REMARKS

ON THE

SANCTIFICATION OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.

SOME Christians have supposed that the New Testament does not sanction the religious observance of the first day of the week, and that such a practice is founded on a misconception of the law of Moses. As this is a matter of the first importance in Christianity, it is right that it should be investigated in the fullest manner. Till the Scriptures have been examined throughout, with the utmost deliberation and impartiality, it would be rash to incur the hazard of annulling what God may have enjoined. Let us discard, without ceremony, all the commandments of men; but let us take heed lest, in the intemperance of our zeal, we do not dismiss with them any of the commandments of God. After the fullest and most calm deliberation, the evidence in favour of the sanctification of the first day of the week, appears to me decisive. I shall, therefore, for the satisfaction of my brethren who may have doubts on this subject, submit to them the grounds of my opinion. In doing this I am conscious that prejudice for antiquity has as little weight with me as fondness for novelty. I have desired, above all things, to know the will of God, and when I think I have discovered it, I

am anxious to impart it to my brethren. I am impatient to save them from the sin of teaching the disciples of Jesus to despise what the Scriptures teach them to reverence, and of adding to the offence of the cross, by a tenet unsupported by the authority of God. In examining this subject, I entreat those of sentiments opposite to these inculcated in this paper, to dismiss from their minds everything but the desire of finding truth. Let the fear of God banish all partiality for opinions already conceived, and all undue desire of vindicating what has already been avowed. It is a difficult thing to review our own opinions, especially when published, with the impartiality which we can bestow upon those of others; yet, without this attainment, no man is thoroughly fitted for discussing subjects of controversy. It is an awful thing, in giving the import of God's testimony upon any matter, to give it a turn to suit our own views; yet, a bias of this kind is sometimes discoverable, as well in intemperate reformers, as in the prejudiced defenders of ancient error.

In examining the evidence on this subject, it has appeared to me, that they must have taken a very partial view of it, who have supposed that the seventhday-Sabbath rests on the Mosaic law. If we consult the book of Genesis, we shall find that it was instituted two thousand years before the law, and is founded upon reasons that have no exclusive respect to any nation, or to any dispensation. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made."Gen. ii. 1-3. Here is a Sabbath even before the entrance of sin, founded upon reasons that apply to all nations and to all times. Is God's resting on the seventh day, a reason for the Sabbath applicable to the Jews only? Is not this a Sabbath for all the human race? Is there anything of a local or temporary nature in this language? Is not the reason assigned for the institution of the Sabbath, as forcible this day

as the day it was given? Is it not as applicable to us as to the Jews, or to Adam himself? Is the finishing of the work of creation no longer worthy of remembrance? Granting then in the fullest sense, that the law of Moses is abolished, how does that affect this subject? Shall the abolition of the law which was not given for two thousand years after the institution of the Sabbath, abolish an institution which, though incorporated in that covenant, is totally independent of it?

The Sabbath is not a Jewish institution, for though it formed a part of the national covenant, it was previously incumbent on all mankind in virtue of its original appointment. As the Sabbath was incorporated into the Jewish law, it received appendages applicable to the Jews alone. These appendages perished with the law, but the Sabbath itself no more dies by being connected with the law, than the soul does by being united with the body. Suppose a landlord to give leases in which it is covenanted that his tenants are subject to forfeiture upon conviction of any act of treason, their loyalty is then one of the conditions on which they hold their farms. In addition to the fear of the civil powers, they are deterred from treason by the dread of losing their property. Suppose again, that on the expiration of these leases, the landlord makes no such covenant, but leaves them with respect to their title to their farms, at full liberty either to be loyal or disloyal. Is it not evident, that though free from their covenant and its additional enactions, they are still bound by the laws of the state, and that though they shall not now on account of treason forfeit their lands, yet they shall still be answerable for their crimes to its laws. In like manner, the Sabbath which was an institution for the human race, was embodied in a temporal covenant with a particular nation. With the abolition of that covenant, the temporal sanctions of the Sabbath were abolished, and everything in it that peculiarly respected that nation, but the Sabbath itself, could not perish with a covenant of which it was independent.

But I shall go farther. To overturn the Sabbath, it is not sufficient to prove merely the abolition of the law

no, nor even the insufficiency of the evidence in favour of the sanctification of the first day of the week. I maintain that, even though the day of Christ's resurrection should be degraded, the Sabbath remains in virtue of its original institution. There is no proof it is said, that the day of Christ's resurrection was observed as a Sabbath; grant this, and what follows? Is it that there is no Sabbath? No verily, but that instead of the first day of the week, the seventh according to the original appointment is the Sabbath. Christ tells me that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and the New Testament affords me evidence that it is changed; but had I no such evidence of a change, the seventh would still command my respect. The reasons upon which God rests the appointment of the Sabbath, are as lasting as the hills; while the creation remains they cannot wax old. Every nation under heaven is equally bound to respect the day that God sanctified and blessed. If the nations have lost the knowledge of the original Sabbath, they have in like manner lost the knowledge of many other things. But as soon as they receive the Scriptures which contain this institution, their neglect of it will be their condemnation. God sanctified and blessed a Sabbath for the human race, even in a state of innocence, for the commemoration of the finishing of his works. Shall the abolition of a covenant that respected only one nation, abolish that Sabbath? Will any man presume to class the original Sabbath appointed for man in innocence, with these beggarly elements, these rudiments of the world, which were to vanish as shadows at the coming of Christ? I conclude then, that if the first day of the week is not to be observed as a Sabbath, the seventh day still enjoys that honour. It was appointed for the human race, and not for a particular nation: it was appointed for man in innocence, and not merely as a shadow having reference to human guilt; it was founded on reasons applicable to all ages and countries. No artillery employed against the law of Moses, can ever be brought to bear upon it. It stands as firm as the throne of God.

Again, the Sabbath is one of those commandments which in general are recognized by our Lord and his

apostles, and are exhibited in the New Testament as living after the death of the law. There is nothing that can be said from the abolition of the law of Moses, that deters me from using this argument. While I admit, in the fullest manner, that this law is abolished, I contend that everything in that law, that was obligatory on all men, and on the Jews previous to their national covenant, remains unaffected by the death of the law. I shall not enter into that question at present; but, as a foundation for the present argument, shall merely observe, that though the usual distinctions of the law are both unscriptural and pernicious, the commandments which men have termed the moral law, are sanctioned by the New Testament. To the ruler who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, our Lord replied, "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery," &c. It is no matter in what view it is supposed that our Lord uttered these words. Whatever was his view, he admits that the keeping of the commandments would gain eternal life. They are the substance of human duty. Did ever our Lord speak so of any of the temporary precepts of the law of Moses? Could it be said that by observing any of these rites that are really abolished, a man might have eternal life? Besides, is it not evident that our Lord understood these commandments in all the extent in which some of them are explained by him in the fifth chapter of the Gospel by Matthew? In the sense in which they stood in the national covenant-by keeping of which they had a right to a happy life in Canaan-they were kept; but this did not entitle to eternal life. Whatever precepts are made, the conditions of eternal life must contain the substance of all the duties that God requires of man. Is it not most absurd to suppose that the commandments, to the obedience of which our Lord attaches eternal life, are abolished by his coming? Instead of abolishing them, he recognizes and explains them. Is it not most absurd to suppose that these commandments, to which our Lord pays such deference, should share the same fate with the carnal Jewish rites? Here, then, the commandments, in general, are recognized. The fourth,