventh_ to
the _first day_ of the week." The arguments for the change are these:
1st. "The _seventh_ day was observed by the Jewish church in memory of
the rest of God; so the _first_ day of the week has always been observed
by the christian church in memory of _Christ's resurrection_. 2d. Christ
made repeated visits to his disciples on that day. 3d. It is called the
Lord's day. Rev. i: 10.--4th. On this day the Apostles were assembled,
when the Holy Ghost came down upon them to qualify them for the
conversion of the world. 5th. On this day we find Paul at Troas when the
disciples came together to break bread. 6th. The directions the Apostles
gave to Christians plainly alludes to their assembling on that day. 7th.
Pliny bears witness of the first day of the week being kept as a
festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ."

"Numerous have been the days appointed by man for religious services,
but these are not binding because of _human_ institution. Not so the
Sabbath. It is of _divine_ institution, so it is to be kept holy onto
the Lord."

Doct. Dodridge, whose ability and piety have seldom or rarely been
disputed, comments on some of the above articles thus: (Commentary p.
606.) "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." I Cor. xvi: 2. "Show that it was to be put into a [32]common
stock. The argument drawn from hence for the religious observance of the
first day of the week in these primitive churches of Corinth and Galacia
is too _obvious_ to need any further illustration, and yet too important
to be passed by in entire silence." Again, p. 904, "I was in the spirit
on the Lord's day," &c. Rev. i: 10. "It is so very unnatural and
contrary to the use of the word in all other authors to interpret this
of the Jewish Sabbath, as Mr. Baxter justly argues at large, that I
cannot but conclude with him and the generality of Christian writers on
this subject, that this text _strongly_ infers the extraordinary regard
paid to the first day of the week in the Apostle's time as a day
solemnly consecrated to Christ in the memory of his resurrection from
the dead." There is much more, but these are his strong arguments. I
shall quote some more from the Commentaries by and by. I wish to place
by the side of these arguments one from the British Quarterly
Theological Review and Ecclesiastical Recorder, of Jan. 1830, which I
extract from 'the _Institution of the Sabbath day_,' by Wm. Logan
Fisher, of Philadelphia, a book in which there is much valuable
information on this subject, though I disagree with the writer, because
his whole labor is to abolish the Sabbath; yet he gives much light on
this subject, from which I take the liberty to make some quotations. But
to the Quarterly Review of 1830:

     "It is said that the observance of the seventh day Sabbath is
     transferred in the Christian Church to the first day of the
     week. We ask by what authority, and are very much mistaken if
     an examination of all the texts of the New Testament, in which
     the first day of the week or Lord's day is mentioned, does not
     prove that there is no divine or Apostolic precept enjoining
     its observance, nor any certain evidence from scripture that
     it was, in fact, so observed in the times of the Apostles.
     Accordingly we search the scriptures in vain, either for an
     Apostolic precept, appointing the first day of the week to be
     observed in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, or for any
     unequivocal proof that the first christians so observed
     it--there are only three or, at most four passages of
     scripture, in which the first day of the week is mentioned.
     The next passage is Acts xx: 7. 'Upon the first day of the
     week when the disciples some together to break bread, Paul
     preached unto them.' All that St. Luke here tells us plainly
     is, that on a particular occasion the christians of Troas met
     together on the first day of the week to celebrate the
     Eucharist and to hear Paul preach. This is the only place in
     scripture in which the first day of the week is in any way
     connected with any acts of public worship, and he who would
     certainly infer from this SOLITARY INSTANCE that the first day
     of every week was consecrated by the Apostles to religious
     purposes, must be far gone in the art of drawing universal
     conclusion from particular premises."

On page 178, Mr. Fisher says:

     [33]"I have examined several different translations of the
     scriptures, both from the Hebrew and Septuagint, with notes
     and annotations more extensive than the texts; have traced as
     far as my leisure would permit, various ecclesiastical
     histories, some of them voluminous and of ancient date; have
     paid considerable attention to the writings of the earliest
     authors in the Christian era, and to rare works, old and of
     difficult access, which treat upon this subject; I have read
     with care many of the publications of sectarians to sustain
     the institution; I have omitted nothing within my reach, and I
     have found not one shred of argument, or authority of any
     kind, that may not be deemed of partial and sectarian
     character, to support the institution of the first day of the
     week, as a day of peculiar holiness. But, in place of
     argument, I have found opinions without number--volumes filled
     with idle words that have no truth in them. In the want of
     texts of Scripture, I have found perversions; in the want of
     truth, false statements. I have seen it stated that Justin
     Marter in his Apology speaks of Sunday as a holy day; that
     Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who lived in the fourth century,
     establishes the fact of the transfer of the SEVENTH to the
     first day, by Christ himself. These things are NOT TRUE. These
     authors say no such thing. I have seen other early authors
     referred to as establishing the same point, but they are
     equally false."

Here then is the testimony of four authors, two for the change and two
against it, from the old and new world. No truth seeking, unbiassed mind
can hesitate for a moment on which side to decide, after comparing them
with the inspired word.

Doctor JENKS of Boston, author of the Comprehensive Commentary,
(purporting to comprehend _all_ other commentators on the bible,) after
quoting author after author on this subject, ventures forth with _his_
unsupported opinion in these words: "Here is a Christian Sabbath
observed by the disciples and _owned by our Lord_. The visit Christ made
to his disciples was on the first day of the week, and the first day of
the week is the only day of the week or month or year ever mentioned by
numbers in all the New Testament, and that is several times spoken of as
a day _religiously_ observed." Where? Echo answers, where!

HEMAN HUMPHREY, President of Amherst College, from whose book I have
already made some quotations, after devoting some thirty-four pages to
the establishment and perpetuation of the seventh day Sabbath, comes to
his fourth question, viz: "Has the day been changed?" Singular as this
question may appear by the side of what he had already written to
establish and perpetuate the seventh day Sabbath from the seventh day of
creation down to the resurrection of the just, but as every man feels
that it is his privilege to justify and explain, when precept and
practice do not agree--so is it with President Humphrey, he can [34]now
shape the scriptures to suit every one that has followed in the wake of
Pope Gregory for 1225 years. He says, "The fourth commandment is so
expressed as to admit of a change in the day,"--thus striking vitally
every argument he had before presented. Hear him--he says the seventh
day is the Sabbath; "it was so at that time (in the beginning) and for
many ages after, but it is not said that it always _shall be_--it is the
_Sabbath_ day which we are to remember; and so at the close, it was the
_Sabbath_ which was hallowed and blessed and not the _seventh day_. The
Sabbath then, the holy rest itself, is one thing. The day on which we
are to rest is another." I ask, in the name of common sense, how we
should know how or when to keep the Sabbath, if it did not matter which
day. If the President could not see the sanctification of the seventh
day in the decalogue, what did he mean by quoting Gen. ii: 3, so often,
where it says "_God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it_."

Again, he says, "Redemption is a greater work than creation, hence the
change." Fifthly, God early consecrated the Christian Sabbath by a most
remarkable outpouring of his spirit at the day of Pentecost. And that
Jesus has left us his own example by not saying a syllable after his
resurrection about keeping the _Jewish Sabbath_. He also quotes the four
passages about Jesus and his disciples keeping the first day of the
week. Here, he says, the inference to our mind is _irresistible_--for
keeping the first day of the week instead of the _seventh_. And further
says, it might be proved by innumerable quotations from the writings of
the Apostolic Fathers, &c. All this may be very true in itself, but it
all falls to the ground for the want of one single precept from the
bible. If Redemption, because it was greater than Creation, and the
remarkable display of God's power at the Pentecost, and Christ never
saying any thing about the _Jewish Sabbath_ after his resurrection are
such _strong_ proofs that the perpetual seventh day Sabbath was changed
to the first day at that time, and must be believed because learned men
say so, what shall we do with the sixth day, on which our blessed
Saviour expired on the cross; darkness for three hours had covered the
earth, and the vail of the Temple was rent from top to bottom, and there
was such an earthquake throughout vast creation that we have only to
open our eyes and look at the rent rocks for a clear and perfect
demonstration that this whole globe was shaken from centre to
circumference, [35]and the graves of the dead were opened. Matt xxvii:
50, 53. You may answer me that Popery has honored that day by calling it
good Friday, and the next first day following Easter Sunday, &c., but
after all nothing short of bible argument will satisfy the earnest
inquirer after truth.--The President had already shown that the _Jewish_
Sabbath was abolished at Christ's death. What reason, then had he to
believe that the Saviour would speak of it afterwards.--So also the
Pentecost had been a type from the giving the law at Sinai to be kept
annually for about 1500 years, consequently it would be solemnized on
every day of the week at each revolving year, as is the case with the
4th of July: three years ago it was on the fourth day and now it comes
on the seventh day of the week. Further, see Peter standing amidst the
amazed multitude, giving the scripture reason for this miraculous
display of God's power. He does not give the most distant hint that this
was, or was to be, the day of the week for worship, or the true Sabbath,
neither do any of the Apostles, then, or afterwards, for when they kept
this day the next year, it must have been the second day of the week. We
must have better evidence than what has been adduced, to believe this
was the Sabbath, for according to the type, seven Sabbaths were to be
complete, (and there was no other way given them to come to the right
day,) from the day they kept the first or from the resurrection. Here
then is proof positive that the Sabbath in this year was the day before
the Pentecost. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. If President H. is right, then
was there two Sabbaths to be kept in succession in one week. Where is
the precept? No where! Well, says the inquirer, I want to see the bible
proof for this "_Christian Sabbath observed by the disciples, and owned
by our Lord_." W. Jenks. Here it will be necessary for us to understand,
first how God has computed time. In Gen. i. we read, "And God said let
there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from
the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and
years." 14 v. 16 v. says "the greater light to rule the day,"--from
sunrise to sunset. Now there are many modes invented for computing time.
We say our day begins at 12 o'clock at night; seamen begin theirs twelve
hours sooner, at noon; the Jews commence their days at 6 o'clock in the
evening, between the two extremes. Are we _all_ right? No! Who shall
settle this question? God! Very well: He called the light day and the
darkness he called night, and the evening and the [36]morning were the
first day. Gen. i: 5. Then the twenty-four hour day commenced at 6
o'clock in the evening. How is that, says one? Because you cannot
regulate the day and night to have what the Saviour calls twelve hours
in a day, without establishing the time from the centre of the earth,
the equator, where, at the beginning of the sacred year, the sun rises
and sets at 6 o'clock. At _this_ time, while the sun is at the summer
solstice, the inhabitants at the north pole have no night, while at this
same time at the south it is about all night, therefore the inhabitants
of the earth have no other right time to commence their twenty-four hour
day, than beginning at 6 o'clock in the evening. God said to Moses
"_from even to even, shall you celebrate your Sabbath_." Then of course
the next day must begin where the Sabbath ended. History shows that the
Jews obeyed and commenced their days at 6 o'clock in the evening. Now
then we will try to investigate the main argument by which these
authors, and thousands of others say the Sabbath was changed. The first
is in John xx: 19, "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of
the week when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled
_for fear of the Jews_ (mark it) came Jesus and stood in their midst,
and said peace be unto you." Here we understand this to be the same day
of the resurrection. On that day he travelled with the two disciples to
Emans, sixty furlongs (7-1/2 miles,) and they constrained him to abide
with them, for it was towards evening and the _day was far spent_. Luke
xxiv: 29. After this the disciples travelled 7-1/2 miles back to
Jerusalem, and soon after they found the disciples, the Saviour, as
above stated, was in their midst. Now it cannot be disputed but what
this was the evening after the resurrection, for Jesus rose in the
morning, some ten or eleven hours after the first day had commenced.
Then the evening of the first day was passing away, and therefore the
evening brought to view in the text was the close of the first day or
the commencing of the second. McKnight's translation says, "in the
evening of that day." Purver's translation says, "the evening of that
day on the first after the Sabbath." Further, wherever the phrase first
day of the week, occurs in the New Testament, the word day is in
_italics_, showing that it is not the original, but supplied by
translators. Again, it is asserted that Jesus met with his disciples the
next first day. See 26 v: "And _after_ eight days again his disciples
were within, and Thomas with them, then came Jesus, the doors being
shut, and stood in the midst, and said peace be unto you." [37]Dr. Adam
Clark in referring to this 26v, says: "It seems likely that this was
precisely on that day se'night on which Christ had appeared to them
before; and from this we may learn that this was the weekly meeting of
the Apostles." Now it appears to me that a little child, with the simple
rules of addition and subtraction, could have refuted this man. I feel
astonished that men who profess to be ambassadors for God do not expose
such downright perversions of scripture, but it may look clear to those
who want to have it so. Not many months since, in conversation with the
Second Advent lecturer in New Bedford, I brought up this subject. He
told me I did not understand it. See here, says he, I can make it plain,
counting his fingers thus: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Friday, Saturday, Sunday--does'nt that make eight days after? and
because I would not concede, he parted from me as one that was obstinate
and self-willed. Afterwards musing on the subject, I said, this must be
the way then to understand it: _Count Sunday Twice_. If any of them were
to be paid for eight days labor, they would detect the error in a moment
if their employer should attempt to put the first and last days
together, and offer them pay but for seven. Eight days _after_ the
evening of the _first_ day would stand thus: The second day of the week
would certainly be the first of the eight. Then to count eight days of
twenty-four hours _after_, we must begin at the close of the evening of
the first, and count to the close of the evening of the second day; to
where the Jews (by God's command) commenced their third day. But suppose
we calculate it by our mode of keeping time. Our Lord appears to his
disciples the first time at the close of Sunday evening. Now count eight
days _after_, (with your fingers or anything else,) and it will bring
you to Monday evening. Now I ask if this looks like Sunday, the first
day of the week?

Father Miller also gives his reasons for the change, in his lecture on
the great Sabbath: "One is Christ's resurrection and his often meeting
with his disciples _afterwards_ on that day. This, with the example of
the Apostles, is strong evidence that the proper creation Sabbath to
man, came on the first day of the week." His proof is this: "Adam must
have rested on the first day of his life, and thus you will see that to
Adam it was the first day of the week, for it would not be reasonable to
suppose that Adam began to reckon time before he was created." He
certainly could not be able to work six days before the first Sabbath.
And thus [38]with the second Adam; the first day of the week he arose
and lived. And we find by the _bible_ and by history, that the first day
of the week "_was ever afterwards observed as a day of worship_." Now I
say there is no more truth in these assertions, than there is in those I
have already quoted. There is not one passage in the bible to show that
Christ met with his disciples on the first day of the week after the day
of his resurrection, nor that the first day of the week was _ever
afterwards_ observed as a day of worship; save only in one instance, and
that shall be noticed in its place. And it seems to me if Adam could not
reckon time only from his creation then by the same rule no other man
could reckon time before his birth, and by this showing Christ could not
reckon his time until after his resurrection. It is painful to me to
expose the errors of one whom I have so long venerated, and still love
for the flood of light he has given the world in respect to the Second
Advent of our Saviour; but God's word must be vindicated if we have to
cut off a right arm, "there is nothing true but truth!" I pray God to
forgive him in joining the great multitude of Advent believers, to sound
the retreat back beyond the _tarrying_ time, just when the virgins had
gained a glorious victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil! Go
back from this to the slumbering quarters now; nothing but treachery to
our Master's cause ever dictated such a course! I never can be made to
believe that our glorious Commander designed that we should leave our
sacrifices smoking on the altar of God, in the midst of the enemies'
land, but rather that we should be pushing onward from victory to
victory, until we are established in the Capital of _His_ kingdom. Would
it have been expedient or a mark of courage in General Taylor, after he
had conquered the Mexican army on the 9th May last, to have retreated
back to the capital of the U. States, to place himself and army on the
_broad platform_ of liberty, and commence to travel the ground over
again for the purposes of pursuing and overcoming his vanquished foe?
No! Every person of common sense knows that such a course would have
overwhelmed him and all his followers with unutterable disgrace, no
matter how unrighteous the contest. Not so with this, for our cause is
one of the most glorious, tho it be the most trying that the sun ever
shown upon since God placed it in the heavens. Onward and victory, then,
are our watchwords, and no retreating back to, or beyond the cry at
_Midnight_! But to the subject. Did our Saviour ever meet with his
disciples on the first day of the week after the [39]evening of the day
of his resurrection? The xxi. ch. John says "they went a fishing, and
while there Jesus appeared unto them." In the 14th v. he says, "This is
now the third time that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after that
he was risen from the dead." Now turn to 1 Cor. xv: 4-7: Paul's
testimony is, "that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, after
that of above five hundred brethren at once, and then of James, then of
all the Apostles." These are all that are specified, up to his going
into heaven. Now pray tell me if you can, where these men got their
information respecting the frequent meetings on the first day of the
week. The bible says no such thing. But let us pursue the subject and
look at the third text, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of
you lay by him in _store_, as God has prospered him, that there be no
gatherings when I come." Now please turn back to Dr. Dodridge's
authority, he says the argument is too obvious to need illustration,
that the money was put into common stock, and that this was the
religious observance of the first day of the week. Now whoever will read
the first six verses of this chapter, and compare them with Rom. xv:
26-33, will see that Paul's design was to collect some money for the
poor saints at Jerusalem, and their laying it by them in store until he
came that way; for it plainly implies that they were at home, for no one
could understand that you had money lying by you in store, if it was in
common stock or in other hands. Again, see Acts xviii: 4, 11. Paul
preaching every Sabbath day, at this very time, for eighteen months, to
these very same Corinthians, bids them farewell, to go up to the feast
at Jerusalem. 21 v. By reading to xxi. ch. 17 v. you have his history
until he arrives there. Now I ask, if Dr. Dodridge's clear illustration
can or will be relied on, when Luke clearly teaches that Paul's _manner_
was, and that he did always preach to them on the Sabbath, which, of
course, was the Seventh day, and not the first day of the week. Fourth
text, John says: I was in the spirit on the Lord's day. Here Dr. D.
concludes with the generality of christian writers on this subject that
this strongly infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day of
the week, as solemnly consecrated in Christ, &c. If the scripture any
where called this the Lord's day, there might be some reason to believe
their statements, but the seventh day Sabbath is called the Lord's day.
See Exod. xx: 10.

Mr. Fisher, in speaking of the late Harrisburg convention of 1844-45,
says, "The most spirited debate that occurred [40]at the assembly was
to fix a proper name for the first day of the week, whether it should be
called _Sabbath_, the _Christian Sabbath_ or _Lord's_ day. The reason
for this dispute was, that there was no authority for calling the first
day of the week by either one of these names. To pretend that that
command was fixed and unchangeable, and yet to alter it to please the
fancy of man, is in itself ridiculous. It is hardly possible in the
nature of man, that a class of society should be receiving pay for their
services and not be influenced thereby;--in the nature of things they
will avoid such doctrines as are repugnant to them that give them
bread."

Now we come to the fifth and last, and only one spoken of in all the New
Testament, for a meeting on the first day of the week. Luke says, "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." Acts xx: 7. Now by following the
scripture mode of computing time, from 6 o'clock in the evening to 6
o'clock in the morning, as has been shown, Paul to commence on the
beginning of the first day would begin on what we call Saturday evening
at 6 o'clock, and preach till midnight. After that he restores to life
the young man, then breaks bread and talked till the break of day, which
would be Sunday morning. Then he commenced his journey for Jerusalem and
travelled and sailed all day Sunday, the first day of the week, and two
other days in succession. xx: 11-15. Now it seems to me, if Paul did
teach or keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath or a holy day he
violated the sanctity of it to all intents and purposes, without giving
one single reason for it; all the proof presented here is a night
meeting. Please see the quotation from the British Quarterly Review. But
let us look at it the way in which _we_ compute time: I think it will be
fair to premise, that about midnight was the middle of Paul's meeting;
at any rate there is but one midnight to a twenty-four hour day. _We_
say that Sunday, the first day of the week, does not commence until 12
o'clock Saturday night. Then it is very clear, if he is preaching on the
first day till midnight, according to our reckoning it must be on Sunday
night, and his celebrating the Lord's supper after midnight would make
it that he broke bread on _Monday, the second day_, and that the day
time on Sunday is not included, unless he had continued his speech
through the day till midnight. Now the text says that on the first day
of the week they came together to break bread. To _prove that [41]they
did break bread on that day_, we must take the mode in which the Jews
computed time, and allow the first day of the week to begin at 6 o'clock
on Saturday evening, and to follow Paul's example, pay no regard to the
first day, after daylight, but to travel, &c. If _our_ mode of time is
taken, they broke bread on the second day, and that would destroy the
meaning of the text. Here then, in this text, is the _only_ argument
that can be adduced in the scriptures of divine truth, for a _change of
the perpetual seventh day_ Sabbath of the Lord our God to the first day
of the week.

Now I'll venture the assertion, that there is no law or commandment
recorded in the bible, that God has held so sacred among men, as the
keeping of his Sabbath. Where then, I ask, is the living man that dare
stand before God and declare that here is the change for the church of
God to keep the first instead of the seventh day of the week for the
Sabbath. If it could be proved that Paul preached here all of the first
day, the only inference that could be drawn, would be, to break bread on
that day!

There is one more point worthy of our attention, that is, the teaching
and example of Jesus. I have been told by one that is looked up to as a
strong believer in the second coming of the Lord this fall, that Jesus
broke the Sabbath. Jesus says, I have kept my Father's commandments. It
is said that he "broke the Sabbath," because he allowed his disciples to
pluck the corn and eat it on that day, and the Pharisees condemned them.
He says, "If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the _guiltless_." Then they were
not _guilty_. See Deut. xxiii: 25. He immediately cites them to David
and his men, shewing that it was lawful and right when hungry, even to
eat the shoe bread that belonged only to the priests, and told them that
he was Lord of the Sabbath day. Here he shows too, that he was with his
disciples passing to the synagogue to teach; they ask him if it is
lawful to teach on the Sabbath day. He asks them if they had a sheep
fall into the ditch on the Sabbath, if they would not haul him out? How
much better then is a man than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do
well on the Sabbath days; and immediately healed the man with the
withered hand. Matt. xii: 1-13. On another Sabbath day, while he was
teaching, he healed a woman that had been bound of satan eighteen years;
and when the ruler of the synagogue began to find fault, he called him a
hypocrite, and said "doth not each one of you on the Sabbath [42]day
loose his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering;
and all his adversaries were _ashamed_." Luke xiii: 10-17. The xiv.
chapter of Luke is quoted to prove that he broke the Sabbath because he
went into the Pharisee's house with many others on the Sabbath day to
eat bread. Here he saw a man with the dropsy and he asked them if it was
lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. 'And they held their peace, and he
took him and healed him,' and asked them 'which of them having an ox or
an ass fall into the pit, would not straightway pull him out on the
Sabbath day; and they could not answer him again.' 1-6 v. And 'he
continued to teach them, by showing them when they made a feast to call
the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and then they should be
blessed.' Read the chapter, and you will readily see that he took this
occasion, as the most befitting, to teach them by parables, what their
duty was at weddings and feasts, in the same manner as he taught them in
their synagogues.

There is still another passage, and I believe the only one, to which
reference has been made, (except where he opened the eyes of a man that
was born blind,) for proof that he broke the Sabbath. It is recorded in
John v: 5-17. Here Jesus found a man that had been sick thirty-eight
years, by the pool of Bethesda, 'he saith unto him rise, take up thy bed
and walk,--therefore did they persecute Jesus and sought to slay him
because he had done these things on the Sabbath day.' 16v. 'But Jesus
answered them, my Father worketh hitherto and I work.' If they did not
work every hour and moment of time, it would be impossible for man to
exist: Here undoubtedly he had reference to these and other acts of
necessity and mercy; but the great sin for which professors in this
enlightened age charge the Saviour with in this transaction, is, in
directing the man to take up his bed, contrary to law. It is clear the
people were forbidden to carry burthens on the Sabbath day, as in Jer.
xvii: 21, 22, but by reading the 24th v. in connection with Neh. xiii:
15-22, we learn that this prohibition related to what was lawful for
them to do on the other six days of the week, viz. merchandise and
trading. See proof, Neh. x: 31; also unlawful, as in Amos viii: 5. We
need not nor we cannot misunderstand the fourth commandment taken in
connection with the other nine; they were simple and pure written by the
finger of God; but in the days of our Saviour it had become heavily
laden with Jewish traditions, hence when Jesus appeals to them whether
it is [43]lawful to do good and to heal on the Sabbath days, their
mouths are closed because they cannot contradict him from the law nor
the prophets. The Saviour no where interferes with them in their most
rigid observance of the day; but when they find fault with him for
performing his miracles of mercy on that day, he tells them they have
broken the law; and in another place, "If a man on the Sabbath day
receive circumcision without breaking the law of Moses, are ye angry at
me because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?" He
then says, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment." vii: 23, 24. Did he break the Sabbath? Now the law requires
that the beasts shall rest; but what is the practice of many of those
who are the most strict in keeping Sunday for the Sabbath. Sick, or
well, ministers or laymen, do they not ride back and forth to meeting?
Again, is it right and lawful to carry forth our dead on the Sabbath? or
carry the communion service back and forth. The Apostle says, 'believe
and be baptized.' Suppose this should be on the Sabbath and we were some
distance from the water, would any one interfere with us if we carried
our change of apparel with us and back again, or have we in so doing
transgressed the law; if we have, it is high time we made a full stop.
Jesus undoubtedly had good reasons for directing the sick man to take up
his bed and walk, but I cannot learn that he justified any one else in
carrying their bed on the Sabbath, unless in a case of necessity and
mercy, such as he cited them to, as watering their cattle, and pulling
them out of the ditch, and eating when hungry, and being healed when
sick. Be it also remembered that when the Sanhedrim tried him they did
not condemn him, as in the other cases cited; so in this, they failed
for want of scripture testimony. He was the Lord of the Sabbath, and the
law of ceremonies were now about to cease forever, the ten commandments
with the keeping of the Sabbath therefore were to be stripped of these
ceremonies and all of their traditions, and left as pure to be written
on the hearts of the Gentiles as when first written on tables of stone,
therefore Jesus taught that it was right to do good on the Sabbath day,
and whoever follows his example and teaching will keep the seventh day
Sabbath holy and acceptable to God. They will also judge righteous
judgment, and not according to appearance.

There is but one Christian Sabbath named, or established in the bible,
and that individual, whoever he is, that [44]undertakes to abolish or
change it, is the _real Sabbath breaker_. Remember that the keeping the
commandments is the only safe guide through the gates into the city.

My friends and neighbors, and especially my family, know that I have for
more than twenty years, strictly endeavored to keep the first day of the
week for the Sabbath, and I can say that I did it in all good conscience
before God, on the ocean, and in foreign countries as well as my own,
until about sixteen months since I read an article published in the Hope
of Israel, by a worthy brother, T. M. Preble, of Nashua, which when I
read and compared with the bible, convinced me that there never had been
any change. Therefore the seventh day was the Sabbath, and God required
me as well as him to keep it holy. Many things now troubled my mind as
to how I could make this great change, family, friends, and brethren;
but this one passage of scripture was, and always will be as clear as a
sunbeam. "_What is that to thee: follow thou me._" In a few days my mind
was made up to begin to keep the fourth commandment, and I bless God for
the clear light he has shed upon my mind in answer to prayer and a
thorough examination of the scriptures on this great subject. Contrary
views did, after a little, shake my position some, but I feel now that
there is no argument nor sophistry that can becloud my mind again this
side of the gates of the Holy City. Brother Marsh, who no doubt thinks,
and perhaps thousands besides, that his paper is what it purports to be,
THE VOICE OF TRUTH, takes the ground with the infidel that there is no
Sabbath. Brother S. S. Snow, of New York, late editor of the Jubilee
Standard, publishes to the world that he is the Elijah, preceding the
advent of our Saviour, restoring all things: (the seventh day Sabbath
must be one of the all things,) and yet he takes the same ground with
Br. Marsh, that the Sabbath is forever abolished. As the seventh day
Sabbath is a real prophecy, a picture (and not a shadow like the Jewish
Sabbaths,) of the thing typified which is to come, I cannot see how
those who believe in the change or abolition of the type, can have any
confidence to look to God for the great antetype, the Sabbath of rest,
to come to them.

Brother J. B. Cook has written a short piece in his excellent paper, the
ADVENT TESTIMONY. It was pointed and good, but too short; and as brother
Preble's Tract now before me, did not embrace the arguments which have
been presented since he published it, it appeared [45]to me that
something was called for in this time of falling back from this great
subject. I therefore present this book, hoping at least, that it will
help to strengthen and save all honest souls seeking after truth.

A WORD RESPECTING THE HISTORY. At the close of the first century a
controversy arose, whether both days should be kept or only one, which
continued until the reign of Constantine the Great. By his laws, made in
A. D. 321, it was decreed for the future that Sunday should be kept a
day of rest in all the cities and towns; but he allowed the country
people to follow husbandry. History further informs us that Constantine
murdered his two sisters husbands and son, and his own familiar friend,
that same year, and the year before boiled his wife in a cauldron of
oil.--The controversy still continued down to A. D. 603, when Pope
Gregory passed a law abolishing the seventh day Sabbath, and
establishing the first day of the week. See Baronius Councils, 603.
Barnfield's Eng. page 116, states that the Parliament of England met on
Sundays till the time of Richard II. The first law of England made for
keeping of Sunday, was in the time of Edward IV. about 1470. As these
two books are not within my reach, I have extracted from T. M. Preble's
tract on the Sabbath. Mr. Fisher says, it was Dr. Bound one of the rigid
puritans, who applied the name _Sabbath_ to the first day of the week,
about the year 1795. "The word Sunday is not found in the bible," it
derived its name from the heathen nations of the North, because the day
was dedicated to the sun. Neither is the Sabbath applied to the first
day any more than it is to the sixth day of the week. While Daniel
beheld the little horn, (popery) he said, among other things, he would
_think_ to change times and laws. Now this could not mean of men,
because it has ever been the prerogative of absolute rulers like
himself, to change manmade laws, nor the law of Moses, for that had been
abolished 570 years before the Pope finally changed the Sabbath to the
1st day of the week. Then to make the prophecy harmonize with the
scripture, he must have meant times and laws established by God, because
he might think and pass decrees as he has done, but he, nor all the
universe could ever change God's times and laws. Jesus says that "times
and seasons were in the power of the father." The Sabbath is the most
important law which God ever instituted. "How long refuse ye to keep my
commandments, and my laws, see for that the Lord hath given you [46]the
Sabbath." Exod. xvi: 28, 29. Then it's clear from the history, that this
is in part what Daniel meant. Now the second advent believers have
professed all confidence in his visions; why then doubt this. Whoever
feels disposed to defend and sustain the decrees of that "blasphemous"
dower, and especially Pope Gregory and the great Constantine, the
murderer, shown to be the _moral_ reformer in this work of changing the
Sabbath, are welcome to their principles and feelings. I detest these
acts, in common with all others which have emanated from these ten and
one horned powers. The Revelations show us clearly that they were
originated by the devil. If you say this history is not true then you
are bound to refute it. If you cannot, you are as much in duty bound to
believe it as any other history, even, that George Washington died in
1799! If the bible argument, and testimony from history are to be relied
on as evidence, then it is as clear as a sunbeam that the seventh day
Sabbath is a perpetual sign, and is as binding upon man as it ever was.
But we are told we must keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath
as an ordinance to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. I for one had
rather believe Paul. See Rom. vi: 3-5; Gal. iii: 27; Col. ii: 12.

A word more respecting time. See 31st page. Here I have shown that the
sun in the centre, regulates all time for the earth--fifty-two weeks to
the year, one hundred and sixty-eight hours to the week, the seventh of
which is twenty-four hours. Jesus says there are but twelve hours in the
day, (from sunrise to sunset.) Then twelve hours night to make a
twenty-four hour day, you see, must always begin at a certain period of
time. No matter, then whether the sun sets with us at eight in summer or
4 o'clk in winter. Now by this, and this is the scripture rule, days and
weeks can, and most probably are, kept at the North and South polar
regions. What an absurdity to believe that God does exonerate our
fathers and brothers from keeping his Sabbath while they are in these
polar regions, fishing for seals and whales, should it be with them
either all day or all night. If they have lost their reckoning of days
and weeks, because there was, or was not any sun six months of the time,
how could they learn what day of the week it was when they see the sun
setting at 6 o'clock on the equator, if bound home from the South? By
referring to Luke, xxiii ch. 55, 56, and xxiv: 1, we see that the people
in Palestine had kept the days and weeks right from [47]the creation;
since which time, astronomers teach us that not even fifteen minutes
have been lost. God does not require us to be any more exact in keeping
time, than what we may or have learned from the above rules, but I am
told there is a difference in time of twenty-four hours to the mariner
that circumnavigates the globe. That, being true, is known to them, but
it alters no time on the earth or sea.

But, says one, I should like to keep the Sabbath in _time_, just as
Jesus did. Then you must live in Palestine, where their day begins seven
hours earlier than ours; and yet it is at 6 o'clock in the evening the
same period, though not the same by the sun, in which we begin our day.
Let me illustrate: our earth, something in the form of an orange, is
whirling over every twenty-four hours. It measures three hundred and
sixty degrees, or about twenty-one thousand six hundred miles round, in
the manner you would pass a string round an orange. Now divide this
three hundred and sixty degrees by the twenty-four hour day, and the
result is fifteen degrees, or nine hundred miles. Then every fifteen
degrees we travel or sail eastward, the sun rises and sets one hour
earlier in the period of the twenty-four hours: therefore those who live
in Palestine, one hundred and seven degrees east of us, begins and
closes the day seven hours earlier, so in proportion all the way round
the globe, the sun always stationary! Then the Sabbath begins precisely
at 6 o'clock on Friday evening, every where on this globe, and ends at
the same period on what we call Saturday evening. God says 'every thing
on its day,' 'from even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath;' 'the
evening and the morning was the first day.' He is an exact time keeper!
I say then, in the name of all that is holy, heavenly and true, and as
immortality is above all price, let us see to it that we are found
fearing God and keeping his COMMANDMENTS, for this, we are taught, 'is
the whole duty of man.' The proof is positive that the seventh day
Sabbath is included in the commandments.

Bro. Marsh says, "Keeping the Sabbath is embraced in this covenant,
Deut. v: 1-6, made with the children of Israel at Horeb. It was not made
with their Fathers (the Patriarchs) but with us, even us, who are all of
US HERE ALIVE THIS DAY. v. 3. This testimony first _negative_, he made
it not with our Fathers, and then _positive_ with _us_, is conclusive.
Not a single proof can be presented from either the old or new testament
that it was instituted for any other people or nation." Now it is clear
and positive [48]that if the Sabbath is not binding on any other people
than the Jews, by the same rule not one of the commandments is binding
on any other people, who dare take such infidel ground? Was not the
second covenant written on the hearts of the Gentile, even the law of
Commandments? which Paul says 'is Holy, just and good.' Thirty years
after the crucifixion he directs the Ephesians to the keeping the fifth
commandment, that they may live long on the _earth_ not the land of
Canaan. vi: 2, 3. Did not God say that Abraham kept his commandments,
statutes, and laws? This embraced the Sabbath for circumcision, and the
Sabbath were then the only laws, or statutes, or commandments written.
The fourth commandment was given two thousand years before Abraham was
born! Is not the stranger and all within their gates included in the
covenant to keep the Sabbath? See Exod. xx: 10. And did not God require
them to keep THE Sabbath before he made this covenant with them in
Horeb? See Exod. xvi: 27-30. Does not Isaiah say that God will bless the
_man_, and the _son_ of _man_, and the _sons_ of the _stranger_, that
keep THE Sabbath? These certainly mean the Gentiles. lvi: 2-3, 6-7.
Also, in the lviii. ch. 13, 14, the promise is to all that keep the
Sabbath. To what people _did_ the Sabbath belong at the destruction of
Jerusalem, nearly forty years after the crucifixion? Matt. xxiv: 20. The
Gentiles certainly were embraced in the covenant by this time! Why was
it Paul's manner always to preach on the seventh day Sabbath to Jews and
Gentiles?

By what authority do you call the seventh day Sabbath, the Jewish
Sabbath? The bible says it is the Sabbath of the _Lord our God_! And
Jesus said that he was the 'Lord of the Sabbath day.' He moreover told
the Jews that the Sabbath was made for MAN! Where do you draw the
distinguishing line, to show which is and which is not MAN between the
_natural seed of Abraham_ and the Gentiles? "Is he the God of the Jews
only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also!" Then
Paul says 'there is no difference,' and that 'there is no respect of
persons with God.' Is it not clear, then, that the Sabbath was made for
Adam and his posterity, the whole family of _man_? How very fearful you
are that God's people should keep the bible Sabbath! You say, 'let us be
cautious, lest we disinherit ourselves by seeking the inheritance under
the wrong covenant.' Your meaning is, not to seek to keep the Sabbath
covenant, but the one made to Abraham. [49]If you can tell us what
precept there is in the Abrahamic covenant that we must now keep to be
saved, that is not embraced in the one given at Mount Sinai, then we
will endeavor to keep that too, with the Sabbath of the Lord our God. If
the Sabbath, as you say, is abolished, why do you, JOSEPH MARSH,
continue to call the first day of the week the Sabbath. See V. T., 15th
July. If you profess to utter the VOICE OF TRUTH from the bible, do be
consistent, and also willing that _other papers_, besides yours and the
Advent Herald, should give the present truth to the flock of God. I say
let it go with lightning speed, every way, as does the political news by
the electric telegraph. If the whole law and the prophets hang on the
commandments, and by keeping them we enter into life, how will you, or
I, enter in if we do not 'keep the commandments.' See Exod. xvi: 28-30.
Jesus says, "therefore whosoever shall break one of these least
commandments and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the
kingdom," &c. "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole
duty of man." Amen!


GOD HAS MADE THREE EVERLASTING COVENANTS WITH MAN.

The first one is the Covenant of Inheritance "confirmed unto Jacob for a
law and unto Israel for an _everlasting_ Inheritance." See Psl. cv:
8-11. Acts vii: 3-6. Eph. i: 14.

Second is an "_everlasting Covenant of Redemption_." See Isa. lxi: 8, 9.
"I have made a Covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my
servant, thy seed will I establish forever." Psl. lxxxix: 2-5. See also
34-37 vs. "My Covenant will I not _break_, nor alter the thing that is
gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not
lie unto David, his seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun
before me--It shall be established forever as the moon and as a faithful
witness in heaven." Isa. says it is sure, lv: 3; liv: 13, 14. Ezekiel
calls it a Covenant of peace. xxxiv: 25. In xxxvii ch. 25 and 26 v. he
shows clearly that David is Christ, and this "Covenant of peace is an
everlasting Covenant with his Israel, and will be _known_ when his
sanctuary is in the midst of them forever more." 28 v. The very same is
brought to view by Paul. Rom. xi: 26, 27.

_These two everlasting Covenants_ are conditional, and in the future.
The living saints of God inherit them by keeping [50]the 'commandments
of God and testimony of Jesus', which can be nothing more nor less than
what Jer. and Paul calls the 'new or second covenant.' Jer. xxxi: 31-33;
Heb. viii: 6-10; by us the Gospel Covenant, confirmed by Christ and his
Apostles 1800 years ago. Dan. ix: 27; Acts x: 36-40; Heb. ii: 3, 4. The
old or first Covenant was delivered to Moses at Mount Sinai 3337 years
ago, and is about 1537 years older than the _new_, or _second_, or what
we call the Gospel Covenant. Paul to the Heb. ix: 1, says, 'This first
Covenant had ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary,'
meaning the Old Tabernacle with all its appendages, (see 23 v.,) and was
dedicated with the blood of bulls and goats. 18, 19 v. (Macknight's
trans.). See also Exo. xxiv: 8; Lev. xvi: 15. This same Covenant was the
ten commandments 'written on tables of stone by the finger of God.' Exo.
xxxiv: 27, 28; Deut. ix: 9-11. Paul calls it the Ark of the Covenant.
Heb. ix: 4. Moses built a Tabernacle for it. Exo. xl: 3, 21. David had
it in his heart to build a house for it. 1 Chr. xxviii: 2. Solomon built
_the_ house (the Temple) and put the Ark into it. 2 Ch. vi: 11. These
ten commandments then, was the first _Covenant_. The Tabernacle and all
its furniture was appended to it, and was called the Sanctuary, the
building that contained it. This Covenant was broken by the Jews, with
whom it was first made. Deut. xxxi: 15, 20; Jer. xxxi: 32; Ezek. xvi: 5,
9; and xvii: 19; Isa. xxxiii: 8. Now how evident it is that the Jewish
nation did not destroy nor abolish this Covenant by breaking it. As well
may it be said that the man who violates the law of his country has
abolished or destroyed the whole law. No, no! men can no more destroy
the law God has made than they can put out the light of the sun. They
can destroy themselves, but God's work can they never. Hear God speak
and may his word annihilate every thought to the contrary: "The Lord thy
God he is the faithful God, which keepeth _Covenant_ and mercy with them
that love him and _keep his commandments_ to a thousand _generations_."
Is not this as much as 63,000 years in the future? Will he break it,
then think ye? No, you know it means forever! Deut. vii: 9. Do you still
doubt. Let him speak once more. "_My Covenant will I not BREAK nor
ALTER_ [look at this, you that say God has _altered_ this Covenant so as
to change this Sabbath from the 7th to the 1st day of the week.] _the
thing that has gone out of my mouth._" Psl. lxxxix: 34. Then it is
immutable! unchangeable! immortal! as well may man undertake to
annihilate the sun. [51]Jesus then, as I have shown, came to establish
the new _Covenant_, and as I have before stated, he stripped off all
these appendages, the _law of ceremonies_, the _hand writing_ of
_ordinances_, the _carnal commandments_ (Paul,) from the first
_Covenant_, the ten commandments, leaving them pure as when they first
came from his Father's hand, and nailed as Paul shows to the Col. all
these ceremonies to his cross, at the same hour he sealed the new
_Covenant_ with his blood, called the _everlasting Covenant_. Heb. xiii:
20.

Paul in the viii. ch. on this Covenant, extracts from Jer. xxxi: 31-34,
which shows us clearly what he means (see 8-12v,) and says in the 7 v.,
if the first one had been faultless then no place could be found for the
second. 6 v. says this covenant is established on better promises
because Jesus is the mediator of it. xii: 24. In x: 15, 16, he quotes
from the viii. ch. to show that the Holy Ghost is also a witness. See
how, in ii. Rom. 13-16, "when the Gentiles which have not the _law_,
(that is the ten commandments on tables of stone) DO the things
contained in the _law_ (the ten commandments) they show the work of the
_law_ (the ten commandments) written on their hearts, their thoughts in
the mean while accusing, or else excusing, (when, Paul?) in the day when
God shall judge the secrets of men by my gospel." Then it must be now.
Oh no, says the reader, Paul means at the day of judgment.--I am glad
you admit that condemnation overtakes the transgressors of the law
written on our hearts somewhere. For proof that he means the
commandments read 21, 22 v.; you will of course understand that it is
not the law of ceremonies, for these had been abolished more than 25
years before. See chronology A. D. 60. Now see Heb. viii: 10 again. "I
will put my _laws_ into their minds and write them in their hearts."
This is the very same, the commandment, the _covenant_, for there is no
other _law_ called God's _law_ that we can refer to in the bible but
this. In Jer. xxxii: 40, the everlasting covenant which Paul quotes in
xiii Heb. is the same promise as in Jer. xxxi.

Now in Ezek. xvi: 8. This is the first covenant to Moses; that it is
broken see 59 v. 60-62, shows the second covenant as in Jer., read the
history in the chapter.

In ch. xx: 37, where the promise is, "I will bring you into the bond (or
delivering, see margin,) of the covenant." At first view it would appear
as though here was another implied, but I think the preceding verses,
particularly the 12th and 20th, show it to be the covenant in which the
[52]Sabbath is included, or it may be the everlasting covenant of
redemption, given to Jesus just previous to the resurrection. Paul
clearly shows that there are but two covenants under the law in his
allegory to the Galatians iv: 21-27, and these two must of necessity, as
I have shown embrace the ten commandments. Now has this new covenant
been broken by man as was the first? Hear Isaiah: "Behold the Lord
maketh the earth empty, the inhabitants of the earth burned, and but few
left." Why? "Because they have broken the everlasting covenant." See
xxiii: 5. Read the whole chapter. Paul says that the professed church in
the last days will be covenant breakers. 2 Tim. iii: 2-5. (Macknight's
translation.) This must of course be violating, especially, the fourth
commandment, the Lord's Sabbath. It would be the height of absurdity to
attempt to apply it to the first day of the week, because this is
included in the six working days, which God never sanctified nor set
apart for an holy day.

Now what is to be appended to this everlasting covenant (called new not
in respect of its date: it being made from everlasting, and will
continue forever,) to ensure us an entrance into the gates of the holy
city. Answer. The _testimony of Jesus_. Rev. xii: 17. "That old dragon
the devil is pursuing the remnant (the last end) of God's children,
which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus
Christ." In the xiv: 12, John says the faith of Jesus, (same meaning.)
Now what is this faith or "testimony of Jesus?" John shows that he was
banished to Patmos for the "word of God and the _testimony_ of Jesus
Christ." Rev. 1, 9, he says he "bore record of the _testimony_ of
Jesus," "and what he saw." 2 v. Just what Jesus had directed his
disciples to do. See Math. xxviii: 19, 20. "Teach all nations to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This then is what makes the
covenant new, appending to it the teaching or testimony of Jesus, after
the ceremonial law had been "nailed to the cross." Here it is perfectly
clear that the everlasting _covenant_ the ten commandments have
undergone no change whatever. Indeed it is impossible that the law of
God could be changed; do you say it is possible I may be mistaken? Then
I will appeal to Jesus. He says "it is easier for heaven and earth to
pass than _one_ tittle of the _law_ to fail." You say this is no proof,
for the law of God is the word taught in the old and new testaments. See
here then, in Matt. v: 17, 18. Is not this the same _law_ as in Luke 16:
17? Yes. [53]Very well then, see next verse, here he unhesitatingly
calls them the commandments; for proof that he means the ten
commandments, read 21st verse, "shall not kill," now 27th "nor commit
adultery," then 33d, "nor take God's name in vain." His exposition of
them as a whole is certainly as clear as this in Matt. xxii: 35-40,
reduced to two precepts, love God, and love your neighbor, on these two
hang all the law (ceremonial) and the prophets. Dont you see then that
if this _law_ is taken away, changed or abolished, that the prophets
must fall with it, as certainly as a building would if the foundation
was swept away?--The argument is clear that the prophecies cannot be
sustained without the _law_. Again, see Luke x: 25-28. The lawyer says,
"Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus "said unto him
what is written in the LAW? how readest thou?" He begins and quotes the
two precepts (the essence of the ten commandments) given by the Saviour
in Matt. xxii. Jesus says "thou hast answered RIGHT, this do and _thou
shalt live_." Is this a safe rule for us? Yes, if you can believe the
Saviour. I ask if it could be so if any of the _law_ should fail? No,
that would undermine the foundation. Then I have not appealed to Jesus
in vain. If all of this does not convince you, just hear the Prophets.
"The good man's delight is in the _law_ of the Lord, and in his _law_
doth he meditate day and night." Psl. i: 1, 2. "The _law_ of the Lord is
_perfect_, converting the soul." xix. "The _law_ of thy mouth is better
unto me than thousands of gold and silver." xix: 72. "Great peace have
they that love _thy_ law, and nothing shall offend them." 165. Does the
changing of the law by the little horn bring peace? "He that turneth
away his ear from hearing the _law_, even his prayer shall be an
abomination." Prov, 28: 9. Read this passage again. You that say the
Lord is not so particular about his _law_, whether we keep this day or
that for a holy day. He says "every thing upon his day." "Seal the _law_
among my disciples." Isa. viii: 16. What for? "It will be binding on
them in the new heavens and the new earth." 66: 22, 23, "To the _law_
and the testimony." 20. What can you prove by it if it is changed or
abolished? "He will magnify the _law_ and make it honorable." 42: 21.
How could he do that if he was going to change or destroy it. "The
people in whose heart is my _law_, fear ye not the reproach of men." 51:
7. "After those days saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts." Jer. 31: [54]33. Then we are
certainly bound to obey them. "Her Priests have violated my _law_--and
have put no difference between the holy and profane--and have hid their
eyes from my SABBATHS, and I am profaned among them." Ezek. xxii: 26. It
is just so; we believe it, Lord. It is even among them that say they are
looking for Jesus daily.

Hear the Apostles. "We establish the _law_." Rom. iii: 31. "The _law is
holy, just and good_." What do you mean Paul? The professed Christian
world dont believe your testimony: they are teaching that certain part
of this _law_ was changed or abolished 25 years before you made this
assertion. See chronology. "Love is the fulfilling of the _law_." xiii:
10. See Matt. vii: 12, and Gal. v: 14. James says it is a "_perfect
Royal law of liberty_." See page 26, ch. 1: 25, and ii: 8, 9, 10, 12,
and iv: 2. This testimony is also rejected as an absurdity, being no
better than Paul's, 25 years out of date, for they will have it that the
4th commandment, the Sabbath, was changed at the Resurrection.

_The commandments of God_ mean the same as the law.--"All his
commandments are sure, they are established _forever and ever_." Who
then can change the Sabbath? "A good understanding have all they that do
his commandments." "Blessed is the man that delighteth greatly in his
commandments." Psl. cxi: and cxii. "O let me not wander from thy
commandments." xix: 10, and 35. "I will delight myself in thy
commandments which I have loved." 47. "Thy commandment is exceeding
broad." 96. "All thy commandments are truth." 151. Can it be proved that
God ever altered or changed the truth? Yes, if it can be proved that he
changed the Sabbath. "O that thou hadst harkened to my commandments,
then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves
of the sea." Isa. 48: 18. See Jesus' exposition and reference to the
commandments Matt. v: 19, xv: 3-6. We are told by those who can hardly
bear a contradiction, that the 5th commandment means Jesus for father,
and New Jerusalem for mother. Jesus shows it is our natural parents, and
so does Paul to the Eph. vi: 1-3. See also Matt. xix: 17-19, and xxii:
35-40. Mark xii: 29-31, John xiii: 34, xiv: 31, and xv: 12. The last
three quotations relate to his own commandment. See John's testimony on
this point. 1st John ii: 4, 7, iii: 21, 24. Rev. xii: 17, and xiv: 12.
Now let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, "fear God and keep
his commandments; for this is the _whole_ duty of man," "Blessed are
they that do his [55]commandments, that they may have right to the tree
of life and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. xxii:
14, Ecc. xii: 13. Do you ask for the foundation for this mass of
evidence? When Israel violated the holy Sabbath of rest given in the
beginning, Gen. ii: 2, 3, 1 John ii: 7, the Lord said unto Moses, how
long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? What are they, Lord?
Answer, the seventh day Sabbath. See Exo. xvi: 27-30. Now if we trace
the bible through in relation to the Sabbath we shall learn that the
Lord's threatenings, judgments, and promises, are more than ten fold in
comparison with the other nine commandments. What is the reason of this?
Answer, the keeping of GOD'S SABBATH HOLY SANCTIFIES AND SAVES THE SOUL!
but the keeping of one, or all the other nine without it will not.

Now, dear reader, if you are still undecided about the keeping of God's
Sabbath, let me persuade you to read these two pages over again, and
settle in your mind what you will do with this mass of testimony,
directly from God; his Prophets; Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Dare you
say you are now 'living by every word of God,' and yet reject all this,
with what other testimony is here presented to prove the keeping of the
seventh day Sabbath? Dare you run such a risk because the great mass of
professed believers in Christendom are doing so? Do you think you can be
saved by such a _faith_ and _practice_? Your ministering spirit (if you
yet have one,) says no, no! utterly impossible! Then receive the truth
in the love of it. Do you perceive that the seventh day Sabbath is God's
first _law_ for man? Gen. ii: 2, 3, and the very last promise he ever
made to man of a future inheritance is based on the 'doing of these
commandments.' It would not help your case at all if you could make out
five thousand, instead of ten, commandments; for you would still have to
include the ten to get them all.

What a beautiful delineation the cxix Psalm is, of this wonderful
prototype delivered by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. The _Commandments_
are rehearsed twenty-two times. The _Law_ twenty-three. The _Testimony_
twenty-three. The _Statutes_ twenty-one. The _Precepts_ twenty-two. The
_Judgments_ twenty-two. The _Word_ thirty-eight. All referring to the
Ark of the Covenant of God. See how perfectly David and Nehemiah links
them together with the Sabbath in the xix Psl: 7-9; Neh. ix: 13, 14.
'The [56]_Commandments_, _Law_, _Testimony_ and _Judgments_, are true
and righteous all together.' Proof--_Commandments_ and _Laws_, Exo. xvi:
28-30; _Testimony_, Exo. xxv: 16; Isa. viii: 20; _Word_, Exo. xxxiv: 27;
Mark vii: 10, 13; _Statutes_ and _Judgments_, Deut. vi: 17, 20; x: 13;
Lev. xviii: 5; _Precepts_, Neh. ix: 13, 14; Dan. ix: 5.

Who believes that the person that refrains from worshiping 'idols or
images,' will be saved for that? or because he honors his father or
mother? or because he is no murderer? or does not commit adultery, or
steal, or bear false witness, or covet, or not swear? Thousands on
thousands have conformed to some and even all the nine, that made no
pretensions to religion. We must keep the whole if we would be saved;
neither can we be saved by keeping the Sabbath alone. James says 'If we
fail in one we are guilty of the whole.' God says 'verily my Sabbaths ye
shall keep--that ye may know that I the Lord do SANCTIFY you.' Exo.
xxxi: 13. Now I ask if there is any wise men among us that can tell us
how the soul is sanctified unless he keeps the Sabbath HOLY. Ezekiel
says the Sabbath was given that we might know that the Lord SANCTIFIES.
xx. Says the reader, what do you think about those that have died in
faith, keeping the first day Sabbath? Just as I do of those that never
heard the everlasting gospel at the hour of his judgment. Look at the
state of the world _now_, since they have rejected this message, the
answer is plain then that condemnation comes, when light or present
truth is presented and rejected. We may think our plea of ignorance may
excuse us now. But just think of that awful hour, that gathering storm
that is now clothing the moral world with darkness that may be felt. The
sure and certain precursor of that tremendous "rush" when God roars out
of Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem, preparatory to the sign of
the Son of man in heaven and the trump of the archangel and a great
sound, with so much power that earth and sea will reel, and rock, and
rend; and cast forth the righteous dead, and the living saints changed;
all going up together to meet their glorified Lord. No plea of ignorance
will then answer our purpose: thoughts then rushing through our minds
with more than lightning speed, will touch every point as on the
magnetic telegraph, and show us where and when we rejected the present
truth. Good God help the honest ones to see it now, for then it
certainly will be forever too late. That God's holy Sabbath is a present
truth I have not a shadow [57]of a doubt; that it is stamped with
immortality and will be present truth forever and ever, no mortal can
dispute:--It was established in Paradise without limitation. Gen. ii: 2,
3. God says "my _covenant will I not_ BREAK _nor_ ALTER." Jesus has
shown that not one tittle of this covenant can be _altered_, and told
his children (not the Jews only) how they should pray about the Sabbath
36 years after his death. A little farther in the distance stands John
the last of the disciples pointing us to Paradise for the commandments.
After wading through a few years tribulation, in vision he sees the new
Jerusalem, the Mother of us all, the Paradise restored, and cries out
"blessed are they that DO (that practice) his commandments, they are
going into the city." There they will keep the Sabbath without
opposition, as at the beginning. Isa. 66: 23, Heb. iv: 9. This looks
just like God's work. Man has undertaken to "_break_ and _alter_" this
_law_ by changing the Sabbath. It would be much easier for him to bail
the ocean dry, and carry the water to Jupiter by the spoonful; and sweep
the thick clouds from the heavens in a thunder storm with the wing of a
raven. Who then can alter this covenant? Echo answers, who can alter
this covenant?

Now who cannot see clearly that the main pillar and foundation of this
_Everlasting covenant_ is the ten _commandments_, the _law_ of God, the
constitution of the Bible: for every nation, kindred, tongue, and
people, given first in Paradise, re-enacted with the nine additional
_commandments_, written on tables of stone by the finger of God on mount
Sinai, giving it the form of a statute, then delivered to Moses, broken
by the Jewish, just as men break any law without destroying it. The same
ten commandments and laws, called by Paul the _new_ or _second_ and
_everlasting covenant_, confirmed by Jesus, and sealed with his own
blood eighteen hundred years ago, written in our minds and our hearts
from one generation to another to the present time, always understood
when developed in the believer's _practising_ and _doing_ them, with the
promise annexed that such obedience will be rewarded by an entrance into
the holy city. Rev. xxii: 14.

Now in this covenant or ten commandments God has given us a perpetual
covenant, a sign forever, and this is the seventh day Sabbath. See Exo.
31: 16. This may bear some comparison with the visions of Ezekiel and
John. "Their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel." "I
will give him a white stone, and in [58]the stone a new name." So with
the Sabbath it is the main and essential thing. It is clearly that if we
keep this holy as God has shown us, then we shall be SANCTIFIED. So we
see a holy sanctified soul cannot violate the commandments. But if we
reject the light and still persist in saying we will keep one of the
working days holy which God never _sanctified_ nor set apart for us,
"how does the love of God dwell in that soul?" "If ye love me keep my
commandments." Now the history of God's people for the last seven years,
or more, is described by John in Rev. xiv: 6-13. An angel preaching the
everlasting gospel at the hour of God's judgment. This without any doubt
represents all those who were preaching the second Advent doctrine since
1840. During this proclamation, there followed another angel, saying
"Babylon is fallen, is fallen." This angel was some of the same Advent
lecturers, (for invisible angels dont preach to men.) And the third
angel follows them, showing the curse that befell all such as "worship
the beast or his image, or _receive his mark_," that is, if they go back
again. The same angel or voice that is brought to view in ch. 18: 4, you
see he follows the one that announces the fall of Babylon, and cries,
come out of her my people: this was a little before and during a cry at
Midnight in the fall of 1844. And God's people did respond to that call
and come out, does any one ask where from? Answer, the professed
churches and no where else. These churches then are Babylon! Now when
this cry ended, John describes another very different company, in their
patience, (or trying time,) keeping the commandments of God and the
faith or testimony of Jesus; who are they? Why, the very same that came
out of Babylon. Well, were they not all good christians that obeyed and
came out of Babylon? They will be if they belong to this last company
and pass through the trial. But did they not keep the commandments of
God before this company was developed? Yes all but the 4th commandment.
Therefore as I have shown, John gave us no credit for keeping the first
for the seventh day Sabbath, neither could it be called keeping the
commandments, for if we did it ever so ignorantly, even, we still
violated the very essential _law_ in the commandments, and all that John
could say therefore was, that them which had the mark of the beast kept
some of the commandments. James says "if we fail in one we are guilty of
the whole." Now that such a people can be found on the earth as
[59]described in the 12 v. and have been uniting in companies for the
last two years, on the commandments of God and faith or testimony of
Jesus, is indisputable and clear. I say here then is demonstrated proof
that Babylon has fallen, and whoever undertakes to prove the contrary
must annihilate this people, or "pervert the scriptures." John further
shows that this is a remnant (which of course means the last end) made
war with, (his meaning is clear,) for "keeping the commandments of God
and the testimony of Jesus Christ." xii: 17. Here another question
arises, why this people should be persecuted for keeping the
commandments, &c., when all, even them which have the mark of the beast,
profess to keep them. I suppose all that enrages the Devil and his army
is this; that this remnant are actually _practising_ what they believe
is the testimony of God and the testimony of Jesus, selling what they
have, giving alms, laying up their treasure in heaven, casting
themselves entirely loose from this wicked world; doing as their master
told them to do, "washing one another's feet," and as the apostles have
taught, 'greet all the brethren with an holy kiss,' 'salute every saint
in christ Jesus.' Living 'by every word which proceedeth out of the
mouth of God,' practice keeping the Sabbath holy, just as God has told
them in the commandments. But says the reader, there are tens of
thousands that are looking for Jesus, that dont believe the above
doctrines, what will become of them? Consult John, he knows better than
we do; he has only described two companies. See xiv: 9-11, 12. One is
keeping the commandments and faith of Jesus. The other has the mark of
the beast. How? See page 45. Is it not clear that the first day of the
week for the Sabbath or holy day is a mark of the beast. It surely will
be admitted that the Devil was and is the father of all the wicked deeds
of Imperial and papal Rome. It is clear then from this history that
Sunday, or first day, is his Sabbath throughout christendom. And that he
has succeeded among other civilized nations to sanctify and set apart
for holy days every working day which God gave us, that _he_ did not
sanctify. See page 8th. He will be very careful therefore not to make
_war_ on any but those who keep God's Sabbath holy. Contrast this with
page 30. John shows that these will all be judged according to their
works, or as their work shall be. But them that do (that practice) his
commandments may enter in through the gates into the city. But do not
some of the rest go in? He does not say they do. He [60]says his reward
is with him to give to every man according as his work shall be. Well,
who are left out? See 15 v. "And whosoever loveth and maketh a _lie_."
Now see 4 of John ii. "He that saith I know him and keepeth not his
commandments is a _liar_." But does not the vii Rev. describe a great
multitude saved after the 144,000? Yes, but I conclude that these were
raised from the dead. The original design of sending out this work was
to show that these commandments, the keeping of the Lord's Sabbath,
would save the _living_ saints only at the coming of Jesus. Now that the
keeping of the seventh day Sabbath has been made void by the working of
satan, and is to be restored as one of the _all_ things spoken of by all
the holy prophets since the world began, before Jesus can come, is
evident. See Acts iii: 20, 21. "And they that shall be of THEE shall
_build the old waste places--thou shalt raise up the foundation of many
generations_, and thou shalt be called the REPAIRER _of the breach, the_
RESTORER _of paths to dwell in_." Isa. 58: 12. The two following verses
show that keeping or restoring the Sabbath is the special work. Jesus
says, "they shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven, that _do_
and _teach_ the commandments." That there will yet be a mighty struggle
about the restoring and keeping the seventh day Sabbath, that will test
every living soul that enters the gates of the city, cannot be disputed.
It is evident the Devil is making war on all such. See Rev. xii: 17.
"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." Amen.




WHO ARE THE TRUE ISRAEL?


In the xxxi. ch. of Exod., God says, "wherefore 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 _forever_." 16, 17 v. _Who are the true
Israelites?_ Answer, God's people. Hear Paul: "Is he the God of the Jews
only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes of the Gentiles, also; from
uncircumcision through _faith_" Rom. iii: 29, 30. God gave his
re-enacted commandment or covenant to the natural Jew in B. C. 1491.
They broke this covenant, as he told Moses they would, for which he
partially destroyed and dispersed them; God then brought in a new
covenant which continued the sign of the Sabbath, which was
[61]confirmed by Jesus and his Apostle about 1525 years from the first.
See Heb. viii: 8, 10, 13; Rom. ii: 15. Their breaking the first covenant
never could destroy the commandments of God. Therefore this new or
second covenant, made with the house of ISRAEL, Heb. viii: 10, (not the
natural Jew only.) is indelibly written upon the heart. Now every child
takes the name of his parents. Let us see what the angel Gabriel says to
Mary concerning her son: "The Lord God will give him the throne of David
_his_ father, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever." Luke
i: 31, 33.

Now the prophecy: "There shall come a star out of _Jacob_ and a sceptre
shall rise out of _Israel_." Num. Now 1735 years before Jesus was born,
God changed Jacob's name to _Israel_, because he prevailed with him.
This then is the family name for all who overcome or prevail. God gave
this name to his spiritual child, namely, _Israel_. Then Jesus will
"reign over the house of _Israel_ forever." This must include all that
are saved in the everlasting kingdom. Further, Joseph was the natural
son of Jacob, or _Israel_. In his prophetic view and dying testimony to
his children, he says, Joseph is a fruitful bough, from _thence is the
shepherd_ the stone of _Israel_. Gen. xlix: 22-34. Then this Shepherd
(Jesus) is a descendant, and is of the house of _Israel_. Does he not
say that he is the Shepherd of the Sheep?--What, of the Jews only? No,
but also of the Gentile, "for the promise is not through the law (of
ceremonies) but through the righteousness of _faith_," Rom. iv: 13.
Micah says, "they shall smite the Judge of _Israel_, that _is to be the
ruler in Israel_." v: 1, 2. Now Jesus never was a _judge_ nor _ruler_ in
_Israel_. This, then, is a prophecy in the future, that he will judge,
and be the Ruler over, the whole house of _Israel_. All the family, both
natural Jew and Gentile, will assume the family name, the _whole Israel_
of God. The angel Gabriel's message, then, is clear; David is the father
of Jesus, according to the flesh, and Jacob, or rather Israel his
father, and Jesus reigns over the house of Israel forever. Paul says,
"He is not a Jew which is one outwardly but he is a Jew which is one
inwardly." Rom. ii. "There is no difference between the Jew and Greek,
(or Gentile) for they are not all _Israel_ that are of _Israel_, neither
because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children." Why?
Because the children of the promise, of Isaac (is the true seed.) chs.
ix and x. To the Gallatians he says, "Now to Abraham (the Grandfather of
Israel) and his seed were the [62]promises made: not to many, but as of
one and to thy seed which is CHRIST--then says, then says, there is
neither Jew nor Greek--but one in Christ Jesus, and if ye be Christ then
are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." iii. "And as
many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and
upon the ISRAEL of God." vi. This, then, is the name of the whole family
in heaven; Christ is God's only son and lawful heir, none but the true
seed can be joint heirs with Christ in the covenant made with Abraham.
Ezekiel's prophecy in xxxvii. ch., God says "he will bring up out of
their _graves_ the _whole house of Israel_." "and I will put my spirit
in you and ye shall _live_." 11-14. If God here means any other than the
spiritual _Israel_, then Universalism is true--for the _whole_ house of
natural Israel did not die in faith; if the wicked Jews are to be raised
and live before God, then will _all_ the wicked! For God is no respecter
of persons: "And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify
_Israel_ when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them forevermore."
28 v. Here, then, we prove that the dead and living saints are the whole
_Israel_ of God, and the Covenant and Sign is binding on them into the
gates of the holy city. Rev. xx: 14.




TWO QUESTIONS FOR SHEPHERDS AND PRINCIPALS OF THE FLOCK, ANY WHERE AND
EVERY WHERE.


When and where has God abolished his _commandments_ and laws? namely the
seventh day Sabbath as recorded in Exo. xvi: 28-30. When, and where did
God ever sanctify the _first_, or any other day but the seventh to be
kept for a holy day of rest? Will God ever justify any living soul for
attempting to keep one of the six working days holy?




[63]RECAPITULATION


1. Page 5. _When was the Sabbath instituted?_ Here we have endeavored to
show when, and how it continued until its re-enactment on Mount Sinai.

2. Page 11. _Has the Sabbath been abolished since the seventh day of
creation? If so, when, and where is the proof?_ Here we believe we have
adduced incontestible proof from the scriptures; from the two separate
codes of laws given, viz: the first on tables of stone, called by God,
prophets, Jesus, and his Apostle. 3. The commandments of God. 2d code,
the Book of Moses, as written from the mouth of God, the book of
ceremonies, combining ecclesiastical and civil law, which Paul shows was
nailed to the cross with all _their Sabbaths_ as _carnal commandments_,
(the law of ceremonies,) because their feasts commenced and ended with a
Sabbath. See Lev xxiii.

Please read from 20th page onward, how Jesus and the Apostle make the
distinction.

3. Page 31. _Was the seventh day Sabbath ever changed? If so, when, and
for what reason?_ Here we find, by examining the proofs set forth by
those who favor and insist upon the change, that there is not one
passage of scripture in the bible to sustain it, but to the contrary,
that Jesus kept it and gave directions about it at the destruction of
Jerusalem. Paul also, and other Apostles taught how we were to keep the
commandments.

4. Page 45. The History which is uncontroverted.

5. The time when the Sabbath commences. See pages 35 and 36, not 31, as
on page 46. The sun in the centre of the globe, at the commencement of
the sacred year (March or April) is the great regulator or time-keeper
for every living soul on this planet. Gen. 1: 14, Exo. xii: 2.

6. Page 49 begins with the _covenants_. Here by tracing them through the
bible we find them founded on the ten commandments. The Sabbath of the
Lord our God, the connecting link, or covenant within the covenant; the
first _law_ ever given, annexed to the last promise ever made, which if
obeyed will save them that are alive when Jesus comes ... Sabbath HOLY.

... principals of the flock.




Transcriber's Notes


Page numbers from the original have been retained and enclosed in []
square brackets.

Words in italics in the original are surrounded by _underscores_.

Ellipses on page 63 represent text missing in the original. When a copy
of the book with the missing text intact is found, this file will be
updated.

This is an old text. As such, spelling is often inconsistent. Spelling
has been left as in the original with the exception of typographical
errors. The following typographical errors have been corrected:

     Page iii: proving clearly that the doing of[of missing in
     original] these commandments

     Page 6: two thousand years before{original has befere} Abraham

     Page 8: adopted peculiar{original has pecular} days to suit
     themselves

     Page 12: xviii:[original has xvii] 4, 11.

     Page 18: (when will{original has wlil} this be Paul)

     Page 19: also 3d v{original has 3dv} of 2d Cor: iii

     Page 22: follow any of their{original has heir} customs

     Page 23: without the least intimation{original has ntimation}
     from him

     Page 26: the man that{original has tha} shall

     Page 27: taught the same doctrines{original has doctrince}

     Page 28: We are repeatedly{original has re- on one line and
     repeatedly on the next} told

     Page 28: 2d{original has 3d}, announcing the fall of Babylon

     Page 28: And this{original has this this} picture

     Page 32: the christians of Troas{original has Traos}

     Page 33: ever mentioned by numbers{original has uumbers}

     Page 36: at the summer solstice{original has solistice}

     Page 50: Lev. xvi{original has vvi}: 15.

     Page 52: broken the everlasting{original has everlastidg}
     covenant

     Page 59: keeping the commandments{original has commandmentr}

     Page 60: covenant which continued{original has eontinued}

     Page 62: Christ{original has Cbrist} is God's only son

     Page 62: 11-14.{original has 17-14}

The following punctuation corrections have been made to the text.

     Page i: from the _beginning_."{period and quotation mark
     missing in original}

     Page iv: as was the first edition.{period missing in original}

     Page 6: claimed as the father of the Jews{original has
     extraneous parenthesis}

     Page 6: _statutes_ and my _laws_."{quotation mark missing in
     original}

     Page 8: children of Israel _forever_."{quotation mark missing
     in original}

     Page 14: "Well,"{quotation mark missing in original} says one,

     Page 16: Psl.{period missing in original} viii: 3.

     Page 16: Heb. iv: 9,{comma missing in original} Rev. 22: 14

     Page 17: third part of a shekel"{quotation mark missing in
     original}

     Page 19: for 78 Sabbaths in succession.{period missing in
     original}

     Page 20: children of Israel in Mount Sinai"{quotation mark
     missing in original}

     Page 22: I have already quoted Matt. 5: 17,{comma is missing
     in original} 18

     Page 22: tauntingly asked "{original has single quote}which is
     the

     Page 23: John xv:{original has comma} 10

     Page 24: "_great_ apostle to the Gentiles:"{quotation mark is
     missing in original}

     Page 24: "{quotation mark is missing in original}circumcision
     is nothing

     Page 25: Gal.{period is missing in original} iii: 11-23,
     23-25.

     Page 26: perish with their using?"{quotation mark is missing
     in original}

     Page 26: handwriting in his book,{original has period}

     Page 26: i:{original has semi-colon} 25.

     Page 33: Justin Marter in his Apology{original has extraneous
     period}

     Page 34: "{quotation mark missing in original}it was so at
     that time

     Page 35: from sunrise to sunset.{period missing in original}

     Page 36: Gen.{period missing in original} i: 5.

     Page 37: time before he was created."{quotation mark missing
     in original}

     Page 39: xxi.{original has comma} ch. John

     Page 43: judge righteous judgment."{original has single quote}

     Page 46: {original has extraneous quotation mark}Jesus says
     there are but twelve

     Page 47: {original has extraneous single quote}This testimony
     first

     Page 48: See Exod. xvi: 27-30.{period missing in original}

     Page 48: the wrong covenant.'{quotation mark missing in
     original}

     Page 49: Eph.{period missing in original} i: 14.

     Page 49: brought to view by Paul.{period missing in original}

     Page 49: Rom. xi: 26, 27.{period missing in original}

     Page 50: testimony of Jesus'{quotation mark missing in
     original}

     Page 51: in the viii. ch.{period missing in original} on this
     Covenant

     Page 51: quotes from the viii. ch.{period missing in original}

     Page 51: In ch.{period missing in original} xx: 37

     Page 51: of the covenant."{period and quotation mark missing
     in original}

     Page 53: they that love _thy_{original has extraneous comma}
     law

     Page 53: shall be an abomination."{quotation mark missing in
     original}

     Page 53: Isa.{original has comma} viii: 16.

     Page 53: 66:{original has comma} 22, 23

     Page 54: profaned among them."{quotation mark missing in
     original}

     Page 54: Rom. iii: 31.{period missing in original}

     Page 54: "{quotation mark missing in original}_perfect Royal
     law of liberty_."

     Page 54: waves of the sea."{quotation mark missing in
     original}

     Page 55: Gen.{original has comma} ii: 2, 3

     Page 57: into the city.{period missing in original}

     Page 57: in the middle of a wheel.{period missing in original}

     Page 60: _of paths to dwell in_."{quotation mark missing in
     original}

     Page 60: children of Israel _forever_."{quotation mark missing
     in original}

     Page 61: righteousness of _faith_,"{quotation mark missing in
     original}