/ LO fO ! 4 3 00 •H ^ •H IS V U -H ! w ^ IE CL O D j 1 ^: <-t- o c <0 •H rH (D (D 0) t» o btt m £ O ^ ^ < 00 (0 m g 3 rH rH G C s S ^ g ^ E en CO -H O O ! 1 i S * s, W D| i o >> m G . o -t^ t rH o n w 4j X 00 TJ C ii 0) > (d th ■Hi ^^ PQS < ' #) CL - 1 1 .i DISCUSSION OF THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTION, PERPETUITY. AND CHANGE WEEKLY SABBATH; IN A SERIES OF LETTERS, FROM JANUARY, 1835, TO JULY, 1S36, WRITTEN FOR THE AMERICAN BAP- TIST, CITY OF NEW YORK; WHICH, EXCEPTING THE LAST SERIES, WERE PUBLISHED ACCORDINGLY. BY WILLIAM B. MAXSON, PASTOR OF THE SEVENTH DAY BAPTIST CHURCH IN PISCATA WAT, N. J, AND WILLIAM PARKINSON, PASTOR OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. SCHENECTADY: PRINTED BY JOHN MAXSON, STATE STREET. 1836. E RRATA. Page 6, 2d line, for reach, read search. " 15, 22d line for 17, 12, read 17, 2. Three lines below, for 23, read 28. " 16, 6th line, for was, read were. " 30, 23cl line, for ungenerate, read unregeuerate. " 32, I7th line, for Matt, xiv, read x. " 33, 2 line from top, and 4th from bottom, for John xxi, read xx. " 53, insert it before being, in the 1st line. " 54, 5th line, for these, read those. " 65, in note, for contract, read counteract. INTRODUCTION. Among the many subjects which engage the atten- tion of the Christian community of the present age, there is none that lays a stronger claim to be duly tuid candidly investigated, than that of the weekly Sabbath. Whether we consider the Sabbath in re- gard to its early and divine institution — the design of God in providing for men a season for rest and moral improvement — the influence that a regard, or disregard to its duties will inevitably exert upon hu- man happiness, national prosperity, and civil order, the moral cultivation of the mind, and religious at- tainments ; or, in regard to the weighty responsibili- ty resting on all men, implicitly to obey their God, and the certainty of this divine ordinance receiv- ing the favorable notice of its Divine Institutor and Lord in the retributions of the day of Judgment, there will be found sufficient reason for giving it a thorough and faithful investigation. Yet as weighty as the sub- ject is, it is to be feared that there are, comparative- ly, but few who are inclined seriously to inquire, what has God said ? But it should be remembered VI INTRODUCTION. that neither ignorance of a revealed duty, nor disin- cUnation to examine and reach after it, can be, in the sight of God, a justifiable apology for its neg- lect. The aversion generally manifested by God's professed friends, to having the observance of the iirst day of the week fairly investigated, and tested by the holy Scriptures, may deservedly be consider- ed among the darkest signs of the times. If Chri»- tains be not correctly informed relative to what God requires in regard to the Sabbath, they will not con- duct themselves consistently in relation to it ; and we shall look in vain for a period to the Sabbath dese- cration, which is justly the subject of complaint and alarm, and which threatens the destruction, not only of our excellent civil and moral institutions, but the purity of the Church itself. It matters not what means Satan resorts to, to bring himself into the field, nor what weapons he uses against the religion of Jesus : if he carries his point, he gains the day, and the Church is led captive. He serves his pur- pose as well by subverting a duty, as by corrupting a doctrine. It is time Christains were awake to the inquiry as to what God requires in regard to the day He has sanctified and blessed. To aid in this inqui- ry, the subject, in the following letters is discussed and investigated in its most important points. Much impressive testimony, both scriptural and historical, IS here collected. The reader is earnestly desired to peruse with prayerful attention, the whole discussion, and to examine with care the numerous texts of Scripture, and other authorities with their connections, here referred to, that he may see the bearing they were designed to have upon the subject in hand. It is time men and women began to think, believe, and act for themselves in matters of religion, in refer- ence to the day when they must giwe account for thena- INTRODUCTION. VU selves to God, and receive in their own persons ac- cording as their own works shall be. It may not be improper to state, that I have not been led in to this discussion by the love of contro- versy ; but by a regard for what I do, from a studi- ous application of myself to the subject, believe to be the truth of God's blessed Word. This discussion originated in some remarks inserted by the Rev. W. Parkinson in the Appendix of a small Pamphlet, enti- tled 'A Summary of Faith,^ &c. which were considered s& an unjust reflection upon those who observe the seventh, instead of the first day of the week. With the hope of obviating the unpleasant influence of those remarks, and to sustain what I hold as the truth relative to the Sabbath, my first letter was ad- dressed to him, through the columns of the American Baptist, Jan. 1835. His first letter in reply soon appeared, in which he endeavored to defend the ar- guments by which he had arrived at the exceptionable conclusions and remarks above noticed. It was not then my expectation that the discussion would ex- tend to the length it has, or even that it would go be- yond my second letter which was published in Feb- ruary. Mr. Parkinson's second letter, however, soon appeared ; and my third to him which was de- signed as an answer to it, was forwarded to the Ed- itor in April. But by the request of Mr. P. who wished to lay his views of the whole subject before the public without interruption ; it was not published till he had closed, which was in October following. I then on my part, likewise, in a number of letters, gave the outlines of my own views, and replied to what I considered exceptionable in his. It was ex- pected that this would have closed the discussion ; but a rejoinder in a second series of letters was commen- ced after a short pause. In these letters, many of my a2 Vlll INTRODUCTION. remarks were misconstrued, and calculated in ma- ny instances to impress the reader's mind erroneous- ly respecting what I had written. It therefore be- came my indispensable duty to correct these errors, and to substantiate my own statements. This is principally the work of my second series of letter^ to him. Proceeding in this manner, the discussion has taken a tolerably wide range, embracing the ar- guments generally used for, and against the sanctifi- cation both of the seventh and the jirst day. This has probably, been the best method of conducting our correspondence, as we have both had the oppor- tunity of exhibiting our views with less of the ap- pearance of a dispute, than it might have had if each letter had its particular reply. I have only further to mention my reasons for wishing a re-publication of this discussion in the pres- ent form. One object to be gained is, that the whole subject would be put in a condition to be convenient- ly read, and understood. Scattered as it was, over a weekly periodical of more than a year and a half continuance ; but few have had opportunity of reading all the letters embraced in it. And those who have read them as they have been published, can, with difficulty recollect the chain of evidence and argu- ment, v/hich has been used in the support of the doctrines advocated, and this they would be unable to do, unless they have preserved their papers, which kw are in the habit of doing. Besides this, it re- quires more labor to follow the frequent references of one letter to another, than many readers are in- clined to bestow, unless all were compiled together in a book. As it is now published, the whole may be read in a few hours, and the whole argument on both sides of the main question discussed, may be seen at one view. Another reason for publishing INTRODUCTIOX. IX the entire discussion is this, Elder Parkinson has al- ready published his letters addressed to me with two only of mine which in fact are but an introduction to the discussion ; thus giving only his own side of the question. Now, whatever good intention he may have had in pursuing this course ; he has practised great injustice towards me. Had he published all my letters, or omitted them all, or even, had he giv- en me notice of his design, thus affording me an op- portunity of correcting the errors of the press which occurred in their first publication, I should have less cause of complaint. But the precipitation with which he has hurried his letters to the press, before the dis- cussion on my part was closed, and well knowing that I should reply to his last series of letters, shows a total disregard to the claims of Christian courte- sy and betrays a strong aversion to having them presented to the public in connection with the reply, which he was aware would detect their sophistry and expose their numerous misrepresentations of my sentiments. It is therefore, a duty I owe to myself and to the truth I have advocated, to have the whole arguments fully, and fairly before the public, that every part of it may be seen as it is. I will only add that I have one more, and a still stronger reason for re-publishing the discussion, and this is, the Ho2)e that my fellow Christains will derive a benefit from its perusal, by obtaining a clear, and more cor- rect understanding of the sacred obligation they are under to ^^keep the Sabbath from 'polluting it.^' W. B. MAXSON. New Market, N. J. 1836. PRIITGBTOH .REG* NOV 1880 , | SABBATH DISCUSSION. LETTER I. To THE Rev. William Parkinson. January, 1835. Sir, — The only apology that I deem necessary for me to make for intruding upon your attention, is what is contained in No. 3, in the appendix of a pamphlet, published by you, entitled "A Summary of Faith, 8fc.^^ In this article you have published your reasons for not observing the seventh, but the first day of the week. To this I should not have felt it my duty to reply, had you not seen fit to implicate the denomination of Christians with which I have the honor to be associated. The sentiment which you have expressed, and to which I particularly refer, is contained in the following words, p. 27. "To o2>- serve the seventh day Sabbath, then, under the Gos- pel dispensation, must be decidedly anti-evangelical % it is practically denying that Christ is come in the flesh, and virtually admitting that the Mosaic dispen- pensation remains in force." To deny practically that Christ has come in the flesh, is, I conceive, no less than practical infidelity, and according to 1 John iv. 3, is anti-Christian : and virtually admitting that the Mosaic dispensation remains in force, is virtual- ly denying the existence of the Gospel dispensation. SABBATH DISCUSSION. 11 This then, is the charge you have brought against all that observe the Sabbath of the Bible ; who agree- ably to your subsequent remarks, have fallen from grace, and Christ can profit them nothing. Now, Sir, whatever may have been your design in the remarks referred to, I think no person acquain- ted with the common interpretation of language, can understand them in a sense very different from what I have. I wish with Christian meekness to re- pel this charge : and I hope it will be received by you as emanating from a desire to restore and per- petuate Christian kindness and charity among the members of our respective denominations, who in many parts of our country are intermingled, and have hitherto lived on terms of Christian friendship. — With regard to your reasons for not observing the Seventh Day, I believe you have erred, both in your premises and conclusions. As to your premises, I cordially concur in what you advance respecting the institution and design of the seventh day Sabbath, viz : That God instituted it at the close of his creative operations, and sanctified it by setting it apart for the future rest and observance of man, as a means of his moral and re- ligious improvement ; but your allusions to this in- stitution, as typical of the Gospel institution, is, I be- lieve, without scripture support : the passages you have quoted from Heb. iv. 4, 9, 10, allude particu- larly to the rest of the saints in glory. In speaking of the Sabbaths of the Jews, you must be understood to represent them as of a different character than that of the original seventh day Sab- bath. You remark that *' they had three, viz. the seventh day, the seventh year, the fiftieth year Sab- bath." But they had certainly more than these. — Every day on which they were forbidden to labor, 12 SABBATH DISCUSSION. was a Sabbath. The Passover, the first and last days of the feast of unleavened bread ; the fiftieth day, or Pentecost ; and the first and last days of the feast of Tabernacles were Sabbaths. See Lev. xxiii. dbap. And the penalty for the violation of these an- nual Sabbaths, was no less than that due to the week- ly day of rest. All these, with the whole Mosaic economy, we believe were typical of what relates to the Gospel dispensation ; were fulfilled in Christ, and by him taken out of the way, nailing them to his cross ; and just so much of the observance of the Seventh Day, as was peculiar to the Jewish nation we also believe to be abohshed. It is the Sabbath which was at first instituted in its regular returns, and which you admit was designed for the future ob- servance of man, and engraved with the finger of God with the other precepts of the decalogue, that we profess to observe. And if, as you seem to infer, the Seventh Day of the Jews was a distinct one from this, we have nothing to do with it. Here you have blended an institution, which in its origin had no particular allusion to the Jewish dispensation, or na- tion, with their shadowy and abolished ritual, which, in my opinion, is fundamentally wrong. God did indeed enjoin the keeping of the Sabbath, with the other precepts of the decalogue, upon the nation of Israel. An institution, as important to the happiness of man, as was the Sabbath, could not have been omitted by the Sovereign of the universe, m legislating for any nation, any more than the oth- er precepts engraved upon the tables of stone. These were all given to the Jews under similar penalties ; and would you say they are all Jewish laws 1 The laws for punishing offenders were Jewish, as well as some peculiarities in their observance. These have been abolished ; but this affects not the laws ; SABBATH DISCUSSION. 13 they must remain as they stood unconnected with that dispensation, until formally repealed by the same au- thority which enacted them. To this sentiment our Lord has borne ample testimony in the New Testa- ment. In His sermon on the Mount, He declared, un- der the strongest asseverations, that He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it ; and that not one, not even the least of those precepts, should ever be abrogated. He could not more effectually destroy the Law, than to Eibolish it, — to nail it to his cross, — to take it out of the way. Nor could He more effect- tually fulfil it, than punctually to observe it, meet the penalties due to man for its violations and fully 150 preach it to the world ; all which, it is certain, He did do ; see Matt. 5 : 17, 20. The same is une- quivocally asserted in Matt. 19 : 17. He enforced the observance of those precepts without distinction, and seems not to have been fearful of leading men to make a merit of what they did, in so doing. He has also very plainly declared that the institution of the Sabbath should not be impaired by His death, or the institution of the Gospel. He commanded #, religious regard to be had to it for, at least, forty years after these events. Matt. 24: 20. Would the disciples have been commanded "^to prey that they should not be put to flight when their city was to be destroyed, if no such an institution was to exist by His approbation at the time ? Certainly not. You see. Sir, from what has been said, that the Sabbath was not intended in its institution, nor designed by Jesus Christ, to be amalgamated wuth the shadowy and temporary precepts of the Jewish ritual. In your conclusion, I also think that you have erred. For if we should admit that your views are correct, as to the weekly Sabbath being a Jewish typical rite, it would not follow, that observing it would be a practi- 14 SABBATH DISCUSSION. cal denial that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, &;c. unless it were observed in order to be justified and saved by it. The tenacity of the early Chris- tians to some of the abolished rites, was not a practi- cal denial that Christ had come in the flesh. Peter was a successful preacher a long time before he thought it lawful to eat things common or unclean, or even go among the Gentiles, and yet he did not deny Christ in this. Neither did Paul in circumci- sing Timothy. And you must be too well acquain- ted with the sentiments of the observers of the sev- enth-day, not to know that their observance of the Sabbath weakens not their dependence upon the all- sufiicient merits of Christ. Your remarks upon this subject, therefore, seem to be unkind, and are calcula- ted to give your readers a wrong view of the subject, and impress them unfavorably and erroneously towards their Christian brethren who observe the Sabbath. It is not my object in this letter so much to ani- madvert upon your reasons for observing the first day of the week, as to exculpate myself and cove- nant brethren, from the charge of observing an une- vangelical and Christ denying rite. I shall, there- fore, only further remark upon what you have said concerning the practice of Christ and his Apostles in this thing. You have asserted that Christ met with his disci- ples the two successive first days after his resurrec- tion ; and have insinuated that he met them in Gali- lee the two following first days. But the truth is, that Christ met with them but once when they, or a majority of them, were together on the first day of the week ; and the circumstances of this interview are such as not to countenance the sanctity of the day. It was but an evening meeting — after the day had been devoted by two of their number in travel- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 15 ing, — it was a partial meeting. Thomas was not with them ; and they knew not that Christ w^as ris- en until he appeared among them. Their next meet- ing was after eight days from this evening, woiin eight days, nor on the eighth day, consequently it could not have been on the next first day. Neither is there proof that Pentecost fell upon the first day of the week, since it was the fiftieth day from the first day of unleavened bread, and might occur on any day of the week. Burnside says it must have fallen this year on the sixth or seventh day. Doctors Brown and Lightfoot admit that it fell on the seventh day. You further state that you find not a single instance of the disciples observing the seventh day, as such ; yet you find abundant evidence that they statedly met on the first day. Now, Sir, this is a singular as^ sertion. You find in Acts 13 : 14, 42, 44, Paul and others observed two Sabbaths in succession ; chap- ter 18, in Corinth Paul attended public worship ev- ery Sabbath for a year and six months ; and in chapter 16 : 13th, is another ; and in chapter 17 .: 12, three Sabbaths in succession : and it is there said that this was his manner. These Sabbaths are mentioned by the inspired writers as such, or they would not have mentioned them at all. In Acts 23 ; 17t Paul declares that he had done nothing against the customs of the Jewish fathers ; consequently, he had not taught the people by word nor example to discard the seventh-day Sabbath ; for we know this would have been directly against their customs. — The only meeting of the disciples on the first day of the week, after the ascension of Christ, recorded in the New Testament, and in which you find abundant evidence of a stated meeting on this day, was in Troas, Acts 20 : 7. And how, Sir, are we to know that they met on the first day, as such ] Some 16 SABUATH DISCUSSION. circumstances relative to this meeting renders it doubtful. It was an evening, or night meeting, edther at the close of the Sabbath, or evening after the first day. If it were the former, then Paul com- menced his journey on the morning of the first day ; and if it was on the latter evening, then it was on the second day of the week that they broke bread — It cannot, therefore, be a precedent for hallowing the first day of the week, nor is it satisfactory evidence of a stated meeting upon that day. I am respectfully yours, &c. W. B. MAXSON. LETTER II. To THE Rev. W. B. Maxsox. January, 1835. Sir, — The notice you have condescended to take oT No. 3., in the Appendix to my Kttle Summary of Faith, ^c, may, in the judgment of some, deserve a respectful reply. Accept, then as my apology, for not having replied a week sooner, that I was in the coun- try when your address to me appeared in the Reposi- tory, and that I did not see or even hear of it until the Tuesday evening after it was published. Nor should I now think an answer called for, if you had not put such a construction on an inference which I drew from certain premises, as may lead some who hav^e not read my Appendix, to think that I had viola- ted the rules of Christian charity, and aimed to pro- mote discord ; things which I would ever studiously avoid. Having, as I supposed, proved from the Scriptures, that the seventh day Sabbath, like every other Sab- bath, the observance of wdiich God required of na- tional Israel, was typical of the better rest to be en- joyed by spiritual Israel under the Gospel, — I infer- red, and I think justly, that to observe the seventh- day Sabbath under the Gospel dispensation is decided- ly anti-evangelical that it is pratically denying Christ (the. Antitype) is come in the flesh, and virtually ad- 18 SABBATH DISCUSSION. mitting that the Mosaic dispensation is still in force. By this inference, however, I did not expect to be understood as saying that any people, who, under the Christian name, observe the seventh day Sabbath, believe that Christ has not come in the flesh, or that the Mosaic dispensation is now in force ; but mere- ly that the present observance of the seventh day Sabbath, carries in it an implication to that amount, and consequently, that such observance is inconsis- tent with the Christian faith. That many of the primitive Christians, as you observe, and even some of the apostles, strangely adhered to certain Jewish rites, cannot be denied. But was not this, in every instance, anti-evangelical? When, indeed, it proceed- ed from weakness of faith, it was a matter of Chri^ tian forbearance. Rom. xiv. But after more evan- gelical knowledge was given, it became censurable, whether the rites observed were Mosaical or tradi^ tional. Col. ii. 16, 17, 20. Besides, it was some- times done, even by apostles, from motives of carnal reasoning. Paul, for instance, circumcised Timo- thy, not as an act of obedience but of expediency — be^ cause of the Jews ; hoping thereby to render him the more acceptable among them. Acts xvi. 3, And though this apostle himself, advised, thereto by his brethren at Jerusalem, submitted to certain Jewish cermonies, he did so merely under the expectation that he should thereby promote his safety and useful- ness among his nation. In this, however, he was disappointed : God, displeased at his temporizing conduct, chastised him severely, by suffering the Jews to treat him very ill. See Acts xxi. 16, 32. Thus corrected and instructed, Paul, when he found his brother Peter acting in a similar manner, withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed ; it being after he had the visions recorded in Acts x. And hav- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 19 ing, to the total neglect of Judaism, preached the Go?- pel among the Gentiles, Paul justly considered that any connivance on his part at Jewish usages, would be grossly and sinfully inconsistent ; For, saith he, if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Gal. ii. 11 — 18. Your remark, that your observance of the seventh day Sabbath cannot imply a belief that Christ has not come in the flesh, unless you should observe it expecting thereby to be justified and saved, is scarce- ly pertinent ; for it does not appear that the Jews ev- er expected to be justified and saved alone for observ- ing the Sabbath. I was not ignorant of the fact, that certain days in- cluded in the annual festivals of the Jews are called Sabbaths, and that on them they were required to do no servile work ; yet thought it sufficient to instance the three Sabbaths which I mentioned. You seem to think that by the seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews, I must mean some different day from that which God appointed to Adam. I have not said so. But I will now say what you seem to have over- looked ; namely, that the Jews were required to ob- serve the Seventh Day under a two fold considera- tion : — 1. Because it was the day on which God res- ted from his creative operations. Exodus xx. 10, 11. And — 2. Because it was to serve as a memo- rial of His having brought them out of Egypt. Deut. v. 14, 15. In each respect, therefore, the Sabbath was both commemorative and typical. That the nat- ural creation, commemorated by the Sabbath, was emblematic of the spiritual creation, is as obvious from scriptual allusions, as it is that the natural birth is emblematical of the spiritual birth. And, by com- paring 1 Pet. ii. 9, with Exo. xv. 13 and xix. 6, any one may see that the Redemption and leading forth of 20 SABBATH DISCUSSION. national Israel, were typical of the Redemption and calling of mystical Israel. Besides, the divine Lo- gos, to whom the old creation is attributed, (John i. 1 — 3., Col, i. 14 — 19) claims also to be the Author of the neio creation : Behold, saith He, / inake all tJiings new. Rev. xxi. 5. Nor is it improbable that He, tlic same yesterday, to-day and forever — He, with whom one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand pears as one day, having employed six days in coib*- pleting the old creation, will employ six thousand years, and no more, in completing the new creation. Heb. xiii. 8. 2. Pet. iii 9. And, as he is the Angel of the covenant, by whom Isreal was brought out of Eg3q:)t, so also is He the Redeemer of the Church, both by price and power. Eph. v. 25. 1 Pet. 18, 19, Col. ii. 15. Is. Ixiii. 1 — 6. In the wezo as well as in the old creation, many wonderful things are as^ cribed to Christ — and to each day its appropriate work. By Him a iieio dispensation was ushered in : The law was given hy Moses, hut grace and truth mme hy Jesus Christ. John i. 18. By him ^ new church-state, with a new ordinances, and a neiu code of discipline were introduced : Old thing are 'passed away ; behold all things are become neiu. 2 Cor. v. 17. Through Him comes the Holy Spirit, renewing his redeemed after the image of him that created them. See Acts ii. 33. Titus ii. 14 ; iii. 5, 6. Col. iii. 10. And the Redemption of His people, meritorious ly finished on the cross, (John xix 30) and experi- mentally realized by faith, (Rom. v. 1. Eph. i. 7) will be triumphantly completed in the resurrection of their bodies, when }1q.\v\\\ fashion our vile body like unto His glorious body. Rom. viii. 23. Philip iii. 20, 21. Whatever, therefore, under the name of Sabbath, appertained to the Jewish dispensation, may justly be SABSATH DISCUSSION. 21 regarded as typical of something better to be reali- zed in Christ. Heb. x. 1. To restrict, as you would do, the rest treated of in the fourth of He- brews, to the heavenly state, is at variance with the whole scope of the apostle's reasoning in that chapter. The passages of Scripture you cite, to prove that it was the design of Christ to perpetuate the observance of the seventh day Sabbath, seem to me to prove to the contrary. Aware that the Jews considered Him as one opposed to the law, and even to the prophets, Christ would let them know that they utterly mistook his design : Think not, said He, that I am come to de- stroy the law or the prophets ; that is, to represent the former diS nugatory ov the latter ^s false ; I am not come to destroy either <> but to fulfil both. Matt V. 17. To this end. He was made under the law ; lived in perfect conformity to it ; nay, hy the sacri- fice of himself, while He became the fulfilling end of the ceremonial law, (Rom. X. 4. 2 Cor. iii. 13 — 15) he bore, in a way satisfactory to divine justice, the penalty of the moral law ; for he thereby redeemed those whom he represented, yro??z the curse ofthelaw, being made a curse for them. Gal. iii. 13 ; iv. 4, 5. And, inH is birth, life, miracles, death and resurrec- tion. He fulfilled the writings of the prophets respect- ing himself, the true Messiah. Luke xxiv. 25, 26. 44, 46. It is true, that when a certain young man, inquired of Christ, What good! thing he might do, that he might have eternal life, Christ, to show the folly of such legality, said to him, '^If thou will enter into life,*' (that is, by doing) ''keep the commandments y Matt. xix. 16, 17 ; yet, in ver, 18, 19, where He specifies the commandments intended, He makes no mention of the Sahbath ; but if he had specially nam- ed it, as the Jewish Sabbath contixaued to His death? 23 SABBATH DISCUSSION. the young man, who, according to vcr. 20, seems to have been a native Jew, was bound to keep it. Comp. Mark. x. 17, Luke xviii 20. When I read your as- sertion, that Christ had commanded that a religious regard should be had to the seventh day Sabbath, **for at least forty years after his death and the insti- tution of the Gospel," I expected to find Scripture re- ferred to, which 1 had strangely overlooked ; but when I found the reference was to Matt. xxiv. 20 ; *'pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sahiath'dayy" I could only wonder how such an interpretation of that passage had ever been re- ceived by any intelligent man. According to Jose- phus, (War, b. ii. c. 19) Jerusalem was first beseig- ed by Cestius Gallus^ president of Syria, who came against it with a pow-erful army, but who, v/ithout any sufficient reason, withdrew ; and, between the time of his raising the seige, and the arrival of Titus, by whom the city was finally taken, an opportunity was providentially afforded for the Christians to flee. During this interval, however, Jewish usages still prevailed. By these, a Sabbath day's journey w^as fixed at tii'o thousand cuhitSt about 07ie mile, beyond which the disciples would not have been allowed to travel on that day, and which would not have been sufficient for their escape. Besides, on a Sabbath day, the gates of all cities and towns in Judea were shut and barred, so that on that day they could nei- ther have passed in a direct course, nor have obtain- ed entrance into any place of safety. Well, there- fore, did Christ teach them to pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath day, when their escape must have been impossible, and when the attempt would have provoked the unbelieving Jews to indigna- tion against them We know that the Jewish Sabbath (speaking in our SABBATH DISCUSSION. 2S popular style) began on Friday evening at sunset and ended on Saturday evening at sunset. Hence, ac- customed to a similar way of calculation, you seem to think, that the first time Christ, after his resur- rection, met with his disciples, was not properly a meeting with them on the first clay of the 2ceek, because it occurred in the evening of that day. But you cer- tainly know, that we observe the first day of the iceekr as commencing with the resurrection of Christ. And though we cannot ascertain the precise moment, nor hour, at which He rose, we know that those who first discovered that His sacred body was removedl from the sepulchre, had gone to the place early, very early in the morning ; nay, Mary Magdalene arrived there, on her first visit, lohen it was yet dark. John. XX. 7. But, whether He had then just risen, or wheth- er He rose at midnight, as is most probable, no man, I think, is prepared to assert. In either case, how- ever, the meeting of the disciples on the ensuing eve- ning was a meeting held on that day. Nor is the sup- position, that Christ rose at midnight, at all inconsis- tent with His prediction that, as the Antitype of Jo- nah, He should he three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, that is, under its surface ; Matt, xii. 40 ; or His repeated declaration that he should rise on the third day. Nevertheless, to demonstrate it, both you and I must avail ourselves of a peculiar mode of calculating days — a mode rarely used except by the Jews, and, by them, only in regard to sacred times. By a day and night, thus calculated, they mean a natural day of twenty-four hours ; which the apostle Paul calls a nuchthemeron, a night-day. Cor. xi. 25. Hence, in regard to the times of holding their festivals — the time of circumcising a child, &c., they counted any part of the natural day in which such time commenced or ended, as a whole night-day. — b2 24 SABBATH DI6CUSBI0N. Now, as we know from Matt, xxvii. 46, 50, that Christ expired on the cross at about the ninth hour of tlie day, that is, at about three o'clock in the after- noon, so, from John xix. 31 — 42, we know that this was on Friday, it being the day of preparation for the Sabbath — also that the Jews, to prevent desecra- tion of their Sabbath, caused his body to be taken down from the cross, and that his friends, in conformity to Jewish usage, dispatched his interment before the commencement of the Sabbath, which was at sunseL In this calculation, therefore, the time, though it may have been but an hour, more or less, during which Christ lay in the sepulchre before sunset on Friday, is reckoned as the whole of the night-day to which it belonged ; the second night-day, from sunset on Fri- day till sunset on Saturday, was entire ; and reckon- ing the time that followed till he I'ose, as another night-day, we have the three night-days, or days and nights intended by his prophecy and declaration ; though if He rose at midnight. He lay in the tomb a little more than thirty-six hours. Compare 1 Samuel XXX. 12, 13. Nor do I recollect that the Jews, among all their objections to the history of Jesus, have ever offered any to this mode of calculating the time be- tween His interment and resurrection. We return to the meeting in question. As to the two disciples, who had been sad and doubtful, I hope you will excuse them, though they had traveled some part of the day, and got late to meeting ; and surely the rest are not to be blamed fop the absence of Thomas. We think it of little impor- tance how many of the disciples met on that evening, since we know that Christ sanctioned the meeting with His presence — a favor which He had promised to grant, where even two or three should be gathered in his name. Matt, xviii. 20. Besides, though by SABBATH DISCUSSION. 25 the fall of Judas and the absence of Thomas, only ten were present, an apostle calls them tlie twelve ; 1 Cor. XV. 5 ; just as the sons of Jacob, though in the absence of two, were called twelve: Gen. xlii. 13; an allusion, in each case, being had to the original number, and current denomination. Thus we speak of Congress — of a court — a council — a committee, &C., whether every member be present or not. The words after eight days, (John xix. 26) yield no evidence, that it was not on the next first-day eve- ning that Christ met with his assembled disciples a- gain ; Thomas being present. For, according to Jo- sephus, (x\ntiq. L. 7. c. 9.) the Jews often noted a week by the phrase eight days. Besides, it is evident, that the Evangelists calculated a week, either by in- cluding two extremes, or by omitting both ; calling it, according to the former way of calculation, an d^ght days ; Luke ix. 28 ; and according to the lat- ter, six days. Matt. xvii. 1. The same way of speaking, too, is common among physicians ; with whom a Tertian or a Quartan ague or fever, always includes both extremes. Supposing, for instance, the first paroxisms to happen on Friday, and the next on Sunday, though but one day intervenes, and though, strictly speaking, it occurs every other day, yet professionally, it is called a Tertian, a third-dsiy paroxism ; and, supposing the first paroxism to be on Friday, and the next on Monday, though only two days intervene, and though it is vulgarly called a ijiird day ague, it is, nevertheless, professionally styled a Quartan, a fourth-dsiy fever or ague ; the last of these days, always being counted as the first of the succeeding cycle. With my assertion that the day of Pentecost, on which the Holy Ghost was given, was the first day of the week, I remain perfectly satisfied ; finding it 26 SABBATH DISCUSSION. to be sustained both by Scripture, and by the best human authorities. By saying that Drs. Brown and Lightfoot admit that the Pentecost in question fell on the seventh day, you really astonish me. The only way by which I can excuse you, is to suppose that you have never read the works of those Doctors, and that you relied on the testimony of some scrib- bler, who either ignorantly or wickedly had made the assertion. Dr. Lightfoot, (Works, vol i. p. 747, &c.) on the contrary, most lucidly demonstrates that the day in dispute, was the first day of the week ; and Dr. Brown, (Antiq. vol. i. p. 446) asserts the same, and refers to Lightfoot in support of it.* I repeat, and with the fullest confidence, what you call singular ; namely, that, in tracing the New Testament history of the disciples, after their Lord's resurrection, "though we find not a single instance of their having observed the seventh day Sabbath, as such, we find abundant evidence that they stated- ly met on the /r^^ day of the week." That it was lawful for the apostles then, as for Gospel ministers nolo, to preach on any day and in any place, when and where permitted to do so, cannot be questioned. And all the passages you refer to, (which are Acts xiii. 14, 42, 44. xvi. 13. xvii. 2 xviii. 4.) as in- stances of the apostles having observed the seventh day Sabbath, after their Master's resurrection, are only so many proofs that the unbelieving Jews con- tinued to observe that day, and that the apostles avail- ed themselves of the successive returns of it, as af- *Arter writing the above, I discovered that you had only repea- ted an assertion made by the vrriter of the notes attached to Btjrn- s IDE on the Sabbath. Ainer. Pub. Notes on p. 159. Ho w littie credit, then, is due to the assertions, and even to the refer- ences, made in those notes! That the writer of thein differed, in some respects, from Mr. Burnside, appears by his notes on p. 152. SABBATH DISCUSSION. 27 fording convenient opportunities for preaching Christ to their national brethren, assembled in their Syiia- gogiies, or at their Proseuchas, places of prayer.— Wherefore, to consider these as instances of the apos- tles' observance of the seventh day Sabbath, as such, is quite as absurd as to consider the opportunities ta- ken by Christian missionaries, to preach the Gospel to the heathen, assembled at their idolatrous festivals, as proofs that they acknowledge the sanctity of those festivals. Comp. Acts xvii. When Paul (Acts xxviii. 17, asserted that he had done nothing against the customs of \\\Q fathers^ he must necessarily be un- derstood with restriction for otherwise he remained a practical Jew. The latter we know he was not. He must have meant, that he had given the Jews no just cause of offense, by any outrage against their cus- toms ; or that, intending by the fathers such as Mo- ses and the prophets, he had preached in perfect ac- cordance with their writings. See Acts xxvi. 22, 23. Whether Acts xx 7, and I Cor. xvi. 2, do, or do not furnish abundant evidence that the primitive Chris- tians habitually met on the first day of the week, I leave to the decision of every candid reader. Hoping that I have said nothing offensive, I con- clude, respectfully yours= WM. PARKINSON. LETTER III. To THE Rev. Mr. Parkinson. February 1835, Dear Sir, — The object of my former communica- tion was to show that the observance of the seventh day of the week is not deserving of the censure you was pleased to put upon it, and that it has a Scriptu- ral claim to be viewed in a more friendly light. I mentioned some of the remarks in the appendix of your Summary which I thought erroneous, and stated my own views, in part, as to the claims of the sev- enth, and first day to sanctification. If in that ar- ticle there is any thing disrespectful, it was unde- signed, and I hope you will pardon it ; and that I shall ^iwQ you no cause of offense in a few remarks upon your reply. The whole difference between us on the subject turns upon the validity of the Decalogue. If that code is recognised by Christ and the apostles, as is maintained by almost every sect of Christians in the world, as well as by a respectable portion of your own connection, — the Sabbatic law is still in force ; and it is the duty of the Church and the world at large to observe the Sabbath of the fourth command- ment. If not, we have no Divine appointment of any particular day for rest and devotion, and the SABBATH DISCUSSION. 29 observation of the Sabbath may be viewed as St Paul does ritual observances in Rom. 14th oh. as an innocent thing ; where he exhorts his brethren to forbear judging one another on account of these things. Whether, therefore, the observance of the Sabbath be a conformity to an existing law of God, or the continuance of a typical rite, we have the fel- lowship of the apostles and primitive Church, with whom, more than all others, it is our interest to be in union. If on this account we are blamed, we ought not to complain, since the censure falls with equal weight upon Paul, Peter, and James, and all the Elders of the apostolic Church, who were ac- cessory to PauFs performing certain rites in the temple, for which you think God was so highly dis- pleased with him. The time for the Church to be evan- gelic [say you] had not yet come, although it had been established nearly thirty years. But we have as little interest in the continuance of the Jewish rites as yourself, although we may not have indulged in so much acrimony against them. My object in these remarks is to furnish reasons for better feeling for those who observe the Sabbath, as such. Had you proved that the weekly Sabbath was a Jewish ceremony, and designed only as a type of the Gospel dispensation, as you suppose you have done, and which is the pivot on which turns all your subsequent remarks, we would no longer contend fox it ; but I hope you will excuse me when I say, that I believe neither yourself, nor any other person has ever done it. You seem entirely to have overlooked the circumstances, that when the Sabbath was in- stituted, sin had not come into the world, and, there- fore, did not originate in the grace of God to sinners, nor could it be effected by that plan of grace reveal- ed e^nd completed in Christ. Its early institution 30 SABBATH DISCUSSION. proves its importance to sinless beings, and it became still more so by their subsequent apostasy. It was a symbol of the felicity of Heaven, to which men would undoubtedly have been ultimately exalted, had they remained innocent ; and it is still a type of that rest which shall be enjoyed by those who are ac- cepted in Christ, as is asserted in lieb. 4th ch. It is therefore of a moral character, originating in the relations existing between men and their Maker, and the different orders of His creatures. Hence God placed it among the laws of the Decalogue, which are universally admitted to be of a moral nature, and designed to be a universal rule of conduct. As such, the civil law has interfered in its behalf, and upon this principle, the observance of a weekly day of rest has so generally obtained among all classes of men. And, I say it without the fear of contradiction, that this observation of the first day, has obtained its pop- ularity from a persuasion that it is sanctioned by the fourth commandment. As a commemorative of cre- ation, all men have an interest in it, and are bound to regard it; but as a Gospel commemorative, it could no more be the duty of ungenerate men, than eating the Lord's supper. The fourth command- ment protects the right of servants and cattle, and entitles them to a day of rest ; if the commandment be abolished, this restriction is off, and their masters have an indisputed right to their service the whole time. This would be a singular provisions of the Gospel. As the Gospel has no antitype for this sec- tion of the law, it cannot abolish it. Again, if the Sabbath law expired with Jewish rites, the whole ar- rangement of the week is prostrated, and we have no longer a divine rule for its measure. If the supposed examples of the first Christians are to be taken for a rule of duty, the measures of those EABBATH DISCUSSION. 31 example must be the rule of the duties required ; for it is at variance with all just reasoning, to urge the duty beyond the example. The example in question, therefore, could apply to none but disciples, and to them to a very limited extent. Whether what is said in the New Testament is sufficiently clear to establish this duty, and to set aside a primary and fundamental law of God, the candid reader must judge. The pertinency of my remark relative to being justified and saved by observing the Sabbath, v\-ill appear by the fact that the Jews did expect salvation by their legal obedience : otherwise St. Paul labored without an object, and his lucid exposure of the folly of such a hope, must have been uncalled for. See the Epistle to the Galatians. I have not intimated that you have said you sup- posed the seventh day of the Jews was a differ- ent one from that originally sanctified ; but what other inference can be drawn from what you have said ? If I mistook your meaning you could have easily corrected me. Deut. V. 14, 15, which you think I have overlook- ed, could not be designed to represent the Sabbath a ceremonial institution, or a memorial of the Jews' deliverance from bondage ; for the same considera- tion is urged in the preface to the Decalogue, Ex. xx. 1. It would, upon your understanding of it, prove altogether too much for your purpose ; for it would make every moral duty a mere ceremony — a memo- rial of the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egyp- tian bondage. Besides this, it is at variance with the understanding the Jews themselves had of it, if we can credit Josephus. He says Antiq. L. 1. C. 1. that it is from God's resting on the Seventh Day from creative operations, that they rested from their labors on that day, and called it the Sahhath. 82 SABBATH DISCUSSION. I did, indeed, refer to certain texts to show that Christ designed that the Sabbath should be perpetua- ted ; but how these passages could seem to prove the contrary, I am as much astonished as you was, how such an interpretatio7i could be given them by any intelligent man. Every man will admit that Matt V. 17 — 20, refers to the Decalogue collectively, and that the law of the Sabbath is contained in it ; and also that Christ has prohibited the violation, or teach- ing contrary to any one of these precepts. Now, is not a desecration of the Sabbath, and teaching others so to do, an infringement upon what is here forbid- den ] If it is not, I would ask, what is here proliib- ited? You had less reason for being surprised than you supposed you had, that I should understand Matt xiv. 24, as implying the perpetuity of the Sabbath ; for you certainly must know that this text has been so understood by men of intelligence, and cited for the same purpose. Rev. John Willison, in his work on the Sabbath, Am. Ed. 1820, p. 45, urges this text for this purpose. So also does Dr. Ridgeley ; see his System of Divinity, vol. 3. See also Dr. Hum- phrey's Essay on the Sabbath : also a prize Essay on the Sabbath published in the Utica Christian Mag- azine for 1815. The omission of the Sabbath, Matt xix. 17, could be no more designed to undervalue it, than the like amission of the preceding commands could have been designed to represent them as unimportant. I have expressed no doubts as to the first interview of the disciples after the resurrection occurring prop- erly on the first day of the week. I mentioned thoae facts relative to that meeting to show the improba- bility of its being concerted, and especially on ac- oouTxt of the resurrection ; as they were not con via- SABBATH DISCUSSIOX. 33 ced of the fact till after they were assembled ; and we are told expressly, John xxi. 19, that they were as- sembled for fear of the Jews. I must be excused for not knowing that you ob- serve the first day as commencing with the resur- rection ; for how should I know 1 You admit you do not know at what time Christ arose, how then can you commence your observance with that event ? The common opinion is, that it was in the morning, yet many who observe the first day commence it m tlie evening ; perhaps a greater part at midnight, when you think the event took place. I might sup- pose it was in the preceding evening, and who could gainsay it ? To me it is immaterial, inasmuch as I am convinced of its truth. The want of informa- tion on this point, and the silence of the Scriptures as to its rendering the day on which it occurred in its weekly returns, pre-eminent, are to me sufficient rea- sons for believing it was not designed. I have no doubt that the prediction, Matt. xii. 40, was fulfilled. We know that Christ died on the preparation, and that it was the day before the Sabbath, and we learn from John xix. 14, that it was the preparations of the Passover It was therefore the paschal Sabbath, the highest festival in the year, called, verse 31, a high day ; and it is not called the preparation of any oth- er Sabbath. We have no other information, than tra- ditional, to make us know that it was on Friday. I am under no necessity, therefore, of clipping the days of their usual length, in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of the prediction. We could have no particular interest in the precise meaning of the phrase '•''After eight days,^^ John xxi. 26, if it were not cited to establish an important religious practice, in opposition to an ancient law of God. You must be mistaken in your reference to Josephus, as it does 34 SABBATH DISCUSSION. not afford the evidence for which it was made. The passages you have referred to in Matthew and Luke do not, in my opinion, go to establish the meaning o'i after eight days, Matt. xvii. 1, Mark ix. 2, and Luke ix. 28, speak of the same event. The two former say it was after six days, which must be as late as the seventh, and the latter, evidently designed not to be definite, says it was about eight days. Now it is not very probable that after six days and after eight days, were designed to signify the same niun- ber. This mode of speaking among physicians, relative to intermitting fevers, is entirely irrelevant. The only object I had in the remark, that Doctors Brown and Lightfoot admitted that the Pentecost iu question fell upon the seventh day, was to show that tiiere was not a perfect agreement of sentiment on the subject. I suppose it to be correct, and still think that Dr. Brown has warranted the remark ; but be that as it may, the point in question is not af- fected. Burnside shows, p. 152, that there was not a uniformity of opinion on this point ; and R. Corn- thwaite, in his work on the Sabbath, London, 1740, gives as the common account, that Pentecosts hap- pened that year upon the seventh day, and not upon the first. You call it an absurdity to consider the constant attendance of the apostles upon public worship on tlie Sabbath, an evidence that they regarded it, as such. But what evidence does the Scriptures give of this absurdity ? It was well known to be a law of God, and no intimation is give that it was repeal- ed, or that they were ever indifferent about it, nor that any other day was designed to supercede it. Is it not rather absurd to suppose that two ensuing meet- ings on the first day, in places as different frorr each other as was Jerusalem from Troas, compo SABBATH DISCUSSIOX. 35 eed entirely of different persons, met for different purposes, and about twenty-seven years distant in point of time, is sufficient evidence that the whole Church regarded that day as a stated season of wor- sliip ? You think we must understand St. Paul with re- striction when he asserts, in Acts xxviii. 17, that he had done nothing against the custom of the fathers, **as otherwise," you observe, "he must be a practi- cal Jew, which we know he was not.'' x\lthough Paul constantly taught the impropriety of the Gen- tile converts adopting the Jewish peculiarities, and that the Jews were no longer bound by them, we have no evidence that he ever practically abandoned them, and if this makes him a practical Jew, he was undoubtedly one. If it were not so, his going into the temple by the advice of the apostles and elders of the Church, as recorded in Acts xxi. 20, 24, was not only an act of gross duplicity on thepart of Paul, but the leaders of the Church were also guilty of most astonishing dissimulation, I am yours, respectfully, W. B. MAXSON. LETTER IV. To THE Rev. Mr. Maxson. March, 1835. Dear Sir, — In your second communication, now before me, you say, *'The whole difference between us on this subject, (the Sabbath) turns upon the va- lidity of the Decalogue.'' By the validity of the decalogue, in this respect, I understand you to mean its sufficiency to determine what day of the week God appointed to be observed, as a day of rest and devo- tion, under the Christian, as well as under the Jewish dispensation — as also the manner in which it should be observed. But if so, I am utterly unable to dis- cover, that any but Jews and those proselyted to Judaism, have ever been, or that, without a new rev- elation, they ever can be, required to sanctify any one day of the week more, than another. For, though the law of nature — that law of which the written law, in regard to moral duty, is but a verbal copy, — has always been, and must continue to be, as divinely binding on all Adam's posterit}^ as it was on himself, the decalogue, as such, was delivered only to national Israel, whom God had brought out of Egypt. This is manifest from its inspired preface, which runs thus: '* And God spake all these words," the words of the decalogue, *' saying, I amtJie Lord SABBATH DISCUSSION. 37 ihy God, loho brought thee out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, Thou shalt have no other gods before rne,^^ 8fc. 8fc. Of the decalogue you further say, "If that code is recognized by Christ and the apostles, .... the Sabbatic law is still in force, and it is the duty of the Church and the world at large, to observe the Sab- bath of the fourth commandment.'' That Christ and his apostles recognized the decalogue, in regard to its moral injunctions and prohibitions, there can be no question ; indeed it would have been more than strange if they had not. Christ recognized the mor- ality of the decalogue, as a standard of perfection, whereby he showed to his Jewish disciples, and to all who read or hear his words, that they must have a better righteousness than that of the scribes and pharisees, who were the greatest sticklers for legal observances, or not be admitted into the kingdom of Heaven, but remain guilty before God ; for, remov- ing the false glosses which pharisaic interpretation had put upon the law, and exhibiting its claims to cordial as well as 'practical conformity. He shows that causeless anger renders the offender liable to the judgment ; Matt. v. 21, 22 ; that a lascivious look, or a lustful desire, is adultery at heart ; ver. 27, 28 ; that in common discourse, any asseveration more than Yea, yea, or Nay, nay, *'cometh of evil ;" ver. 33 — 37 ; that, instead of exacting the judicial law of retaliation, (Exo. xxi. 22 — 27) His disciples, in their private treatment of all, should return good for evil ; and that, instead of restricting their love, as taught by the doctrine and examples of the pharisees, to those of their own sect, they should extend it to all, even to their enemies ; that so by imitation, they might be manifestly the children of their heavenly Father. See from ver. 43 to ver. 48, In like man- 38 SABBATH DISCUSSION. ner, also, did the apostles recognize the moral re- quirements of the Decalogue ; that is, to show that it is impossible for any of the human race to be justi- fied by "the deeds of the law," and therefore, that the Gospel doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, was every where eqiially necessary. See Jas. i. 16 —27. ii. 8—23. I John iif. 15—171 Rom. iii. 10—28. xii. 17 21. xxiii, 8 — 10. But, in all this New-Tes- tament recognition of the pure and unalterable mor- ality of the Decalogue, where do we find any men- tion made of the Sabbath — or any reference, or even allusion to the fourth commandment 1 It would be in vain to say, it is included in the words of the apostle last referred to, wherein he sa5'^s, "and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neigh- bor as thyself 5" for this is not a recognition of the fourth commandment, but, of the first and chief commandment of the second table. See Ma.tt. xxii. 37—40. Hence it is fairly to be inferred, that the fourth commandment, enjoining the observance of the sev- enth day Sabbath, is, in its nature, not moral but jwsiiive. Ot this opinion was the venerable and learned Burnside himself, though the ablest modern advocate that has appeared on the Sabbatarian side of the question before us. He says, (p. 24.) "the common, and, I think, the correct and accurate no- tion of a moral precept, is, an obligation dictated by reason, and discoverable by the light of nature.'' — Now, however strongly reason dictates, and howev- er clearly the light of nature discovers, that mankind ought to love and worship God, their Creator, Pre- server, and Benefactor, and to observe honesty, pu- rity, and benevolence toward each other, all must be sensible, that, without revelation, reason would nev- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 39 er have dictated, nor the light of nature have discov- ered, as a duty, the special sanctification of one day in seven, and much less ivhich day of seven, should be so sanctified. The common argument raised by those who ad- vocate the moral nature of the fourth commandment is, that it is placed in the decalogue, and therefore, among the commandments that are unquestionably moral. This, at first view, seems plausible ; but, when it is recollected, that the decalogue itself, as a whole, was delivered only to national Israel, a people bound to observe the seventh day Sabbath, positively enjoined by the fourth commandment, the argument becomes impertinent and futile ; and especially so, when the fact is observed, that wherever the moral precepts of the decalogue are stated, (except in some address to the Jews,) no mention is made of the Sab- bath law, nor any thing said that implies it. Such, without exception, are the citations made from the Decalogue, by Christ and his apostles. Witness Matt. xix. 16 ; Luke x. 27 ; xvii. 20, 21 ; Rom. xii. 9 ; Isa. ii. 10, 26, v/ith all the rest that you can find, there being several more. Besides, *'the in- junction to observe the Sabbath of the fourth com- mandment'' is sometimes associated with the injunc- tion to observe the annual sabbaths, which, surely, you will admit to have been positive institutions. See, among other places, Exod. xxiii. 10 — 19 ; and xxxi. 13—15. But that the Sabbath law, in its nature, was not moral but positive, and therefore, susceptible of oc- casional intermissions, is put out of all reasonable doubt, by the example of Christ, and by his vihdica- tion of His disciples, in acts at variance with the law. That Christ never committed nor sanctioned any vi- olation of the moral law, is certain ; for He did no^ c2 40 SABBATH DISCUSSION. sin, neither ivas guile found in his mouth. I Pet. ii. 22. He was not only holy in nature, but also harm- less in life. Heb. vii. 26. Yet he both did and sanc- tioned what was forbidden according to the Sabbath law. According to this law, the Jews were forbid- den to carry any burden on the Sabbath day, Jer. xvii. 21, 22. Nevertheless, "on the Sabbath day," and while under this law, Christ said to a helpless paralytic, "Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine house,'"' and which he justified on the principle of showing mercy. Matt. ix. 2 — 13. But, could any inducement to the exercise of mercy, justify a viola- lation of the moral law 1 See also the account of his curing the man whose right hand teas loithered, and that of his curing the woman bound under an infir- mity eighteen years, each on a Sabbath day, and notice how he silenced the caviling Pharisees. Mark iii. 1 — 6 ; and Luke xiii. 10 — 17. Again : * Jesus,' (with his disciples,) "went on the Sahiath Day through the corn," that is, along a road or path lea- ding through a field of barley, "and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn." Luke adds, "rubbing them in their hands," all which partook of the nature of labor. "But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath Day. But he said unto them, (the Pharisees,) Have ye not read" — ye who profess so much knowl- edge — "what David did, when he was an hungred and they that were with him ; how he entered unto the house of God" (the Tabernacle, then at Nob, the city of priests ; I Sam. xxi. 1 — 6,) "and did eat the shew-bread, which" according to Levit. xxi v. 9, "was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests ? Or (giving an- other example) have ye not read in the law, (Num. SABBATH DISCUSSION". 41 xxviii. 9 — 10,) how that on the Sahbafh Days the priests in the Temple,'' as formerly in the taberna- cle, "profane,'' in a manner secularize, "the Sab- bath" by killing, flaying, eviscerating and of- fering the lambs, even two extra ones on that day, "and are blameless," it being their appropriate service, though by a law, which, being given sub- sequently to the fourth commandment, literally con- travened, and, in that instance, intermitted it ? — Then, aware that the Pharisees were thinking, and ready to say, The cases are not parallel ; thy disci- ples are not priests, nor in the temple ; they are com- mon men, strolling through a barley field : aware, I say, that they were secretly making these, or such like objections, Christ replied accordingly, putting a hut upon all they could say or think — ^'But I gay unto you. That in this (place, though afield,) is One," meaning himself, "One greater than the Temple," — One by whose orders the temple, as well as the tabernacle, was built — One, who, ignorant as they were of him, had resided hetiveen the Cheru- bim, both in the tabernacle and in the temple — One who, as the divine Lawgiver, had instituted both Sabbath and Priesthood as shadows of himself, the substance, and which, to make way for the clear- er manifestation of his own character, he would shortly abolish ; "for," adds he, "the son of man (one of his personal titles ; seeDan. vii. 13 ; John iii. 13 ; v. 27) is Lord even of the Sabbath-Day." Thus acting and saying, our blessed Lord placed a breach of the Sabbath on a par, not with a breach of the moral law, but with a breach of the law by which the Levitical priesthood was instituted and privileged, and which all who read the Bible must know, was ceremonial and repealable. Nay, he shows that the very law of the priesthood re- 42 SABBATH DISCUSSION. quired that to be clone on the Sabbath, which was forbidden by the fourth commandment ; and, con- sequently, that this commandment itself could not be moral, but positive, and hence subject to in- termission and repeal. Wherefore, as David and his men, jin eating the hallow^ed bread, to prevent star- vation, were innocent^ and the priests, in doing their sacrificial work on the Sabbath, M'ere blameless, so the disciples, in plucking and rubbing the ears of corn on the Sabbath, to allay their hunger, were guiltless ; all having the sanction of Him who is the Anti-type of the Levitical priesthood, and Lord even oftlieSahhathDay, and v/ho delighteth in forbear- ance and mercy. Matt. xii. 1 — 8. The evidence, indeed, that the fourth command- ment was, in its nature, 'positive^ and not moral, must constantly run parallel with the evidence that the Sabbath, as thereby enjoined, was peculiar to nation- al Israel ; and of this there can be no authorized question. For, 1. The w^hole decalogue, and therefore the fourth commandment, was delivered only to that people. Ex- XX. 1, 2, 3. 2. "The Sabbath of the fourth commandment," as much as the sabbaths of annual observances, was a sign to that people of a peculiar relation between God and them. See Ex. xxxi. 13 — 17. Now, that the an- nual sabbaths, if they had been common to the world, could not have been a sign of any peculiar relation between God and Israel, you must certainly admit. But, remember, the same is asserted of the weekly Sabbath given to that people. This Sabbath was a sign to them and concerning them, in a twofold ro- spect. As an observance peculiar to them, it was. primarily, a sign, both to them and of them, that they, rejecting all idols, had acknowledged Jehovah, the SABBATH DISCUSSION. 4S Creator of Heaven and earth, to be their God. As a recognition of this, God required them to observe the Sabbath : "Ye shall keep the Sabbath . . . six days may work be done but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord . . .—wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath ... 7/ is a SIGN between me and the children of Israel for- ever ; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and (speak- ing after the manner of men) was refreshed."' Ex, xxxi. 14 — 17. These injunctions, as o^ppears from the chapter referred to, were given in connection with those directing the services of the tabernacle ; which leads to the supposition that they were given in a ceremonial way. Neverthertheless, they agreed with, and recognized the very Sabb ath of the fourth com- mandment, as may be seen both in the promulgation of the decalogue, Ex. xx. and in its rehearsal, Deut V. And, secondarily their having this Sabbath, as an institution peculiar to them, was a commemora- tive SIGN to them, and their constant obsei-^-ance of it, was a characteristic sign of them, that they grate- fully acknowledged that Jehovah, the Greater ol Heaven and earth, had brought them out of bondage in Egypt, and promised them rest in Canaan. Ac- cordingly, in the rehersal of the decalogue, Deut. v. not only is the whole, as in Ex. xx. prefaced with, *'I AM THE Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage ;'' ver. 6 ; but the observance of the fourth command ment, is moreover, specially enforced by this con sideration ; "Keep the Sabbath Day to sanctify it> as the Lord thy God,'' at the giving of the law 'com manded thee. Six days thou shalt (or mayest) labor and do all thy work : but the seventh day is the Sao bath of the Lord thy God,' that which he (as a com 44 SABBATH DISCUSSION. rnemoration of his own rest after employing six days in creative work) hath commanded them to keep : ''ill it thou shalt do no work/' &c. ''And rememler that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, &dc. : Therefore, the Lord thy God commandeth thee to keep the Sabbath Day.'' ver. 12 — 15. 3. "The Sabbath of the fourth commandment,'' like each of the other sabbaths peculiar to national Israel, was to continue only during the Mosaic dis- pensation — a dispensation based upon a covenant of peculiarity ; Ex. xix. 5 — 8. Levit. xxiv. 8. While, therefore, this dispensation lasted, the Israelites, throughout all their generations, were required to observe the weekly, as well as the annual sabbaths, appertaining to it, "for a perpetual covenant.'. Ex. xxxi. 16. Comp. ver. 13 \ also Hosea ii. 11, and Col. ii. 16, 17. 4. As a decisive proof that "the Sabbath of the fourth commandment" was peculiar to national Isra- el, none but Jews were liable to the deadly penalty of violating it. Ex. xxi. 14, 15. Comp. Neh. xiii. 15 — 22. In the latter passage, it is true, that the Tyrians are represented as templers of the Jews, by offering their fish for sale on the Sabbath ; yet the Jews only were called to account for the breach of Sabbath ; see ver. 17. Nor is there, that I recol- lect, a single divine charge of Sabbath-breaking up- on sacred record, before or after the Mosaic dispen- sation. I shall only add, ' 5. That the keeping of the Sabbath is not among the "necessary things," which the Holy Ghost in the apostles required of the Gentiles converted to the faith of the Gospel. Acts xv. 28, 29. And, as it was not required of them, it could not have been required of Jews converted to the same faith ; SABBATH DISCUSSION. 45 for under the Gospel, believers of all nations are *one in Christ Jesus.' Gal. iii. 28. Now, from these revealed facts, the fair concIusioQ is simply this : — While the moral precepts of the dec- alogue, exhibiting an infalliable copy of the law of nature, and constituting a perpetual standard of per- fect morality, run through the Scriptures of the New Testament, as well as of the Old, "the Sabbath of the fourth commandment" never has been, and (with- out a new revelation for the purpose) never can be obligatory on any but Jews and those prosel;^^ed to Judaism. My views on Gen. ii. 2, 3, I must reserve for a future communication. In the mean time, I remain your cordial friend, and I trust, the cordial friend of truth. WM. PARKINSON. The two following letters were sent to the Editor of American Baptist in April last, they were designed as a reply to Eld. P's second letter ; but their publica- tion was delayed until he had concluded his first se- ries of letters to me, prior to the above date. Their dates refer to the time of their publication. W. B. M. LETTER V. To THE Rev. William Parkinson. Octoher, 1835. Dear Sir, — ^In my last, I stated that the whole dif- ference between us on the subject of the Sabbath turns upon the validity of the Decalogue. By the term va- lidity, I intended that the several precepts of which the decalogue is composed, remain a law in an unmutila- ted state, binding all men to obedience who come to the knowledge of it ; and that the fourth precept of this code which relates wholly to the Sabbath, is sufficient to determine what portion of time, and what particu- lar day of the week should be observed as the Sab- bath, under the present, as well as the former dispen- sation. But you are not to understand me to mean fay the use of this term, that the manner in which the Sabbath should be observed, is particularly defined by the fourth commandment ; for this could not be a SABBATH DISCUSSIOX. 47 dictate of any law designed for universal application. It is sufficient for a general law that labor was prohib- ited, and the keeping it holy enjoined ; but the man- ner of keeping the Sabbath, must, to a considerable ex- tent, be unavoidably under the control of circumstan- ces. The object of the precept is easily understood by every one who comes to the knowledge of it, viz. — that men should devote their undivided attention to the acknowledgment of God's glorious Perfections, and their own moral and religious improvement. — The precept, therefore, upon your view of the subject, obliged the Jews, and upon mine, all other persons to whom it should be made known, to keep the Sab- bath in the best manner their circumstances would permit. To abstain from unnecessary labor, and to engage in the contemplation of the perfection and works of the Deity, were duties practicable to all ; and it is a dictate of reason, as well as of revelation, that the object of the command would be promoted by socially engaging in these duties, when circumstances would '^ permit. That the prohibitions of this lav/, however unqualifiedly expressed, were designed to be understood as referring to labor which was not necessary to the comfort and happiness of mankind, is evident from there being no complaint against Isra- el for the performance of what necessity or mercy demanded, also from the labors allowed in the temple on the Sabbath, and particularly from our Lord's own exposition of this subject in Matt. xii. 1 — 7, which was according to the meaning and spirit of the law. By a particular statute, Israel was required to have a holy convocation upon the Sabbath. Lev. xxiii. 3 But this law would not apply to those whose circum- stances would not permit them to assemble. If, as you think, the Decalogue, and consequently the fourth commandment, were designed only for jia- 48 SABBATH DISCUSSION. tional Israel, the consequence would be, that none but that people were obliged to keep it. But, Sir, you ad- mit that whatever there was in this written law that regarded moral duty, has always been and must con- tinue to be binding upon all the posterity of Adam. — Allowing, then, that the Decalogue, as such, was given only to national Israel — still, as this law is by your admission, a verbal copy of the law of nature, by which I understand you to mean the moral Jaw, which must ever bind the whole posterity of Adam : I see not how the Jew is affected differently from the Gentile. If it be a verbal cojjy, it must be a perfect one ; and had the Gentiles in general, or the Church in particular, received a verbal copy of the law of nature, or the moral law from a Divine Source, it must have been substantially what the Decalogue is. I cannot see with you that there is evident proof in the preface to the Decalogue, that those laws were de- signed for none but Israel, for whatever there was of a moral nature in these laws was binding upon the whole world. I know of none who pretend that the law, when given at Sinai, was addressed or delivered to any people but Israel ; but when it is considered that they had these livelij oracZe^ committed unto them, to be finally transmitted to the Church, [Acts vii. 38] and that they possessed the only correct doctrine and or- dinances of religion then given to the world — it is evidently the duty of all the world to adopt that reli- fion — to take hold of the covenant of the Lord, and to eep the Sabbath from polluting it, as they were re- quired to do in Isaiah Ivi. 1 — 7. From which it is put beyond dispute that these sacred oracles were de- signed not for the use of the Jews only, but that the laiv should go forth fr 0711 Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Isa. ii. 3. And the Temple of the Lord wa3 designed for a house of prayer for all peo- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 49 pie. Isa. Ivi. 7. In like manner, the doctrine and ordinances of the Gospel were delivered only to the apostles and primitive believers who were Jews, con- verted to Christianity ; and their views for a time, were very similar, respecting the Gospel, to those you express concerning the law. They supposed the Jews alone were to be benefited by it ; but we know that the Gospel was destined to go forth from Zion for the salvation of the Gentiles. You further admit, "that Christ and his apostles recognized the decalogue in regard to its moral in- junctions and prohibitions. '' But, my dear Sir, the Scriptures know of no distinction between moral and iwsitive injunctions and prohibitions. If a duty be enjoined, or an act forbidden, we are not warranted in hesitating as to our obedience, till we can ascer- tain whether it be of a moral or 'positive character. In all cases where God condescends to command, it is His authority that binds us to obedience, whether the duty so commanded could have been ascer- tained by the dictates of reason, and light of nature or not. In the Saviour's recognition of the law in his sermon on the Mount, He not only confirmed the Dec- alogue as a whole, but every precept of it in particu- lar. He says [Matt. v. 18] in the most emphatic manner, "Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. " And to show that the phrase " till all be fulfilled, '' did not refer to His own perfect obedience to this law, but to its perpetually binding influence up- on his disciples. He continues, [v. 19] "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least command- ments, and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven, '' i. e. the Church of Christ. " But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heav- 50 SABBATH DISCUSSION. en." Christ has here not only '•''recognized the mor- alUij of the Decalogue, as a standard of perfection, as yoLi admit, but every precept, every letter and ev- ery part of a letter of which this as a written law is composed. The distinction between moral and posi- tive in this case cannot be insisted upon to any profit in understanding the meaning of this text. It serves to bevvilder rather than to enlighten ; the plain meaning of this passage, as well as its context is, that Christ here declares that every one of the ten Commandments shall be perpetuated as a law to the Church, and this is, with but a few exceptions, the avowed sentiment of the whole Christian world, be their practice with respect to the Sabbath, what it may. Christ did, as you justly remark, recognize this law as a standard of perfection, "and exhibited his claims to cordial and j^ractica I conformity. '"' Do you ask then, "where do we find any mention made of the Sabbath or any reference, or even allusion, to the fourth commandment ? " You have, in this sec- tion of Christ's sermon, more than a reference to this commandment. It is here emphatically en- joined under the penalty of his displeasure ; for all those precepts are both jointly and severally declared to be binding upon the Church. In many other pla- ces the laws of the Decaloguo aro referred to as a rule of duty without any exceptions. See James i 2.^-; Rom. iii. 31 ; I John iii, 4 — 22 ; v. 2 — 5 ;ii. 4 ; II John vi. ; Rev. xxii. 14. " Blessed are they that do his comm.andments, that they may have right to the tree of life. " In all these references, and many more might be cited, the laws of the Decalogue were refer- red to ; for there was no other code recognized by the Christian Church, and they are all mentioned as a rule of moral and religious duty. Here is no partio- ular precept enforced; or any one excepted ; the SABBATH DISCUSSION. 51 whole must be intended, or none of them. To the mind of all who had read or heard those command- ments, and particularly to that of the Christians of Ju- dea, the fourth commandment, as well as the other nine, must be invariably presented on every reference or allusion to the Decalogue. AVhat else could be un- derstood ? Your objections therefore to the fourth commandment, on account of its not being particu- larly named, appear to me not to be well founded. From the apparent silence of the New Testament respecting the fourth commandment, you infer that it is not a moral precept ; and in all your admis- sions of the Decalogue as a law to the Church, you have very cautiously admitted the morality of the law only. And since you ground your objections to the fourth commandment upon its not being a moral precept, it is proper to inquire into the justness of these objections. If the institution of the Sabbath, as well as the appointment of the seventh day, were exclusively of a jjositive nature, our obligation to obey it, is not less when it is commanded, than it would be were it purely moral. I freely admit that the appointment of the seventh day is decidedly of a positive nature ; but the institution of the Sabbath, so far as it can be perceived aside from the particu- lar day which is declared to be the Sabbath, is decid- ly of a moral nature. Not because it must necessa- rily be discovered by a dictate of reason, and the light of nature, but because it provides for the performance of the worship of God, which is admitted on all hands to be a moral duty. The venerable President Dwight observes, [sermon 185] "The distinction between moral and iwsitive commands, has been less clearly made by moral writers than most other distinctions.^^ He says the law of the Sabbath is entirely of a moral nature, as to the whole end at which it aims, so far 52 SABBATH DISCUSSION. as man is concerned — that " it makes no difference here, whether we could have known without infor- mation from God, that one day in seven would be tlie best time, and furnish the best manner of perform- ing these [religious] things or not. It is sufficient that we now know them. The institution of the Sabbath, then, must be con- sidered as possessing all the sacredness of a moral institution ; and whatever this is, such is the fourth commandment. If the one is moral so is the other. If the institution of the Sabbath provided for, and were necessary to the commemoration of the wisdom, power, and goodness of God — if it were designed to give opportunity for innocent beings to increase in holiness, and for the guilty to acquire it ; which are duties necessary to every man in every age and in every place — if this were the nature and design of the institution, which you have in your Sum- mary admitted, you will allow that the institution is, so far as it constitutes a season for holy rest, a moral institution. To me it appears to be both moral and 'positive — moral, as to the apppointment of a season for rest and devotion, and positive as to the appointment of the seventh and last day of the week for this purpose. But instituting the Sabbath, consisted in the appointment of the seventh and last day of the week ; to annul the latter would be to ab- rogate the institution, as the reasons assigned for the institution could apply to no other day than the sev- enth. God could do this if he pleased, and if he see fit, appoint another day, and assign other reasons for it ; but it would be entirely another institution. But although the appointment of the seventh day be admitted to be a -positive lavr, it must also be ad- mitted, that after it is ascertained to be an appoint- ment of God, we are under moral obligation to regard . SABBATH DISCUSSION. 53 it, being a dictate of reason, that all God's revealed will should be obeyed. Wilfully to violate such pos- itive laws, is therefore an immorality no less than when a duty purely moral is the object of neglect. I know it is a common argument in favor of the morality of the fourth commandment, as you observe, that God placed it in the Decalogue among those pre- cepts which are unquestionably moral. And I also know that the circumstance that this, with the whole Decalogue was given to national Israel, and that they were bound to observe it during their national exis- tence, and that it was mentioned in connection with annual sabbaths, does neither invalidate this argu- ment nor render it futile, as you suppose, for your argument would be equally valid if urged against any of these precepts, as it is against this. God very well knew, when he associated the Sabbath law with the other moral precepts and wrote on the tables of stone, that its fir^t, most simple and unsophisticated influence on the minds of his people would be to im- press them with a sense of its sacredness ; audit was not thus associated without design ; and this design could not have been to mislead them ; he therefore intended that their minds should thus be impressed respecting the sacredness and perpetuity of this pre- cept — to undervalue it therefore is to counteract the design of God. 1 admit that the annual and month- ly sabbaths were positive and ceremonial, and that they belonged to that class of ordinances which are abolished, but the occasional mention of the Sabbath in connection with these in the places you refer to, are no evidence that it was of the same class ; since it is sufficiently distinguished from them elsewhere. See Ex. XX, 8 — 11. We also find in the context of one of your references [Ex. xxiii. 24] the prohibition of the second commandment, " Thou shalt not bow to their D 54 SABBATH DISCUSSION. gods, nor serve them/'' You would certainly think that a man must be stubbornly bent to his purpose, who would plead this latter association in justifica- tion of image worship. As to these acts of Christ and his disciples on the i:?abbath, which you have noticed as a violation of the fourth commandment, and infer from thence that it was not a morale but a 'positive law ; I would ob- serve, that you might as vv^ell say that the sixth com- mandment [Ex. XX. 13] " Thou shalt not killj '^ is not a moral law, because Abraham was comman- ded to siay Isaac ; and Joshua and Saul were requir- ed to destroy the heathen. Aside from a divine war- rant, these acts would have been grossly immoral ; but directed as they were they violated no moral law. Christ also had a perfect right to suspend any law, whether moral or positive ; which ho asserts as far as the Sabbath is concerned, [in Mark ii. 27,] '•The son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. '' And we are not to understand his vindication of him- self and disciples as a concession that the charge was just which the Jews urged against them. I have al- ready shown that these acts so much complained of, were in strict conformity with the spirit and design of the fourth commandment. You say " that Christ never committed nor sanctioned any violation of the moral law, is certain, for he did no sin. But I can- not discover how the case is helped by considering these acts a violation of positive law only ; since we have seen that it is immoral to violate even a posi- tive law, Vv hen it is made known. It is a dangerous sentiment to support, and one fraught v/itli incalcu- lable evil, that the violation of God's postiive insti- tutions is not sinful. And it appears to me that it would be but little short of blasphemy to say that Christ violated any divine law, whether moral or SABBATH DISCUSSION. 55 positive. In doing so, we should be taking the side of his accusers, who originally alleged this against him. Indeed the sentiment that Christ did not fulfil all righteousness, is too monstrous to deserve a seri- ous refutation. Your arguments to show that the Sabbath of the fourth commanment was peculiar to National Israel must be the subject of a future communication. Before I close this article, I think it is a duty I owe both to myself and you, to notice a remark in your first communication, which I deemed a severe and uncalled for stricture upon my references to Doctors Brown and Lightfoot. I had observed that these writers admitted that the Pentecost subsequent to the crucifixion of Christ fell on the seventh day. This remark I made from recollection of what Dr. Brown had said upon the subject. You promptly denied it, and found it difficult to excuse me; and this only bv supposmg that I had copied some wicked or malicious scribbler of a note in Burnside on the Sabbath — VVhen I replied to this, I had not the work by me • but I will now furnish you with an extract from which my remarks were made. Dr. Brown's words are as there stated. [Art. Vol. 2. p. 446] " When treating ot the passover we noticed that the paschal lamb was eaten on Thursday , that Friday, when our Lord was crucified was the first day of the passover week • and that on Saturday the first fruits were offered ud' Consequently, the fiftieth day after, or Pentecosl would tall on Saturday ; after the sunset of which or on the beginning of the Christian Sabbath, the Ho- ly Ghost probably descended.'- A note at the close of this sentence says, " See a minute calender of the time between our Saviour's death and the day of Pen tecost in Lightfoot's commentary in Acts chap. 2 " I can understand this reference to Lightfoot only as d2 ;?(* SABBATH DISCUSSION. Hiade for the corroboration of the statement he had just nmde. To show that I have not mistaken the meaning of Dr. Brown, I will refer to p. 444. He there says, "It is not said at what particular hour the spirit descended ; but it is probable that it was af- ter the conclusion of the evening service at the tem- j>]e, and when they had gone to their apartments to reflect on the duties in which they have been engag- ed, and the hopes they were led to entertain ; for the W(nds in Acts ii. 1. which we render, "When the day of Pentecost was fully come.'' literally signify, "af- ter the conclusion of the day of Pentecost." I think you will now excuse me on the grounds of my cor- rectness. I remain vours respectfully, W. B. MAXSON. LETTER VI. To THE Rev. William Parkinson. October, 1835. Dear Sir, — In accordance with tlie proposition in my last, I will now notice you arguments to show tliat the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was pe- culiar to national Israel. 1. Your first argument is, ^'that the whole Deca- logue, and therefore the fourth commandment, was delivered only to that people.'' As I have fully an- swered and refuted this argument in my last, I will only add that if it proves any thing to the point, it proves altogether too much ; for according to \-oar argument the whole of the Decalogue was peculiar to the Jews, which we know was not the case. 2. You say "the Sabbath of the fourth command- ment as much as the sabbaths of annual observance, was a sign between God and them — that the annual sabbaths had they been common to the world could not have been a sign of any peculiar relation between God and Israel, and that the same is asserted of the weekly Sabbath given to that people.*'' I admit this upon the supposition, that all the world paid the same regard to their institutions that the people of Israel did. But it should be remembered that the world had become idolatrous, and paid no regard to any ordi- 58 SABBATH DISCUSSION. nance of true religion. It is therefore easy to see how the observance of the Sabbath, and every other visible act of obedience to God's appointment, would be significant of a peculiar relation between God ami them. It was, however, their obedience to these in- stitutions which signified this relationship, rather than the institutions in the abstract. Of this there is di- rect proof in the case of the ten tribes ; who, when they cast oft" the ordinances of God, had no longer a sign of this relation to him. The consequence was — the relationship was destroyed. Hence it was their obedience which made these ordinances a sign be- tween God and them. The Scriptures do not limit these ordinances to the descendants of Jacob, and it is certain they were adapted to that dispensation, and comprised the only acceptable and true worship of God.* Now if the Gentiles were under an obliga- tion to worship God ; they were bound to perform a true worship, and to adopt that form of Godliness which he had ordained and revealed. Of this we are assured in Isa. 56, where every inducement is offered to the Gentiles "to love the name of the Lord — keep the Sabbath — and take hold of his covenant." To whatever extent the Gentiles forsook their idols and turned to God ; the Sabbath and other ordinances of ♦Circumcision should unque-tionab.y be excej ted from among the ordinances of religion in that dispensation ; as this lite pertained exclusively to ihe ])Osterity of Abrah .m through Isaac and Jacob and was tlie seal of a covenant into which God had entered with those patriarch?, to give unto their national decendants the land of Canaan for a possession consequently none were obligated to take upon them the seal (.f this covenant, unless they have ideniified tliemselves with that nation in order to enjoy with them tlieir tem- poral inheritance. Although circumcision in the flesh was consid- ered symbolical of that of the heart, Col. ii.ll, Rom. ii. 29yetthePd appears to be nothing in it typical of the Gospel dispensation. To the Gentiles both before and since the advent of Christ, circumcis- ion has been nothing and uncircuracision nothing, yet to be n^ creatures and to keep the commandments of God tvere always their duty Gal. 6, 15 I Cor. 7; 19. SABBATH DISCUSSION. 59 divine worship then became a sign between him and them, by which they knew he was the Lord that sanc- tified them. These ordinances were adapted to their circumstances so far as piety was concerned, al- though they vrcre not identified wqth national Israel. Hence it is evident they were not designed to be re- stricted to that nation. Respecting the weekly Sab- bath, a still greater diinculty attends your view of the subject. The fourth commandment recognizes the Seventh Day which was originally appointed for all mankind. You certainly will admit that the Sab- bath which was made for man, was adapted to his cir- cumstances ; and you will also admit that the Sab- bath which God made common to the whole world, he would not make peculiar to one nation ; or in your own words "could not have been a sign of any pecu- liar relation between God and Israel,'' otherwise, than as it became so by their obedience to it. If it were peculiar to that people ; it must have been the fourth commandment that made it so. But wliat is there in this precept of a national or local character ? It an^ nounced no new institution — i^embraced no new pro- hibitions, and enjoined no new duties. He called up- on Israel to rememher an institution as old as crea- tion, and to perform duties which the whole world had ever been bound to perform. Such is the na ture of the fourth commandment, and the Sabbath it enjoins. If then in a subsequent rehearsal of this pre- cept, the people of Israel were reminded of their for^ mer slavery, and God's kindness in delivering them from bondage ; it was to stimulate them to obedience, and especially to awaken their sympathies in behalf of their children, servants and cattle, that they should not violate the Sabbath law by refusing them the rest to which they were entitled. In citing Deut. v: 15 I notice you have emphasized the word "therefore," 60 SABBATH DISCUSSION. thereby placing upon it, what appears to me an im- proper stress, 1 deem it quite immaterial which way we add to, or take from the word of God, whether by mutilating the text, or by giving it an improper sig- nification. It is disingenious to do it any way. You would have me believe that the deliverance of Israel from slavery was the sole, or principal reason for their being commanded to keep the Sabbath ; and if this were the only place where the duty is enjoined, I should be warranted in believing it. But in Ex. xx ; 8 — 11, a far different, and much higher reason is as- signed, to wit, that God rested the seventh daij from all his work. Had he relinquished this reason for the command, and substituted the former, the institu- tion would have become a different one from that re- ferred to in the fourth commandment. 3. Again you say, ''the Sabbath of the fourth com- mandment, like each of the other sabbaths peculiar to national Israel, was to continue only during the Mosaic dispensation,'' and refer me to Ex. xix : 5 — 8, Levit. xxiv : 8 and Ex. xxxi : 16, neither of these texts in the least intimate the discontinuance of the weekly Sabbath ; nor do they even allude to such a thing. The passage in Hoseaii : 11, which you have also quoted as proof that the weekly Sabbath should cease, relates to the captivity of Judah, and not to the Gospel dispensation. It contains a threat, that by way of judgment for their idolatry, the public cele- bration of their feasts and holy days, which could not be observed by them while in captivity ; should be suspended ; but the final abolition of their ritual observances is declared to be a blessing — the remo- val of an oppressive burden. Col. ii : 14 whereas, the weekl}'- Sabbath has been uniformly pronounced a blessing — a relief of a burden, and could have been remembered, and was probably kept according to the SABBATH DISCUSSION. 61 fourth commandment even in Babylon. We have no evidence that Col ii : 15, 16, which you also have cited, has allusion to the weekly vSabbath. It is gen- erally admitted that when sabbath in the plural, oc- curs in the original of the New Testament (in con- nection with the Jewish ritual,) the word generally refers to the annual and monthly observance, and not to the weekly Sabbath. Of this I suppose you are apprized ; and also that this word in Col. ii : 16 is in the original, sabbaths, and that the annexed 'days' is altogether of human devise, -consequently neither this, nor the other texts you have quoted afford any evidence that the weekly Sabbath should discontinue with the Mosaic dispensation. 4. You consider it a decisive proof that the Sab- bath of the fourth commandment was peculiar to na- tional Israel, that none but Jews were liable to the deadly penalty of violating it. Now one decisive proof is sufficient to settle the question. But let us look at it. The first objection it meets with in my mind is, that if it proves any thing in favor of your proposition, it proves too much ; for you might say the same of nearly, if not quite all the moral duties mentioned in the Decalogue, which you admit, were universally binding upon man. Another difficulty is, it appears to be at variance with facts. The Gentiles who should be guilty of Sabbath-breaking, or any other immoral act prohibited in the Deca- logue, within the precincts of national Israel, were as liable to this deadly penalty as the Jews. See Liv. xxvi. 22, Numb. ix. 14. There beingi no di- rect divine charge brought against the Gentiles, of neglecting the Sabbath, is no evidence that it was not their duty to keep it. We need not doubt but this sin was included in the general wickedness for which God inflicted a penalty much more severe than he author- 62 SABBATH DISCUSSION. ized the Jews to inflict. See Geii vi : 5 and 7 : 23 II Pet. ii : 5. Jude verse 7 and 15. In the case recorded in Neh. xiii : 15 — 22. The Jews were ex- postulated with for their disregard to the Sabbath ; but the Tyrians without the walls were threatened with arrest. This decisive proof, therefore, seems not much to the point. 5. You seem to think that because Sabbath keep- ing was not enumerated among the necessary things. Acts XV : 28, 29, it was not required of Christian con- verts. But you surely will not insist upon it, that all that was necessary for the disciples to observe was mentioned in this place. It is true that neither the keeping of the Sabbath, nor of the first day of the week is noticed in the apostolic letter sent to the disciples at Antioch. For the omission of the former a very good reason is assigned in verse 21 of this chapter, where it is said, they had the writings of Moses read to them every Sabbath, but we should naturally expect to find some mention of the latter, had it been considered a necessary thing ; since, if it were then observed, it must have been a new thing, and the new disciples could not learn it from any oth- er written oracle. From a careful investigation of your arguments and Scripture references relative to this point, I must frankly say, that they cannot fairly lead to the con- clusion you suppose they do. — Not one single text, nor all you have cited put together, inform ns, that the Sahhath of the fourth commandment does not ex- tend to the Gentiles, either before or since the com- ing of Christ ; or that it was designed to be restrict- ed to the Jewish nations ; or that it should continue no longer than that dispensation lasted. To those who assert these things it belongs to prove them by sucli Scripture testimony as will be convincing to an SABBATH DISCUSSION. 63 unbiased mind. And you Sir, would smile at a Fsd- dobaptist opponent, who would attempt to establish his theory. by references to the Scriptures so inconclusive and unsatisfying. Having noticed what I think worthy of remark in this letter, I now acknowledge the receipt of that of April 10th. In perusing this I am happy in finding, in the main, our views so nearly to coincide. In the exhibition of your opinion concerning the Sabbatic in- stitution, I cordially concur, still there are several points which it will devolve on you to establish viz : 1. That there is a substantial difference between the Sabbath originally instituted and the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. 2. That the original in- stitution authoritatively recognizes the observation of the firsi day of the week instead of the seventh. Or, 3. That it is abolished and that by a new divine in- stitution, the observation of the first day is establish- ed. When you do this, I will yield to you the yalm of consistency and evangelical correctness on this subject. Those points, however, should be proved by such Scripture testimony as is calculated to produce conviction ; for one plain, preceptive reference will be of more value than a thousand that are vague and indeterminate. I think it of but little use to multiply citations of this class. Although 1 have expressed my concurrence gener- ally, in your last letter, still, there are some things which I wish to notice. The first is in the first clause, you there say, "If according to my last communica- tion to you, the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth com- mandment was peculiar to national Israel ; it must be obvious that if it has ever been the duty of the Gen- tiles to observe the seventh day Sabbath, it must have been so by the record in Gen. ii ; 23,'^ &c. — This conclusion I admit to be just ; but with mo the 64 SABBATH DISCUSSION. difficulty is — you have not established this point, of ' which, I think you will be conscious when you have ' perused my reply. And I hope you will not proceed upon the presumption that you have satisfactorily proved it. After giving it as your opinion that God instituted : the Sabbath immediately after the work of Creation ' was completed, and that he made it the duty of man- ! kind to regard it, you say, "The patriarchal Sab- j bath was not (as was the subsequent Mosaic Sabbath) ' instituted by commandment, but by example " &c. — . There was probably a difference in the manner in which God at first promulgated the institution of the Sabbath, and that in which he gave the Sabbatic law ] at Sinai. But I think no person is warranted in say- i ing that our first parents, and their immediate descen- dants, were not commanded to keep the vSabbath ; or i that it was not enforced by a penalty In a state of i innocence, there may have been no occasion for a • penalty to secure obedience to this duty ; but this could not have been the case with them after their fall, nor with their posterity. Be this as it may, their duty. \ would not have been the less absolute. It matters ' not how the good pleasure of God is made known to ; his creatures, provided it be expressed with sufficient I clearness to be understood. God's v/ill is his law, j and to publish his will is nothing less than promulga- \ ting a law, which law is as imperative as if given un- \ der the severest penalties. Although there may have | been no expressed penalty annexed to this law, there was one implied and understood, and if it were wil- fully violated there must have been an exposure to the implied penalty. That this was not stoning I ad- mit, but the inflictions of punishment from the hand of God is not less severe, which a multitude of instances | recorded in the Scriptures clearly evince. It is a ' SABBATH DISCUSSION. 65 sentiment which has extensively obtained, and I think you will concur in it, that an example is equivalent to a command. Whether this is, or is not correct, those who plead it in favor of apostolic example, cannot, with a good grace, deny it, wr.en it is applied to the divine example in the institution of the Sabbath. — Mr. Burnside says (p. 34.) ''In my opinion there never was, nor can be a law more plainly enacted in regard to its nature, and the time when it was to take effect, than the divine institution recorded Gen. ii : 2, 3.'' In this light I view the subject, and therefore, cannot agree with you, that the patriarchal Sabbath was obseiwed solely as "a merciful privilege and not a^s an imperious duty.^'* If the neglect of the patri- archal Sabbath, as you have said "evinces much in- gratitude and impiety,'''' it must have been an impie- ty in itself, and it was the imperious duty of every man to avoid it. I thought proper to remark thus far upon this letter lest my silence should be construed as an entire concurrence. I shall read patiently and cheerfully whatever you still have to communicate on tiiis subject. In the meantime I remain Yours respectfully. W. B. MAXSON. *This sentiment is most pernicious in its influence, viewing the observance of the Sabbath, not an imperious duty ; but merely aa a privilege is the very root of all the iSabbath desecration in our land; and to maintain as you have on fh's point,that the obligation due to patriarchal Sabbath involved not an imperious dut'/ ; but a priviledge. only , and that the obligation to the weekly day of rest un- der the Gospel is precisely the same, is to contract all the pious and benevolent efforts of the present age to obtain for it a proper respect. We may preach, and pray, and write , and legislate in relation to Sabbath profanation, but the evil will ct ntinue till its observance i* undf rilood to be an imperious duty^ and oaorally binding upon tba whole community. W.li.M. LETTER VII. To THE Rev. Mr. Maxson. April, 1835. Dear Sir, — If, according to my last communication to you, the Sabbath, as enjoined by the fourth com- mandment, was peculiar to national Israel, it must be obvious, that if it has ever been the duty of the Gen- tiles to observe a seventh day Sabbath, it must have been made so, by the record in Gen. ii. 2, 3, which reads thus : *'And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made ; and he rested on the sev- enth day from all his work which he had m.ade. — 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." Upon the face of this record, there is a verbal in- congruity, which, aside from the object of the cita- tion, I shall specify ; showing also how it may bo removed. The words "on the seventh day God en- ded his work,'' plainly imply that he did part of his work on that day; which certainly cannot be meant ; it being contrary to the current testimony of Scripture, and even to this text itself, wherein it is afterwards twice asserted that "he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made ;" having finished it on the sixth day. Now, admitting th® SABBATH DISCUSSION. 67 text as it reads in our standard Hebrew copy to be genuine, the verbal incongruity may be removed, by simply rendering the clause in question, '•^'Before the seventh day, &c. ;" and both Noldius and Taylor, under the prefix heth, mention lefore among their notations of its meaning. This, it is true, is not a frequent meaning of it ; yet, in some places, our translation would be improved by its adoption ; as, for instance, in 1 Sam vi. 7 ; where before the cart, would be better than "to the ca rt ;'^ and in Zech. vi. 2,3; where before the first chariot, and bffore t\iQ second chariot, vv^ould certainly be better than "z'w the first chariot,'" and ^Hn the second chariot."' In- deed, I can see no reason wli}- the words in question may not as well be translated thus : "An on the sev- enth day God had ended his work,"' &c. So they are rendered by Levi. See Ling. Sac. under (*) Calah. It is possible, however, that through the in- advertency of some early transcriber, the word (f) hashshebigni ^/ie 5erc/?M, as it is now found in our Hebrew Standard, became substituted for (t) hashs- liishi the sixth ; which being restored makes the true sense ; for then the words will read as follows : "And on the sixth day God ended his work and he res- ted on the Seventh Day, &c.''' So no doubt, the Hebrew text was found when the Greek translation was made, at last in the manuscript used for that purpose ; for the Septuagint has brri yiy^spa r'/] sxtt) in or on the sixth day ; and, following this, the Syriae and Samaritan versions have the same. That such a substitution of one word for another might occur, is more probable than common readers suppose. It is vv ell known to the learned, that anciently, in He- brew as well as in Greek and Latin, numbers were (*) (t) (]^) Hebrew char cters are here omitted. 68 SABBATH DISCUSSION. usually noted only by numeral letters. Thus vau stood for six, and %ain for seven ; which letters be- ing very similar, a transcriber might easily mistake zain for vau ; and which being written out, would produce hashshebigni, the seventh, instead of hashishi the sixth. Either of these methods suggested for re- moving from the text, the verbal inconsistency no- ticed, is satisfactory to mc. The last was relied on, and ably sustained by Dr. Adam Clarke. Now, according to promise, I proceed to give you my views of the record above cited, in relation to the Sabbath. That this record contains no express com- mand of God, that Adam or his posterity should ob- serve the seventh day as a Sabbath, must be obvious to all. Nevertheless, the words "God blessed the Seventh Day and sanctified it," can, to my appre- hension, mean nothing less than that He pronoun- ced it sacred, and set it apart as such, to be obser- ved by man as a day of rest and devotion. So much in substance, is generally admitted. The learned, however, both among Jews and Christians, have constantly been divided in o})inion, whether ac- cording to the record before us, God instituted the seventh day Sabbath immediately, or only proleptical" jAf ; that is whether by sanctifying the day of his rest, He set it apart, to be observed, as a day of rest and devotion, by the first human pair, their children, &c. or merely that He thereby signified a purpose to institute, as a memorial of his own rest from creative operations, a seventh day Sabbath, weekly recurring after six days labor, to be observed by a peculiar people to wiiom He would make it known: and which peo})le, as eventually demonstrated, were the Jews ; it being unto them that He made known his holy Sab- hath, with other institutes, by the hand of Moses. Neh. ix. 14. SABBATH DISCUSSION. 09 Each side has its difficulties. Upon the supposition that God appointed the seventh day of the week to be sanctified by the first human pair, and by their immediate and successive offspring, it is for instance, difficult to account for the fact, that no subsequent mention is made of that day, as a Sabbath, nor either of its observance, or its profanation, as such, till after the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, a lapse of about two thousand five hundred years. Did the posterity of Adam during all that time, (though otherwise so excessively irreligious) observe the due sanctification of the Sabbath, so universally, constantly, and perfectly, that not even one among them ever needed either an excitement to duty, or a reproof for the neglect of it 1 This none can believe. Yet, among the difficulties on the other side, an in- stance occurs to every thoughtful mind, which in my humble opinion is equally great, and even less sus- ceptible of management : for, considering how much the due sanctification of a weekly Sabbath would have tended to promote the knowledge and acknowl- edgment of God upon earth, and especially during tliose ages and generations, that were not illuminated by the inspired Scriptures ; — and considering withal, that a weekly day of rest was as requisite then, as it is found to be 71020, to the health and well-being of both man and beast, — considering these things, I say, it seems to me wholly irreconcilable with the wisdom and goodness of the Creator, that He should have left mankind for twenty-Jive hundred years, without an institution so variously important andj useful. Each opinion has been sustained by men confessedly learned and religiously conscientious. Among Christian writers, on the list of those who have advo- cated the opinion that no Sabbath, otherwise than proleptically, was divinely instituted until at the giv- TO SABBATH DISCUSSIOIS'. ingof the manna, (Ex. xvi.) we find Limberouch, Le Clerk, and Gill ; and on the list of those who have advocated the opinion that God instituted a week- ly Sabbath coeval with the creation, we find Light- foot and Patrick, Keixnicott, Henry and Clarke. As, in regard to the date of the Sabbatic institutions I concur with the latter opinion, it becomes my duty to show, at least, how I meet the chief argument ur- ged by Dr. Gill and others in support of the contrary opinion ; which argument is the long silence of Scrip- ture respecting a Sabbath, and which I have already placed in its most advantageous light. This argu- ment, then, however popular and strong, I cannot admit to be conclusive. A Sabbath, notAvithstanding the fact on which this argument depends, might hav^ been instituted, and partially or occasionally obser- ved ; nay, the neglect and profanation of it, howev^ er prevalent, might, though not specified, be inclu- ded in the general wickedness^ which, among the antediluvians, God saio was great in the earth. Gen. vi. .5, That the public worship of God was observed in the days of ^eth, seems highly probable from Gen. iv. 26 ; Then began men to call upon the name of the LoRd — that is publicly ; for privately it must have been done before ; as, for instance by Adam, and Eve, and Abel. But, as they observed public wor- ship, they must have assembled for that purpose ; and if so, why not on the day that God blessed and sanc- tified? The words, it is true, maybe rendered, "Then began men to call in the name of the Lord,"' that is to pray in the name of the Lord Christ ; those who believed in him being accustomed to convene on the appointed day of rest — which they observed in token of the rest they enjoyed in him, and as a pledge of ihat rest which they l:opcd to enjoy with him ; or. SABBATH DISCUSSION. 71 "Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord ;■" true believers in the promised seed, choosing thus to distinguish themselves from others. The same, too, may be inferred from Job. i. 6. There 2i'as a day when the sons of God came to pre- sent themselves before the Lord ; that is, in acts of public worship. Many learned men, I know, have understood "the sons of God,"' in this place, to mean the holy angels, who, as they think, are so called in chapter xxxviii. 7. But I can see no sufficient rea- son why, in both places, "the sons of God" should not be understood to mean the saints, distinguished, in the latter place, from the angels, as meant by "the morning stars ;" and, in the former place, from the mere "children of men,'' as in Gen. vi. 2. ^i i\{q And, understanding "the sons of God'' X%y presen- saints, the coming of the day on.i^^'y'yery well boun- ded themselves hefore ^Ae J^-n of a day on which they derstood of the wQrtl^fgjiy t^ n^eet ; and, if so, what were acpj^-jy ^Q hg^ye been thus observed by them, as the day which "God had blessed and sanctified," pronounced sacred and set apart for that purpose ? In the instance before us it is true, the meeting held on the day in question, is mentioned chiefly for the sake of what follows : to wit, the remarkable collo- cution which, on that occasion, the Lord condesden- ded to hold with Satan ; and which being recoraea, is variously useful, especially to the Church ; it serves to show, that Satan may be expected to leave no means untried, to disturb the devotions of God's ehildren, in public as well as in private — nay, that, in some instances, as in the case of Job, he may, by divine sufferance, employ, not only human agents, but even natural elements and bodily diseases, to distress and afflict the saints ; also, that none but e2 7^ SABBATH DISCUSSION. Jehovah can effectually answer and foil him, or even- tually overrule his machinations and instruments, for the good of those assailed. See Job xlii. 10 — 17, Zech. iii. 1 — 4, Rom. xvi. 20, Rev. xii. 10. Now, that Job lived before the Mosaic dispensation, and therefore in patriarchal times, seems evident from the facts, that neither he nor his friends, in all their long dispute about God and religion — nor Elihu, while laboring to correct their mistakes — nor even God himself, while addressing the parties, made any reference to the Decalogue, or noticed any species of idolatry, but that of worshipping the sun, moon and stars. ^ To proceed. Even during the flood there is a hint in the^aW:d of the disputed usage ; for Noah, while seventh day. '^tf'gstly distinguished a return of the the calculation of tini^SjO. And it is certain that the ante-Mosaic partriarchs. "^Sb. was in use among comp. Judges xiv. 7. '" xxix. 27, and If, indeed, the mere silence of Scripture respectx.. a Sabbath during patriarchal times, prove that no Sal> bath had then been instituted, it may, in like manner be proved that no weekly Sabbath was observed or known, from the time of Moses to the time of David near four hundred years ; for, little as it has been noticed, after the rehersal of the decalogue, Deut. v. no mention of such Sabbath is to be found on sacred record ; till in 11 King iv. 23. Yet none, I presume, believing the Biblc; ever doubted that the obligation of the Jews to observe 'Hhe Sabbath of the fourth com- mandment" remained, during all that time, undimin- ished, or supposed that the observance of ii was wholly neglected by them. Besides, in the latter place re- ferred to, the Sahhath is mentioned in a manner, which plainly implies that it was then known and SABBATH DISCUSSION. 73 observed ; it being a day on which devout persons %vere accustomed to resort to tiie prophets for reli- gious instruction. But, if the Mosaic Sabbath re- mained obHgatory on the Jews, and was probably observed by them, though not mentioned in any part of the sacred history between the book of Deuterono- my and that of Second Kings, why might not the pa- triarchal Sabbath have been instituted from the be- ginning, and have been observed by the godly, though not mentioned in the book of Genesis ? The patriarchal Sabbath, iiowever, was not (as was the subsequent Mosaic Sabbath) instituted by cmn- mandment ; but on this wise : — God having employed six days in creative operations, and having rested therefrom on the seventh, did thereon, by example, teach the first human pair and their immediate and successive offspring, that, having spent six days in requisite labor, they should observe the seventh day, in its weekly return, as a day of rest and devotion : wherefore "God blessed the seventh day and sancti- fied it ;'" that is, pronounced it sacred to himself, and thereby signified his will that man should ob- serve it as such. Nor was the observance of the patriarchal Sabbath, like the observance of "the Sab- bath of the fourth commandment,"' enforced by the terror of temporal penalty. Such penalty, indeed, would have been incompatible with the patriarchal state of society ; there being then no appropriate tribunal, civil or ecclesiastical, to take cognizance of such offense, or to inflict such penalty ; as we know there was under the Mosaic dispensation. See Num. xv. 32-36. Comp. Ex. xxxi. 14, 15. xxxv. 2, 3. The observances, in fact, of the patriarchal Sabbath, was rather suggested than demanded ; and was designed of God, as an authorized intermission o[ toil, to all his laboring creatures, both the human t4 SABBATH DISCUSSION. and those inferior ; and especially, that mankmd might have a weekly memorial of the creation, with leisure, to contemplate the works, and to adore the perfections of the great Creator. Thus understanding the institution of the patri- archal Sabbath, we meet the less difficulty in ac- counting for the silence of Scripture respecting its observance. For, as it was not given by express commandment, nor enforced by any penal sanction, it was observed, not as an imperious duty, but as a merciful privilege. And though the neglect of^it evinced much ingratitude and impiety, and though such neglect was no doubt, for a w^hile, deemed per- nicious and disreputable ; yet, when the aboundings of gross iniquity had, as may well be supposed, re- duced the secularization of the Sacred Day, to a com- paratively inconsiderable fault, this fault" ceased to be regarded as reproachful in society. Hence the Sabbath came to be observed only by those who, un- der gracious influences, took delight in contempla- ting and worshiping God — those who, by stud^dng the book of nature, (the only book then extant,) en- deavored to "seek the Lord, if haply they might J'eel after and find him ;'' their search being without the aids of a written revelation, vouchsafed to subsequent ages and generations. See Acts xvii. 27. Rom. i. 19, 20. Comp. Psal. civ. 24. Thus instituted, and thus observed, the patriarchal Sabbath, in its weekly returns, made little change on the face of so- ciety, and occasioned no public events, requiring his- torical notice. Besides, Moses wrote the history of those times, not as an eye-witness of their events, but long afterwards, and as he was " moved by the Holy Ghost ;" and, as it was his duty to inculcate the observance of the Sabbath, as given to national Israel, God might not choose to instruct him to mako SABBATH DISCISSION. 'O ^iiiy mention of the primitive Sabbath assigned to the patriarchs, lest the Jews should murmur at the rigor and penal sanctions of the legal Sabbath given to them. Here I must again stop. And, having said so lit- tle in this piece, regarding any matter about which we differ, I hope you will feel the better prepared to read, with patience, what I have yet to commu- nicate. I remain yours in truth and love, " WM. PARKINSON. Our readers have doubtless expected that Elder Parkinson would ere this have finished his defense of the Christian Sabbath. He has resumed the topic, and will continue it without being confined particular- ly to Elder Maxson's propositions. — Ed. American Baptist. LETTER VIIL To THE Rev. Mr. Maxson. June, 1835. Dear Sir, — As my object in these letters is not to dispute with you, (nor indeed with any person, or sect) but to lay my views of the Sabbatic institution before the public, 1 find it necessary, in some way^ to dispose of two questions, which, though not direct- ly involving the matter of difference hetween us, are constantly recurring in relation to the important sub- ject before us. Of these questions, the first is. Did tlie institution of a weekly Sabbath, either primitive or Mosaical, re- quire the santifcation of the seventh day in its week- ly return from the creation-week, or merely the sancti- fication of the seventh day after any six day^s labor f Those who advocate the latter side of this question, yery plausibly contend that, considering the sphere- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 77 idal form of the earth, now admitted by all enlightened nations, it is impossible for all the inhabitants of this globe, governed by any common rule, whether the beginning of darkness, or of light, or the arrival of midnight, or of noon, to observe, as a Sabbath, the same absolute time. Granted : — For 1. The occur- rence of darkness, &c. in regard to absolute time, must vary in different degrees of longitude, east or west of the meridian. 2. Antipodes, those who livo in parallels of latitude equally distant from the equa- tor, north and south, have, in respect of absolute time, opposite phenomena ; for, though they have nearly the same degree of heat and cold, and the same length of night and day, they have them, respective- ly, at contrary times ; those of one hemisphere hav- ing midnight, when those of the other have noon ; and those of the one having the longest day, when those of the other have the shortest. And — 3. In the polar regions, both north and south, darkness or light, in turn, prevails near six months. These are facts which, consistently with a correct knowledge of astronomy and geography, cannot be denied ; and, formerly, they inclined me to favor the opinion they are adduced to sustain ; as may bo seen in my " Treatise on the Public Ministry of the Word, '' &c. p. 51. On further reflection, however, I became convinced, that the arguments thence derived are fallacious — that the original insti- tution of the Sabbath required the sanctification of the Seventh Day in its weekly return from the creation, and therefore, that the facts above stated, being all perfectly known to the Institutor, cannot be inconsis- tent with the institution, so understood. The truth of my opinion must, I think, appear from the following considerations. 1. The works of creation being finished on tho 78 SABBATH DISCUSSION. sixth day, the earth must have had the same form and the same relations to the celestial bodies, when God blessed and sanctified the day of his rest, that it has now , and, therefore, its first diurnal revolu- tion on its axis, and which was that by which it pro- duced the first Seventh Day, must have been the same that it was destined to repeat m every twenty-four hours of future time. Consequently, if the earth had been as extensively inhabited then as it is now^ it would have exhibited the same natural phenomena to the inhabitants of any given place, by its first diur- nal revolution, that it exhibits to the inhabitants of the same place, by its diurnal revolution noiv ; that is, evening, midnight, morning and noon, would have arrived at every place then, in the same relative time in which they arrive at every place now. The daj/, recollect, was sanctified, that is, set apart for the observance of mankind wherever they might be lo- cated ; and though, by reason of the facts stated, it would reach some a little earlier or later than others, it would be still the same day to all ; it being to each community a specified day, in weekly return, at the place of their residence. And, 2. As to the difference in regard to the absolute time of the sacred Lay, that would necessarily occur in different parts of the earth, they are implied and provided for in the very record of the institution ; for, though it is said, " The evening and the morn- ing were the first — second — third — -fourth — fifth — sixth day ;" (Gen. i. .5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31,) yet no such exact limits are assigned to the seventh day. — See Gen. ii. 2, 3. The evenings the first part of the darkness, I understood to denote the night ; and the 7norning, the first part of the light, I understood to denote what we call the artificial day ; the first part, in reference to each, being put for the whole ; and SABBATH DISCUSSION. 79 the two, whether equally or unequally divided, ma- king an entire natural day of twenty-four hours ; counting from evening to evening. Hence, too, it must be evident that one half, at least, of any day, as exhibited in the garden of Eden, must be included in the same day, as exhibited any where else, east or west of the meridian — or (within the tropics ) north or south of the Equator. These remarks, recollect,^ provide for the difference between the greatest ex- tremes ; which, at no two places, can exceed twelve hours. But, as to the inhabitants of intermediate countries and Islands, the differences of their abso- lute time must be comparatively small — nay, between some of them, quite inconsiderable. Nor has it ev- er been impossible, hov\^ever troublesome, for even adventurers into the polar regions, to observe the Sabbatic institution, if so disposed ; for, knowing the day of the week on whch they enter such region, and having a faithful chronometer, clock or watch, they might count off twenty-four hourss for each re- maining day of the six allowed for labor, and observe the seventh twenty-four hours as the Sabbath ; and so on from week to week. Neither have intercala- tions produced such obstructions to the observance of the true Sabbath, as many ha\e supposed. Every acknowledged intercalation, it is true, was made to correct some perceived variation in the lunar from the solar time ; but, whether, according to the Ro- man calendar, a day be added to February every fourth year, or according to the Jewish calendar, a month be added to February every third year, as it makes no change in the course of nature, so not in tlie natural succesion of days and v/eeks. Accor- dingly the Jews, notwithstanding their intercalation of Ve-Adar, the second Adar, have never, since the di- rection they received by the falling of the manna, 80 SABBATH DISCUSSION. had a question among them, respecting the weekly return of their seventh day Sabbath. Christians, therefore, whether they observe the seventh day or the first are aHke certain as to the time of its weekly return ; the first day being always next to the sev- enth. Hence it will appear, that neither the natural difler ences of absolute time, as exhibited on opposite hem- ispheres and under widely repeated meridians, nor any civil intercalations, by whomsoever or whenso- ever made, present any natural impossibility to the observance of the Sabbatic institution ; whether the day to be observed be i\iQ seveyith or they/rst day o[ the week. The same also is practically acknowledg- ed ; for both Jews and Christians, and the latter, whether they observe the seventh day or the first, have, respectively, entire fellowship with their brethren, as observing the same day, however, by reason of their different locations, they differ from each other in re- gard to the absolute time they observe. Thus calculating, while 1 oppose the liberty which some would take, by making it a matter of indiffer- ence what seventh portion of time they observe as a Sabbath, I admit (and in perfect accordance with the Sabbatic institution) all the difference in regard to absolute time, occasioned by the globular form of the earth, and the annual declinations of the sun. Lest I should protract this letter to an inconvenient length, I must reserve my thoughts on the other ques- tion alluded to, for the next communication. Yours in Christian friendship, WiM. PARKINSON. LbTTER IX- To THE Rev. Mr. Maxson. June 19, 1835. The question alluded to in my last is this : Was the weekly Sahbath ichich God assigned to the Jews, the same day in weekly rotation^ which he originally blessed and sanctified-, or was it a day that, in weekly return from the beginning, corresponded to some oth- er day of the creation iceek — the first week of time? To answer this question with entire certainty, is, in my humble opinion, beyond the reach of human in- vestigation or attainment. We know, indeed, that the day which the Jews were divinely required to ob- gei., ^^^ v.eekly Sabbath, was, as I shall hereaf- ter show, luc.d^ known to them by a rule which they could not mistake ; \.^^ whether it was the seventh day, in weekly .succession froim the creation-week, or a day which, by such succession, corresponded to some other day of that week, remains, so far as I can discover, utterly unascertainable. Each side lias its probabilities and its advocates. Several verv learn- ed men, among whom are Mede and KexXnicott, have supposed that the Sabbath assigned to the Jews, though the seventh day of the week specified by the fal- ling of the mauna, was the sixth day, in v/eekly ro- 82 SABBATH DISCUSSION. tation from the creation-week ; and, consequently, that by observing the day which, with reference to the Jewish week, is the first day, we in fact, only adopt the patriarchal Sabbath, the very day which, from the beginning "God blessed and sanctified." — To this opinion, though with little investigation of its gTounds, 1 was long and strongly inclined ; it sugges- ted several pleasing ideas, and seemed to me, not only plausible but tenable ; and under its influence 1 commenced the present Sabbatic discussion. I drev/ my arguments in favor of this opinion chiefly from the following sources. Knowing from the earliest Greek poets, Homer and Hesiod, who lived about nine hundred years before the incarnation of Christ, that the idolatrous nations, at least some of them, by tradition received from their fathers, IIa7n and Japheth, held the seventh day sacred, and that they styled it 6V/zday, because they devoted it to the Sun^ their chief deity — knowing this, I say, it seemed to me reasonable and even re- quisite that God, the more effectualh^ to separate his Israel from idolatry and to distinguish them from idol- atrous nations, should have given them a Stibbath falling on a different day of the week from that which had become so profaned. Revelation, too, seemed variouslv ^ lavor this opinion. For, 1. God gave - -^^' ^ ^f ^^^ year to Israel— a year beginning with the month m which he brought them out of Egypt: This month, said he, sJiall be unto you the heginning af months : it shall be the first month of the year unto you, Ex. xn. 2. 2. He gave them a new week, specihed by the tai- ling of the manna. Ex. xvi. 21— 26. And, 3. Their Sabbaths, weekly as well as yearly, were a standing sign of a peculiar relation between God and them. Ex. xxxi 13, 17. Moreover— SABBATH DISCUSSION, 83 4. upon the supposition that the day which the Jews, after theiv Exodus i'lom Egypt, were required to observe as a Sabbath, was the same day, in week- ly return, which had been observed before, I could see no sufficient reason why God should have taken the method he did for making it known unto them. Ex. xvi. These arguments, (convinced that they contain the chief strength of all that can be said in favor of the opinion in question) I have thus briefly stated, hop- ing that such of my readers as may have been influ- enced by them, may be prevailed on to reconsider the question to which they relate ; for, doing so, I doubt not, that they will find, and, as I have done, that (all their arguments notwithstanding) the chief thing aim- ed at must be assumed, namely, that the seventh day of the iceek specified by the faHing of the manna, was the sixth day, in weekly return from the creation week. Besides, if the learned advocates of the opin- ion in question could unequivocally prove it to be cor- rect, they would only prove what they (being Chris- tians and observers of the first day) do not believe ; to wit, that the day we observe, though, with refer- ence, to the Jewish week, it is the first day, must, with reference to the creation-week, be the seventh day. Convinced, however, that their opinion cannot be sustained, I conclude, with the generality of Chris- tians, that the Sabbath day which God assigned to the Jews, was (as they themselves believe) the same day, in weekly rotation, which he had blessed and sanc- tified from the beginning. Nor, duly considering their circumstances at the time, is there any difficul- ty in perceiving that the Jews really needed to have that day "made known unto them'' as it was. Neh. ix. 14. They VNcre just brought out of Egypt, where they had lived in bondage about 210 years. See my 84 SABBATH DISCUSSION. sermons on Deut. xxxiii. vol. i. Note on p. 15. Af- ter Joseph's death, for about 150 years, they were in abject slavery ; during which, in all probability, they were not allowed time to observe the Sabbath ; and, moreover, having no records, they may reasonably te supposed to have lost the weekly return of the day — at least to have been in doubt respecting it. — Hence the kind and effectual means by which the Lord was pleased to make the day known unto them. Besides, then and subsequently. He gave such ori- ginal injunctions, prohibitions and sanctions, regar- ding the observance of that day, as rendered the Sab- bath, in a manner, a new institution, and sufficiently distinguished the observance of the day among the heathen : the former devoting it to the Creator, the later to a creature. The Sabbath, therefore, as the Jews were required to observe it, was, as noticed be- fore, a sign between God and them. How the Jews received the knowledge of their weekly Sabbath, may be seen more particularly in the history of their emigration from Egypt : some account of which follows, under dates corresponding to the sacred year, a year peculiar to them. 1 Month, Abib ; Ex. xiii. 4. xxiii 15 ; called al- so iV/^fln; Neh. ii. 1. Esth. iii. 7. 14 day, " at even,*' when the next day had begun, they ate the first passovcr. Ex. xii. 6. 18. 15 day, probably soon after midnight, they leftRemeses. Ex. xii. 29— 37, Numb, xxxii. 8. Subsequent journeys (inclu- ding their passage through the Red Sea) till they came to Elim, not dated. Num. xxxiii. 6 — 9. 2 Month, liar or lyyar. 15 day (having left Ehm before) they came SABBATH DISCUSSION. 85 into the wilderness of Sin. Ex. xvi. 1. 16 day, the manna (according to common opinion) began to fall. This opinion, however, has occasioned a difficult}^ in regard to the Sabbath. For, if the manna began to fall on the 16th, the first Sab- bath thereby indicated must have been the 22d ; but if so, and if the Sabbath thus indicated was the weekly return of the patriarchal Sabbath continued, the 15th day of the same month must have been a Sabbath also ; yet we know that the children of Israel did not observe it as such, but spent it on a wearisome jour- ney, by which they reached the wilderness of Sin. Their journey that day, it is true, was not so long as is generally supposed ; for the words of Exo. xvi. 1, as every attentive reader may perceive, do not as- sert that Israel " took their journey from Elim '' that ^morning, but merely that they "came unto the wil^ derness of Sin on that day,"' having journeyed from Elim we know not when T^'-'^t, indeed, they did not leave Elim on the same aay on which he arrived at the wilderness of Sin, is next to certain ; for they made an intermediate encampment at the Red Sea ; that is, at some arm or bay of it. See Num. xxxiii 10. To this place, it is probable, they were led by the CLOUD, that they might be reminded of the mirac- ulous manner in which, but a few days before, they had been brought through that sea. Nevertheless, even from that place to their encampment in the wil- derness of Sin, was, according to Bunting, sixteen miles — a long day's journey to be performed by so large a body of people, encumbered as they must have been, with children, goods, and cattle. It is' therefore wholly improbable that they traveled thus far on a Sabbath. For admitting that, as before sup- posed, they came out of Egypt ignorant of the week- ly return of the Sabbath ; nay, admitting that even 96 SABBATH DISCUSSION", Moses and Aaron, though inspired ixien, knew it not, or that, knowing it, they had received no direction to make it known to Israel — admitting, I say, all this — yet, knowing that all the way from Succoth, in Egypt, to the flams of Moah^ hy Jordan, (Num. x.xxiii. 48. 49) their times botli of journeying and of resting, were governed by the cloud, and therefore, in effect, by "the commandment of the Lord;'' (Exo. xiii^ 20 — 22 ; Num. ix. 17 — 23 ;) I cannot believe that God, subversive of his own institution, would have given them direction to perform such a journey on a day which he had consecrated to rest and devotion^ But whence the necessity of supposing that the twenty-second, and therefore the fifteenth of that month was a Sabbath ? It arises wliolly from the as- stimption that the manna began to fall on the sixteenth^ which is not certain, or even probable, as must, I think, appear to every one who will deliberately and thoughtfully read Exo. xvi. 2 — 12 ; for upon the supposition that the manna began to fail on the siso' ieenth all the events related in those fen verses must have been crowded into the evening of the fifteenth day, and which cannot be imagined, without suppo- sing confusion in the divine economy, and a want of the usual time for the trial of Israel's faith. To my apprehension, therefore, the events of the narative re- terred to, with the times requisite for their occur- i-ence, may be much more naturally and rationally calculated thus : On the ffteenth day of the month, (which I will suppose to have been the ffth day of the week,) late in the afternoon, Israel encamped in the wilderness of Sin. They came thither murmur- ing, and inclined to persist therein. Exo. xvi. 2, 3. That evening, the Lord by Moses, promised them the manna, and gave them some directions about gathering it. Ver. 4, 5. Then, too, he assured SABBATH DISCUSSION. 87 them that "at even,'' (^without sn.y'mg what even, or by w\at means) they should "know that the Lord had brought them out of Egypt ; ver. 6 ; also, that while in suspense, they should have "in the morning," (not telling them what morning) a sight *'of the glo- ry of the Lord ;" ver. 7. That neither the evening nor the morning intended was yet specified, but to be looked for in faith and hope of the promised events, is evident from what follov/s : "And (ver, 8) Mo- ses said, This shall be 7ohen the Lord'' (who still reserved the times to himself,) "shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full." These promises, probably, were all spa- ken on the evening of the fifteenth day of the month. During the sixteenth day, they were left in anxious waiting for the blessings promised. Here recollect, that if the fifteenth day of the month, was as suppos- ed, the fifth day of the week, the seventeenth day of the month, must have been the seventh day of the week, and therefore the patriarchal Sabbath. Ae- cordingly, on that day, the Israelites, however igno- rant of its sanctity, received no direction to travel ; but "in the morning" — the morning of that day, ao- cording to promise, ver 7th, they, being convoked for the purpose, were favored with the sight of "the glo- ry of the Lord, appearing in the cloud, which coi» stantly went before them, and which, at that time, they beheld as "they looked toward the wilderness" —not the wilderness in which they were, but the wil derness of Sinai, whither they were going — and, as the glory they beheld was in an onward direction, they were thereby encouraged to hope that the Lord as he had promised to Moses, (Exo. iii. 1 — 12) would conduct them to Mount Horeh, and there give them still greater manifestations of his glory. See Exo, xvi. 9, 10. Then the Lord, who before had spoken f2 SB SABBATH DISCUSSlOiV. to them by Moses and Aaron, spoke to them out oT the CLOUD, repeating and thereby confirming his promise, respecting both the evening and the moru- ing grant. See 11th and 12th verses. Hereupon followed the fulfilment of the promises thus made and confirmed. "And (ver. 13-) it carne to pass," as the Lord had spoken, "that at even," the even of the seventeenth day of the month, at the goingout of the last patriarchal Sabbath, which began tlie proceeding even, " the quails came up,'' proba- bly from the Red Sea, the Arabian Galph, &c. ; "and (it being even, and they being weary of flying) covered the camp,'" the place^of Israel's encampment, Providence so directing\ On this occasion, the quails came only tliat even, though on a future occasion, they came daily for a whole month. See Nut«. xi. 19, 2. This as may be seen, Num. x. 11, was their after the second month of the second year of pilgrimage "And, (returning to Exo. xvi 13), in the morning," that is, the morning of the eighteenth day of the month, the day after the last patriarchal Sabbath, and therefore on the morning of the first day of the week, " the dew lay round about the host,''' which dew being exhaled, the manna appeared to the Israelites at the first sight of which " they (ver. 15) said one to another Pvlan hu, What is this ? For thej wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, ,This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to cat." Moreover, guided by divine inspiration, h» directed them when and in ivhat quanfies to gather the manna, and especially that on the sixth day^ (be- ginning with the /rsi day it fell) they should gather a double quaniity, because on the seventh day none would fall ; the Lord thus showing them, by a rul« which could not be mistaken, what day in weekly re- turn, ho required them to observe as a day of rest and SABBATH DISCUSSION. !^§ 'devotion. See from ver. 17 to ver. 31. In like man-: Ber, their week w£is constantly measured, and their weekly Sabbath constantly demonstrated during for- : ty years, even till they came to the borders of the land i of Canaan. See ver. 35, and comp. Josh, v 12. i3eginning, then, with the eighteenth day on which \ the manna began to fall, the first Sabbath thereby in- ■ dicated, was the twenty-fourth day of the second "^ month of the sacred year, and which, I doubt not, j was the seventh day, in weekly return from the crea- ] ■tion-week ; God choosing thus miraculously and un- \ equivocally to make known the day which he had ori- I ginally blessed and sanctified, when the knowledge of \ it was lost among men, and when no dint of human ; investigation could possibly have ascertained it. j Here I might safely discontinue the consideration ^ of the present question ; having, I trust, made it sufii- ' ciently probable, if not evident, that the seventh dav ' of the week, measured by the falling of the manna, ! was the very day, in weekly return, which God ori- ;ginally blessed and sanctified. Gen. ii. 2, 3. But, . to make an obscure part of Israel's history more plain and interesting, especially to children, I beg leave to ; add a brief journal of their travels, from the time they i received the manna till they received the Law. j FIRST WEEK, \ This week, I suppose the Israelites to have spent ^s follows : allowing them three days from the first falling of the m_anna before they removed — a time i short enough for them to have acquired a praclical I knowledge of gathering and preparing that remarka- ble bread, which, thereafter, waste be their daily food. Id. w. 18 d. m. Manna began to fall. ') Stationary in | 2 19- 2 20- the wiLJer- ness of Sin. 4 21 . after gathermg the manna, they jour- 90 SABRATH DISCUSSiaN. ncyed to Dophxah. Num. xxxiii. 12. [12 miles.] -22 -, do. do. Alush. Num xxxiii. 13. [12 miles.] -23 , (Friday) after gathering a double por- tion of manna, they prepared for the Sabbath. -24 -, they spent in Sabbatic devotions at Alush. So' also say the Rabbins. SECOND \\^EK. I d. w. 25 d. m. after gathering the manna, they Jour- neyed to Rephidim. Num. xxxiii. 14. [8 miles.] Here they continued to the end of the second month, which consisted only of 29 days. See Ling Sacra, under lyyar. Chald. Four days ; during which they must have been variously and constantly employed, as appears by the record of events referred to that station. — See Ex. xvii. xviii. chapters. At this point I avail myself of the advantage arising from the date of Israel's arrival at Sinai i "In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. *' Ex. xix. 1. But here the question arises,'^ What day is meant by the same (lay ? No doubt they came to Sinai on the same day they left Rephidim ; the journey, according to Bun- ting, being only 8 miles. Yet this could not be the sense of the date in question ; nothing in the connection going to support it. I would fain have understood the day intended to mean the sa?ne day of SABBATH DISCTJSSTON. '9l t"h€ month on which they left Remeses in Egypt, which weknov/ was the 15th Num. xxxiii. 3. But this would be inconsistent with a tradition universal among the Jews, and generally accorded in by Chris- tians, that the Law was delivered on the 50th day from the first Passover. Besides, the best Jewish authorities assert that their nation received the law at Sinai, on the sixth day of the third month, called Si- van. Some think the same day means the day bear- ing the same ordinal number with the month to which it belonged ; or, in other words, that it was the third day of the third month. But the Targum of Jona- than, perhaps the best authority in the case, inter- prets the satne day to mean that on which the month came in ; thus making it to be the frst day of the month. So understanding the date, it will appear that on the 1 d. m. on the G d. w., and therefore after gathering a double portion of the manna, th-e Israelites journeyed from R-efhidim to Sinai. Numb, xxxiii. 15 [8 miles] and pre- pared for the Sabbath. "2 7 , (being the Sabbath) Moses went up to meet the Lord in the mount, and re- ceived a message to Israel. Ex. xix. 3—6. i 3 , Moses convened the elders — delivered to them his message — received their re- ply, and reported it to the Lord. Ex. xii. 7 8, 4 2 ,.. "the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, (meaning when he would deliver the Law.) "Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day (the 4th) and to-morrow,'' (tlie 92 SABBAIH DISCUSSION. •,) during which two days Moses was re- quired to urge tlie people to observe the utmost personal sanctit)', "and let them,"' thus instructed, *'wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day : for the third day, '^ from that, which would be the ■ "the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people, upon Mount Sinai,'* to deliver the Law. Ex. xix, 9 — IL Comp. V. 16. Still, however, it remains to be shovv n how it is true, that the law was given on the 50th da}^ from the first Passover, or from the departure of Israel out of Egypt. For, as they ate the first Passoever on the 14th of the first month, (^Ahib or Nisan,) which con- tained 30 days, and left Remeses on the the 15th, there remained, (including the day of their departure) 16 days of that month ; which, with the 29 days of which the second month (Ii/i/ar) consisted, and the first six days of the third month, [Sivan) amount to 5 days. Hence it is evident, that when the Jews say that the law- was given on the 50th day from the first Passover, or from the Exodus, tliey must calculate the days irj question, as they were aftertcard directed to calculate the time between the Passover and the Feast of weeks or Pentecost — a feast designed chiefly as an annual memorial of the giving of the law. This calculation, strictly made, runs thus ; The Passover-lamb was eaten on the 14th day, at even, that is, after sunset ; and so, when the next day had commenced. On the I5th, the first day of the Feast of unleavened bread, which accompanied the Passover, (Ex. xii. 17 — 20,) and again on the seventh or last day of that feast, they were required to hold a solemn convocation, and to abstain from all servile work : for which reasons^ SABBATH DISCUSSION. 93 each of these two days was called a Saobath, what- ever day of the week it might be. The 18th day be- gan at sunset, when the first of these festival sabbaths ended, and was, therefore, called " the morrow after the Sabbath ;"' and from this morrow, the day on which the sheaf of first fruits was offered ; not from the ending, but the beginning of the day, and therefore 7vith it, they were to count seven Sabbaths, that is weeks, or 49 days complete, when came the 50th day, the first day of the Feast of loeeks ; so called because its time was ascertained by counting the seven weeks, or 49 days just noticed ; as, afterward, it was called Pentecost, from the Greek work pentekoste fif- tieth ; it being the fiftieth day, beginning with the 16th of Nisan, the morrow after the first Sabbath of the Passover. See Levit. xxiii. 5, 11, 15, 16. The pains I have taken on the 16th chapter of Ex- odus, to place the events of it in such order as to al- low the requisite time for their convenient occurrence — and, on the subsequent history of Israel, so far as to show that they received the Decalogue on the day which, afterward, they were required to celebrate in the annual observance of the Feast of weeks, more commonly called Pentecost, are, as all attentive rea- ders of this letter must perceive, if pains is taken, |not with a view to any distinct advantage in the matter of dispute in which I am engaged — but, to contribute a mite toward the helping of those, whether children or adults, who are desirous to obtain a better understand- ing of the Holy Scriptures. Let not my worthy cor- respondent, however, suppose that I mean to treat him or his claims with neglect. For, if the Lord will, he shall hear from me, before long, on the question between us. Till then, I remain his friend and well wisher. WM. PARKINSON. LETTER X. To THE Rev. Mr. Maxson. July, 1835. Dear Sir, — I now come to the chief question between us, namely, whether the seventh or the first day of the week should be observed as the day of rest and of public worship, under the Gospel dispensation. In your second letter to me, you say, "The whole dif- ference between us on this subject turns upon the va- lidity of the Decalogue.'^ Consequently, in my Re- ply, I confined myself to what you justly call "the Sabbath of the fourth commandment,^^ and which, in my humble opinion, I abundantly proved to have been peculiar to national Israel. This, however, I did in view of what subsequently, (and I hope suc- cessfully) I endeavored to establish ; to wit, that the seventh day specified by the falling of the manna, and recognized by the fourth commandment, was the same day, in weekly return, which God originally blessed and sanctified, thus showing that when I contend that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was peculiar to the Jews, I mean that it was so in re- gard to the manner of its observance, as specified by that commandment, and as illustrated and enforced by subsequent injunctions ; for the day itself (aside from the characteristic peculiarities in its observance) SABBATH DISCUSSION'. 95 was the same which had been the seventh in weekly rotation from the beginning of the world. Nor do I give this explanation without being fully aware of the use you will make of it : — you will say, As the seventh day was the weekly Sabbath before it re- ceived its"^ Mosical peculiarities, so it remains the Sabbath since divested of those peculiarities. This, at first sight, seems plausible. But recol- lect, my brother, that we serve a Master, who "in all things has the pre-eminence'' — a Master whom God the Father delighted to honor-a Master to whom patriarchs and prophets ministered, and for whose dispensation the two preceding ones, the patriarchal and the Mosaical, were only preparatory. "Your father Abraham,'' said Christ to tlie Jews, "rejoiced to see my day ; and he saw it," in prophetic vision, **and was glad." And again He said, "Before A- braham was, I am." John viii. 56, 58. And an Apostle asserting, indeed, the fidelity of Moses, but maintaining the incomparable superiority of Christ, says, "Moses verily was faithful" (to God) "in all his house," wherein he officiated "as a servant,-^ and that only as subserving the future manifestations of the Heir ; it being "for a testimony" (propheti- cally and typically) "of those things which" (more clearly) "were to be spoken after" as they are found recorded in the New Testament. "But Christ as a Son" (^the only begotten of the Father, full of grace, and truth, was faithful) over his own house, the Church of which he is Proprietor as well as Ruler. — Heb. ill. 5, 6. The Mosaical dispensation, as well as the patri- archal, left obscurity on the way to God : "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God." — Heb. vii, 19. Comp. chap. ix. ver. 8. The 96 SABBATH DISCUSSION. sacrifices offered by the legal high priest, though of- ten repeated, could not take away sins ; Heb. x. 1. 4; but Christ, "by one offering, hath perfected for- ever them that are sanctified ;'' ver. 14. The legal high priest, as his offerings were not satisfactory to divine Justice, could only represent the people for whom he officiated in the liohj iilaces made with hands, those of the tabernacle and temple, and, of course, only before the Schecheenah, a mere symbol of the Divine Presence ; but Christ, having put aivay sins by the sacrifice of himself, entered into Heaven itself now to appear the immediate presence of God for us. Heb. ix. 24, 26. Nor did the legal dispensation comport with the promise which it so much labored to illustrate. God had said to Abraham, "In thy seed'- (which is Christ, Gal. iii. 16) "shall all the nations of earth be blessed ;'' Gen. xxii. 18 ; but the Mosaic dispensation, as it was restricted to one na- tion, the Jewish, could not reach the extent of the promise. Not so the dispensation of Christ ; for this, like the blessings of justification promised, ex- tends to all nations. Go, said he and teach all nations — Go ye into all the 2vorld, and preach tho Gospel to every creature. Com. Rom. iv. 13, and Gal. iii. 8, 22. Now, as the dispensation of Christ, compared with that of Moses, is ne-w and pre-efnine7it, it must be %jh- vious that all the institutions appertaining to it, should also be 7iew and appropriate, all serving to com- memorate his death and res.urrection ; and that they should be sanctioned either by his injunction or by his example. Such they arc. The Gospel reports an illustrates the great redemption wrought by him ; Acts xiii. 28, 39. Baptisin (while it implies his death, as also the death of the subject to legal hopes and sinful ways,) commemorates his burial and res- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 97, urrection. — Rom. vi. 3 — 11 ; vii. 4 ; Col. ii. 11, 12. And, in partaking of the eucharisticai supper, Beiiv- ers slioio forth the Lord's death till he come, 1 Cor* xi. 26. These, rightly understood, will appear to be the ''^Aree that bear witness on earth;'' to wit, the Gospe/ called the 5];/r/^ it being the ministration of the Spirit ; 2 Cor. iii. 8 ; Baptism, denoted by watery the element in which it is administered ; Acts viii. 28 ; and the Supi^er signified by the blood, meaning the blood of Christ, the shedding of which is com- memorated by the pouring forth of the wine used in this ordinance ; and these three agree in one, all having respected to the same person, and concurring to proclaim and commemorate him as the very Christ. I John V. 8. But to the matter in question. The seventh day even under the patriarchal as well as under the Mosaical dispensation, had been observed as a weekly memo- rial of God's work of creation ; yet with this differ* ence, that under the latter is served also as a me- morial of his redemption of Israel out of Egyptian bondage. — Exo. xx. 8 — 11, and Deut. v. 12, 15. How much rather, then, should some appropriafe day be abserved under the Gospel dispensation, as a remberancer of the work of creation, grown still more ancient, and therefore more likely to be for- gotten — and of redemption by Clii'ist, so much more important than that of Israel out of Egypt, and which, under the present dispensation, like that un- der the former, should be had in in constant and grateful rememberance. Now, to commemorate these greag; events, the observance of the seventh day could answer only in part ; it might still serve, as it had done, to commemorate the work of ere Rtion ; but with no possible propriety could \t commemorate the more interesting work of redemp- 93 SABBATH DISCUSSION. tion. Nor could this twofold purpose be so apt- ly answered by the observance of any other day, as it is by the observance of the first day of the week. For, 1. This is emphatically the creation-day^ the day in which God created all the substance of universal nature out of nothing. "In the beginning,'" at once, by His own omnipotent Word, "God created the heaven and the earth,'' that is, the elements of both, and of all things appertaining to them. Gen. i. 1. The word hasha?nayim, being plural, might more properly be rendered the heavens, as it is in chap, ii. 4. "And the earth was without form,'' a chaotic mass, "and void,'' or empty ; having neither inhab- itants nor production. How different when finished ! Nevertheless no additional substance was produced out of nothing ; all that remained being only forma- tion out of what strickly speaking, was created -on the first day. Hence the distinction in these two modes of Divine operation, noted by the two appro- priate terms hara and gnasa, the former signifying created, the latter, made, fitted, finished, Sfc. Ac- cordingly, Moses, speaking of created substances, says asher hara eloliim lagnasoth, which God crea- ted to make ; {or the lamed prefixed to gnasoth con- not mean and, as in our translation, but to, as 1 have rendered it. Gen. ii. 3. Comp. the the 7, 9 and 19 verses. Yet, as none but the Almighty could have reduced the crude mass of created mat- ter to order, or have formed organic bodies, or have given life, either animal or vegetative, Moses justly says, "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,*' because so many days he employed in bringing forth the fin- ished universe of creatures ; though the substance of all was created out of nothing in the first day. SABBATH DISCUSSION. 99 Most fitly, therefore, do we commemorate the work of creation, by observing the first day of the week, as corresponding, in weekly rotation, to the first day of time. And, 2. The first day of the week was validly the day oi redemption. For though the Lamb of God, as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of those He represen- ted, was offered on the sixth day, the acceptance of the sacrifice was not openly declared till the ensuing first day, when he was raised and discharged. From the time of his arrest, till the time of his res- urrection, His enemies seemed victorious, and His friends were in anxious suspense. But His resurrec- tion turned the tables. The assurance of this filled his enemies with perplexity, and his disciples with gladness. Matt, xxviii. 11 — 15; and John xx. 20. On the truth of this too, the hope of the Church en- tirely depends : "If Christ be not raised," Christians, "your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins.'' I Cor. XV. 17. "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept ;'' meaning both of them that had slept, and of all that ever should sleep in Him. Ver. 20. Comp. I. Thes. iv. 14 — 18. Others, it is true, were raised fiom the sleep of death before Christ ; but as they were raised only to a mortal life and died again, Christ was the first that was raised to an immortal life ; death having no more power over him. Rom. vi. 9. Comp. Acts xxvi. 23. Christ, in his resurrection, is said to have hecome the first fruits y because therein, He became the antitype of the sheaf of first fruits presented to the Lord, on the morrow after the Sabbath, that is, the first of the two sabbaths appertaining to the feast of unleavened bread. Levit. xxiii. 10, 11. The fulfilment too, of the type of first fruits, in the resurrection of Christ, is full of hope to the Church : for as the acceptance 100 SABBATH DISCUSSION. of the first fruits, authorized the gathering in of all the harvest, so the acceptance of tlie risen Jesus, gives assurance of the resurrection and acceptance of all that sleep in Him, to a life of immortality and glory •' Because I live, said he to his disciples, ye shall live also. John xiv. 19. Comp. Philip, iii. 21. Moreover, 3. On the first day of tlie week the manna began to fall. This has no dependence on the day of the month, nor on any course of human reasoning, but wholly on Divine demonstration. For on whatever day of the month the manna began to fall, it must have been on the ^r*^ day of the week, the week thereby measured ; seeing it constantly fell six days in succession, and was suspended on the seventh / this being the Sabbath. Now, as we know from the 6th chapter of John, that the manna was a type of Christ, and that he is most evidently set forth in the Gospel, so we know from the 2d chapter of the Acts, that the Gospel, after the resurrection of Christ, be- gan to be preached on the day of Pentecost, whicli^ as shown already, was the first day of the week, which day was thereby designated as the day which, in its weekly return, should constantly be appropria- ted to acts of devotion, and especially to preaching and hearing the Gospel. Besides, as on the sixth day of the week there fell a double quantity of manna preparatory to the Sabbath ; so, dividing time into a week o^ seven thousand years, it may be safely said tliat during the sixth day, the sixth thousand years, (in the 835th of which we nov/ are) there must be a more extensive and a more abundant preaching of the Gospel of Christ, than ever before — that, by means thereof, "the wliole earth may be filled with his glory,'' preparatory to the great millennial Sab- bath. Psal. Ixxii. 19.' For before the Sabbath, tho SABBATH DISCUSSION. 101 waters of the sanctuary will have become a river so deep and wide as to be impassable ; that is, so univer- sally diffused, that no place will be found on earth where the Gospel will not be. See Ezek. xlvii. 5. Comp. liab. a. 14. How much work, then, within less then 200 years, remains to be accomplished by the missionary angel (an emblem of the gospel min- istry) flying through heaven, (the region of the Church,) having the everlasting Gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth, even to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. Rev. xiv. 6. And, to secure success, that Holy Spirit, the ascen- sion gift of Christ, bestowed on the day of Pente- cost, has remained, and will still rema'in with the Church, preparing men for the work of the Gospel ministry, turning sinners from darkness to light, and exciting converts — nay rich worldlings also, to acts of benevolence, till all "the ransomed of the Lord" shall be gathered in. Is. lix. 21. Eph. ii. 10 — 14. Thus it will be made to appear, that "the Lord of host," on whose infallible resources, gracious and providential, this work depends, and who, speaking of its performance, hath said, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit," "will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel to do it for them," and will, at pleasure, cause the silver and the gold, which he claims as his own, to be consecrated to his service See Zech. iv. 16. Ezk. xxxvi. 37. Hagg. ii. 8. Mich. iv. 13. Be not too confident, my brother, that any ob- jections you have in store can overthrow what I have said, until you shall have read my next letter. Yours in the Lord, WM. PARKINSON. LETTER XL To THE Rev. Mr. Maxson. Augvs', 7 1833. Dear Sir, — You will naturally expect me in this letter, to consider the well known grounds of your principal objection to the contents of my last. In this respect, you shall not be disappointed. But, be- fore I proceed, allow me briefly to recapitulate my reasons for believing in the revealed sanctifieation of the ^rst day of the week. — -1. It was emphatically the day of creation. — 2. It was validly the day of redemption^ it being the day on which Christ, as the SURETY of those He represented, was corporeally raised, and \icariously discharged. — 3. It was tha day on which, as typifying Christ in the Gospel, the manna began to fall. Comp. John vi. with Ex. xvL Hence — 4. It was that pentecostal day, on which the ascended Jesus according to promise endued his disciples u'ith poiver from on high, by bestowing on tliem the Holy Spirit, as his ascension gift ; and when (for the first time after his resurrection) ho caused his Gospel to be preached ; wherein he con- stantly exhibits himself as the true bread, the antitype of the manna. Moreover, by thus variously dis- tinguishing the First day of the week, Christ plain- ly indicated it to be his will, that this day, in ita SABBATH DISCUSSION. 10^ weekly return, should be statedly devoted to sanctU' ary purpose, and especially to the preaching and hearing of his Gospel. See Luke xxiv. 49. Act3 I 8. ii. 1—4. 14. d:c. With Sabbatarians, however, I am aware that all this, in reference to the matter under discussion, stands for nothing. You deny that Christ was raised on \\\Q first day of the week, and, to support it, deny that he was crucified on the sixth day of the week, commonly called Friday. Of the latter, you seem to be confident, because on the day of the crucifixion *e close of my last letter, demand of us, by what au- thority we neglect the seventh and observe the jirst day of the week. My reply follows : The seventh day Sabbath, as specified by the man- na, and recognized by the fourth commandment, was as I have already shown, peculiar to national Israel. Its observance was never required of the Gentiles ; and, like, every other institution peculiar to the Jews, it expired with the Mosaic dispensation, which was virtually abolished in the death of Christ. Eph. ii. 15. Accordingly, even Jews, on their believing in Christ, are declared to be dead to the law ; that is, to the legal dispensation, and consequently to the obli- gation of observing its institutions. Sec Rom. vii. 1 — 4. Why, then, should any labor to bring Gentile disciples under the legal yoke ? But, say you, the Sabbath was before the law — it was patriarchal as well as Mosaical : granted ; but so was circumcision for though'Moses, by divine direction, gave it to Is- rael, it was not of him, but of the fathers ; it did not originate under his ministry, but had accompanied the A.brahamic covenant, and served to distinguish tha SABBATH DISCUSSION. 119 ancestry of the Messiah, as the ceremonial law did to prefigure his attonement. See John vii. 22 ; Rom. ix. 4, 5 ; Heb. x. 1 — 14. Nevertheless, an attempt to impose circumcision on believers in Christ, un- der the Gospel, was regarded by the apostle as an attempt to put a legal yoke upon them, and thereby to make them debtors to do the lohole law. Gal. v. 3. Read Acts xv. and Gal. iv. And in the same light, He regarded the conduct of those who presum- ed to judge Christians, by their observance or neg^ lect of Mosaical institutions, whether ritual or sabbat- ical. Col. ii. 16. 17. Hence it is, that we do not observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Nor do we, like many, observe the first day of the week, as a substitute for the seventh ; — that is, for the Jewish Sabbath, any more than we observe bap- tism as a substitute for circumcision ; or the Lord's Supper as a substitute for the Passover — for we be- lieve that every shadow implied and respected a sub- stance, and not another shadow. Thus circumcision, while it served to distinguish the natural posterity of Abraham, till the coming of Christ in the flesh, it al- so respected regeneration, whereby the spiritual seed of Abraham had been, and would be distinguished till the second coming of Christ. Circumcision now is that of the heart ; Rom. ii. 28, 29 ; Comp. Deut. XXX. 6. Again : We are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice iri Christ Je- sus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Philip iii. 3 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham^ s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal. iii. 29. Comp. Rom, iv. 9 — 14. v. i. 2. Gal iii. 14 — 28. — The same, too, may be said of the Passover The Lord's Supper, indeed, with regard to the time and ends of its institution, as noticed in a former letter, greatly resembles the passover ; yet the Lord's Sup- h2 120 SABBATH DISCUSSION. per is not the antitype of the passover ; for the pass- over, while it commemorated Israel's redemption out ot* Egypt, typified not the Lord's Supper, but the LiorcVs sacrifice ; "for even Christ our Passover is saciificed for us '' I Cor. v. 7. And in a similar manner, we should contemplate the Sabbath, both patriarchal and Mosaical. The former, while it served to commemorate God's rest from creative op- erations, might intimate also the rest which he would thereafter give to a peculiar people ; to wit, nation- al Israel, in their release from Egypt ; and the latter, while, in like manner, it reminded Israel of God's rest, and of their own rest from the Egyptian yoke, served as a pledge of their promised rest in Canaan, and as a type, not of any natural day of literal rest, but of the Gospel day of gracious rest to the Church, from the bondage and toils of the legal dispensation ; — nay, more, the Sabbath, from the beginning, might be designed as a symbol and memento of that rest, both gracious on earth, and glorious in Heaven, which remaineth for the people of God. See Heb. iv. 3 — 9. Besides, as we do not observe baptism in obedience to any command given for the observance of circum- cision — nor the Lord's Supper, in obedience to any command given for the observance of the passover ; so neither do we observe the first day of the week in obedience to any command or injunction given for the observance of the Mosaical Sabbath ; the observance o'l i\\Q first day of the week being as peculiar to the Christian dispensation, as the observance of the Mo- saical Sabbath was to the legal dispensation. Never- theless, we observe the first day by an authority pre- cisely tantamount to that by which the patriarchs, from Adam to MoseSy observed the seventh day; to wit, not by divine commandment, but by divine exam- ple, For, as God ("Elohim, denoting a plurahty in SABBATH DISCUSSION. 121 Unity ; Gen. i. 1, compared with Deut. vi. 4, and John V. 7,) having, as Creator, finished his work on the sixth day, rested on the seventh : so. He Lo- gos, the Word, who was Gud, and without whom *' was not any thing made that was made, ( Jolm i. 1 — 3) having, as Mediator, Jinished his work of atonement in his death on the cross (John xix. 30.) thereupon rested forever from any repetition of such vicarious work. Rom. vi. 9 ; Heb. x. 12. His hu- man s©ul, which had been exceeding sorroicful, rest- ed immediately in the heavenly jmradise ; Luke xxiii. 43 ; and his natural body, which had agoniz- ed on the cross, presently rested in the tomb. And having received these, as reunited on the third day, and having, during "forty days,-' given "many infal lible proofs'' of his resurrection, when he hadauthoriz ed the preaching of the Gospel to all nations. He, in human nature, and in view of his gazing disciples, as- cended on high, and entered into his Mediatorial Rest, even that glory, which, by covenant grant, he had with the Father before the world was. See Acts £. 2 — 11; Luke xxiv. 50 — 52; John xvii. 4,5= That the rest entered into by the divine Logos, on having finished the works appropriate to His state of humiliation, corresponded to, and respected that rest into which the divine Elohim had entered on having finished the works of creation, is expressly noted by an apostle : — "He that is entered into his rest. He also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His." Heb. iv. 10. It is true, indeed, that all who rightly enter into rest by faith in Christ, cease from their own works, as no longer seeking to be justified by them, and that all who enter into the heavenly rest, cease from their oicmvorks o^ present "labor and sorrow ; " yet, as only one person is here meant, (not many, as in verse 3 ;) and as this person is said to 122 SABBATH DISCUSSION. enter into his rest, that which belonged to Him of right — nay, to have ceased from His own works^- works pecuHar to Himself, there seems to be a special propriety i" undei-standrng the words, as spoken of Christ, who, in His death on the cross, Jinished His vicarious atonement, and thereupon, ceased from His own works, not only from traveling, and preaching, and performing miracles, but also from His works of official obedience and sacrifice, done as the Substi- tute of all He represented. To this effect the words in question were interpreted by Dr. Gill. And, so understood, this apostolic assertion shows the safety of all true believers in Christ ; for, as He, having finished His works of vicarious obedience, both active and passive, hath as a matter of right, entered into His glorious rest, "as the Fore-runner for us,'' we have boldness, (an authorized freedom or liberty,) to enter into the holiest, that is, into the presence of God him- self, the holiest of all : (having liberty of access to His gracious presence on earth, and to His glorious presence in Heaven ;) by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, lohich he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, lis flesh. Heb. x. 19. 20. Comp. chap. vi. 17 — 20. I return to Heb. ivth. Herein the apostle having shown that every rest spoken of in the Old Testament, had respect to the true rest by faith in Christ, and to the everlasting rest of the saints in heaven, fairly infers, (vef. 9.) that there remaineth a rest, *' both gracious and glorious, "for the people of God ;*' and asserts, (ver. 10) that Christ with whom they are joint-heirs, hath entered into this rest, thereby securing to all true believers an entrance into rest Avith Him. Hence the exhortation, which follows in verse 11 : "Let us labor therefore," (by resisting sin, renouncing legality, and praying for faith,) "to enter into that rest, lest any man," (among SABBATH DISCUSSION. 123 those Jews who professed to receive the Gospel,) by returning to Judaism, or to a course of sin, "fall af- ter the same example of unbelief,-' or disobedience, exhibited in the sad fate of their unbelieving and diso- bedient ancestors. Moreover, that the apostle, in verse 10, speaks of Christ, is the more evident, in that he continues to speak of Him lo the end of the chap- ter. The scope, in fact, of all things appertaining to the legal dispensation, was to prefigure the incarnation, obedience, and sacrifice, of the promised seed. Of this, however, the unbelieving Jews were ignorant ; and hence "could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished ; to wit, the legal dispensa- tion, the end, the fulfilling end of which is Christ, in whom that shadoio was realized and done aioay. II Cor. iii. 13,14. Nay, even some of those Jews who professed to be converted to the faith of the Gospel, remained much entangled with Judaism, and, by their example and infinence, brought some of the Gentile converts to feel the same perplexity ; in so much, that both were greatly distressed by the judg- ment which Judaizing teachers constantly passed up- on them. Accordingly, the apostle, addressing Chris- tians so troubled, dissuaded from admitting the author- ity of any such opinions or decisions respecting them ; saying, "Let no man — judge you in jneat or in drink,^^ such as was either prohibited or enjoined by the cere- monial law — "Or in respect of an hohj day,^' for not observing it ; seeing that whatever Jewish festival it might be, the Gentiles never were bound to observe it, and that, whereas the Mosaic dispensation (to which it belonged) was abolished, even Jews, be- lieving in Christ, were delivered from its obligation ; — "or of the new moon,"' the festivals of which we'i-e no longer required to be observed — "Or of the 124 SABBATH DISCUSSION. ga§§aTwv, the sabbaths, all times and days so de- nominated under the legal dispensation ; as the Jubi- lee Sabbath, the seventh-year Sabbath, the sabbaths of their annual festivals, and the weekly seventh-day Sabbath ; all ivhich Mosaical institutions and obser- vances, *'are,'' (continued the apostle) *' a shadow of things to come : but the body is of Christ.^' Col. ii. 16, 17. Nevertheless, as the seventh-day Sabbath, from the beginning of the world, had been a memorial of Creation — and, from the giving of the law, a memori- al also of Israel's release from Egyptian bondage ; so it was pre-eminently fit and requisite, that, during the evangelical reign of Christ, (who, with the Fath- er and the Spirit, is both the creator of the world and the saviour of the Church,) some appropriate day should be weekl}'- observed, as a memorial both o( creation and of redemption. But what day of the week could so fitly answer this two-fold end as the First ?—lt having, been as already shown, the day on which Elohim, the Triune Creator, preparatory to formation, spake the substance of all things out of nothing, and the day on which the Redeemer, the Logos incarnate, "having put away sin by the sacri- fice of himself,'' was raised and discharged, prepar- atory to the effectual calling, justification and glori- fication of His redeemed. See Rom. iv. 25, and viii. 30 — 34. Accordingly, as "God rested on the sev- enth day from all his work which he had made," and, moreover, "blessed the seventh day and sanctified it ;" thereby suggesting it to be his will, that man should finish his week's labor with the sixth day, and spend the seventh in holy contemplation and other acta of devotion ; so Christ, having on the sixth day (Friday) finished his work of redemption on the cross, and rested on the seventh day in the to7nb, "blessed " SABBATH DISCUSSION. 125 the First day, that is, honored it by his victorious resurrection, wherein the acceptances of his vicarious sacrifice was openly dcchired, "and sanctified it,^^ to devotional purposes, by vouchsafing his visible presence amid his assembled disciples, and b}- pub- lishing to them the result of his death ; for " having made peace through the blood of His cross,'' He came, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. John xx. 19. " And after eight days," (including the six in- tervening days,) that First day and the 7iext, on which the disciples again assembled. He repeated the favor. " Then, came Jesus, the doors being shut," as before, "and stood in the midst, and said, Peace he unto you.^^ Verse 26. And, that His disciples hereby understood it to be His will that they should weekly assemble on the day of His resurrection, for devotional purposes, is evident ; for we know, that near thirty years afterward, it was their constant usage to meet on that day ; and even at places dis- tant from Jerusalem, where the example was set ; as, for instance, at Troas, and at Corinth. See Acts XX. 7. and I Cor. xvi. 2. Nor does it appear, that Christ, after His resur- rection, ever held a meeting w^ith his disciples, or that his disciples at^ter that event, ever held a meet- ing among themselves, to sanctify the seventh day as a Sabbath. Still, as the unconverted Jews contin- ued to meet on the seventh day, the apostles, on that day, were careful to go into their synagogues, to preach Christ to them. Acts ix. 20. xiii. 5. 14 — 41. ■xviii. 4. For the same purpose our eastern mission- aries, on the ivorship days of the heathen, go into their Pagodas ; and, as the native converts accompa- ny their missionaries on those days to hear them preach ; so the Jewish converts accompanied ^ the apostles, to share in the benefit of their ministrations. 126 SABBATH DISCUSSION. This, in both cases, deserves commendation ; but, as persisted in without the above inducements, it is cen- surable. Accordingly, when the early converts to Christianity, whether from Jews or Gentiles, mani- fested that they felt either an obligation, or an in- clination, to observe any of the ordinances of those from among whom they had been called, they were reproved for it and dissuaded from it. See Gal. iv. 1 — 12. and Col. ii. 18 — 23. The prejudices of edu- cation are very strong. Hence even some of those Jews who were renewed by grace, having been ac- customsd from childhood to a strict observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, felt scruples of conscience a- bout omitting it, as they did also about omitting cir- cumcision ; and, under this impression, might at- tend Synagogue worship, when there was no apos- tle there to preach Christ ; nay, some of them, con- trary to the usage of the more enlightened Christians might for a time, convene together for devotional pur- poses, on the seventh day, besides meeting with the Church on the first day. These circumstances, no doubt, occasioned all that historians have said about the primitive Christians, as observing both days. Such tampering with Judaism, however, soon be- came offensive to theChristain Church ; for Ignatius, v/ho was so early a Christian as to have been a hearer and a disciple of the apostle John, used to say to his brethren, " Let us no longer Sabbatize, but keep the Lord's day, on which our Life arose.'' Epis. ad Mfignes. c. 9. Some practical improvement of the subject, must be reserved for a concluding letter. Yours, in Christian love, WM. PARKINSON. LETTER Xlli. To THE Rev. Mr. Maxsox. Octoher 2, 1835. Dear Sir — Agreeable to promise, I shall now inako some practical improvement of the subject discussed in these letters. In doing this, I beg leave to advert briefly, to a few of the facts stated and proved, for the purpose of rendering them the more fixed and familiar in the mind of the reader. Let it be remem- bered, then, 1. That the 15th o'l Nisan, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, sometimes called the Pas- sover, was the first of the two annual convocations appertaining to that feast — that this convocation, Avhatever day of the week it fell on, was called a Sabbath ; ^Levit. xxiii. 11— 15)— that this day (the 15th) like any other day of the same or of any other month, did not always fall on the same day of the week, but varied annually ; insomuch, that once in every 7 years (or thereabout) it fell on tlie loeekly or seventh-day Sabbath — that, by the predestinated arrangement of him v\^ho "declares the end from the beginning,'^ the crucifixion of Christ took place on the 14th oi Nisan, the day before the^ con- vocational Sabbath, which, that year, concurred with the weekly Sabbath ; and therefore that, as proved, the day of the crucifixion was i^>/(^f?f/, "the day be- 128 SABBATH DISCUSSION. fore the Sabbath," weekly^ as well as festival. Mark XV. 42 ; Luke xxiii. 54. 2. That in regard to the passover, facts stated in these letters show a remarkable accordance between the type and Antitype. Omitting lesser matters, the lambs for the paschal supper were to be killed on the fourteenth of the first month, Ahib or Nisan, and between the two evenings, which was at 3 o'clock, P. M., the middle hour between 12 or noon, when the frst evening began, and 6 or sunset, when the sec- ond evening began. And, on the same day of the same month, and at the sa?ne hour of the day, "Christ our passover was sacrificed for us'' on the cross ; it being at about the ninth hour ; which, counting from six in the morning, was three in the afternoon. In respect of the types, see Exo. xii. 6, (original) and Levit. xxiii. 5. Then compare Matt, xxvii. 46 — 50 ; Mark xv. 34 — 37 ; Luke xxiii. 44 — 46. Again : as on the 14th was "the Lord's passover" — as on the 15th was the festival Sabbath — and as on the 16th, "the morrow after iJie Sabbath," the first fruits were presented ; so Christ was crucitied on Friday, the 14th of Nisan — lay in the sepulchre during the Sabbath, the 15th, and rose on the 16th, "the mor- row after the Sabbath," that is, on the^^r^ day of the week, and thus is "became the first fruits of them that slept," or that ever would sleep in him. See Levit. xxiii. 5, 10, 11, and comp. Mark xvi. 1, 2, 9. 3 That these letters contain decided evidence, that the day of Pentecost, on which the Holy Ghost descended, as the ascension gift of Christ, was the first day of the tveek. The fact is demonstrable by a due consideration of the law itself: "Ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave- offering ; seven sabbaths shall be complete : even SABBATH DISCUSSION. 129 unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days," &c. Levit. xxiii. 15, 16. To understand this injunction rightly, the reader must recollect — 1. That shahhathoth, rendered sabbaths, (ver 15) is here used to denote weeks, and that shabbath, rendered sabbath, (ver. 16) is used to de- note a week. Hence this festival was called "the feast of weeks." Exo. xxxiv. 22 ; Deut. xvi, 10, 16 ; II Chron. viii. 13. This is so obvious, that Targumists, and all commentators. Christian as well as Jewish, are agreed in it. In like manner, the cor- responding Greek word, Sabbaton, both singular and plural, is used to denote a week, See Mark xvi. 2, 9 ; Luke xviii. 12. 2. That the seven weeks be counted from the morrow after the Sabbath, were not to commence when that morrow ended, but when it began; it being the day when "the sickle might be put to the standing corn." Deut. xvi. ^^ 3. That the seven weeks were to be complete, making 49 days and consequently, that the morrow after the seventh Sabbath, that is, week, had run out, was the fiftieth day, according to Levit. xxiii. 16. Hence this fes- tival had its Greek name Pentecost, the fiftieth. Acts ii. 1 ; I Cor. xvi. 8. 4. That although the Sab- bath mentioned Levit. xxiii. 11, 15, was the first of the two convocational sabbaths appertaining to the feast of unleavened bread, yet that in the year of our Lord's crucifixion, this Sabbath, (as noticed above, and as proved in Letter vii, part 1,) fell on the week- ly, or seventh-day Sabbath. Now, beginning with the "morrow" after that Sabbath, I mean with the morrow after the Sabbath during which Christ lay in the sepulchre, and therefore with the first day of the week — nay, with the very day on which Christ arose, and counting se\ en weeks complete, that is, 49 days, you will find them to end with a seventh-day 150 SABBATH DISCUSSION. Sahhathy and consequently that the next, the 50th day, was the frst day of the lueek. By way of making a further and a more practical improvement of the subject embraced in these letters, I shall consider several things in relation to the day which most Christians profess to sanctify. Even the name or names by which it is most fit and proper we should denote this day. To many, this may seem trivial. That it is a matter of minor importance, I readily admit ; and would, by no means, have it magnilied into any thing like a crite- rion of -^Christian character, or even of Christian fellowship or affection ; being persuaded that Chris- tians equally devout differ in their phraseology, ac- cording to education and usage. Nevertheless, be- lieving as I do, that the first day of the week is, by weekly rotation, the first day of time — the first day on which the manna fell — the first day of the Re- deemer's resurrection life — the first day on which the Gospel of the risen Saviour was preached ; and, withal, that it was the day on which the Holy Ghost, according to promise, descended as the witness that Jesus was "glorified;" (John vii. 39; IrTim. iii. 16 ;) believing, I say, and having, I think, shown that our blessed Lord hath been pleased thus various- ly to honor and distinguish the first day of the week, and thereby so manifestly to sanctify it, that is, that is, to set it apart as a day of Christian worship, and especially to be employed in preachmg and hearing the Gospel, it seems to mc most fit and proper, that we should chiefly distinguish the day by an appella- tion correspondent to the dispensation to which its observance is appropriate, and under which we live. Hence, to call the first day of the week the Sab- hath, as most Christians do, is obviously inconsistent ; SABBATH DISCUSSTOxX. 131 the very name savors of Judaism, and tends to con- found the Christian with the Mosaic dispensation. Christ arose, not on the Sabbath, but "when the Sab- bath was past,'' and the "first day of the week" had commenced. Mark xvi. 1, 2, 9. The word Sah' hath, in fact, as the appropriate name of a day, is peculiar to Judaism. Shavath, rest or rested, occurs it is true, in Gen. ii. 3 ; but shabbath. Sabbath is not to be found till in the account of the manna. Exo. xvi. According, from that time, the seventh day, (its weekly return being ascertained by the falling of the manna,) was uniformly styled the Sabbath by the inspired writers. So that day w^as constantly named by Christ and his apostles ; but it does not appear that either he or any one of them ever gave the ap- pellation Sabbath to the first day of the w^eek. Nevertheless, some Christians, though they ob- serve the Jirst day, seem to think it cannot be duly sanctified under any other name than that of the Sabbath ; and some writers have fancied that they find New Testament authority for so calling it. This fancied authority they derive chiefly from the word sabbaton, as used by three of Xhq Evangelists in re- lating the resurrection of Christ. See Mark xvi. 2, 9 ; Luke xxiv. 1 ; and John xx. 1. That sabbaton, by regular declension, is the gen. pi. of sabbaton, and that sabbaton is constantly used to denote the seventh-day Sabbath, I readily admit. An instance occurs in Mark xvi. 1 — "And when the Sabbath [tou Sabbaton] was past, [or thro7igh,~\ Mary Mag- dalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had brought [to the tomb of Christ] sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And [ver. 2] very early in the morning, tes mias sabbaton the first of the Sabbath, &c. But, if sabbaton here means a day, the first of this day can mean nothing other thau 132 SABBATH DISCUSSION. what is before expressed by very early in the morning. And, admitting the same acceptation of the word in question, the same tautology must occur in ver. 9, and in Luke xxiv. 1, and in John xx. 1. Sabbaton, therefore, in the places just referred to, cannot mean Sabbath, as denoting a day, but as denoting a week. Comp. Levit. xxiii. 15. So our learned translators understood the word as used by the Evangelists ; and accordingly represent each of them as saying that Christ rose [not on the first of the Sabbath, but] "on the first of the week,'''' that is, on the first day of the week ; "when the Sabbath was past" ov through. Be- sides, the word in dispute is found in a connection wherein few, if any, will venture to say, that it means a Sabbath day. I allude to the words of the Phari- see, in Luke xviii. 12 : Nesleuo dis ton sahbatou, lit- erally, I fast ttoice of a Sabbath. But how could he keep two fasts on one day '? To say, he meant that he omitted two meals on the Sabbath, is puerile. More- over, according to Rabbinical authority, the Jews, even the poorest of them, were required to eat three meals or feasts on the Sabbath. But, understanding the Pharisee as spea^Jng agreeably to the usage of his sect, who, at that time, fosted on the second and fiftJi day of each week, his words are plain ; he said, as in our version, "I fast twice in the week ;" which was on Monday and on Thursday. If sabbatismos, a sabbatism, in Heb. iv. 9, have any respect to the first day of the week, it can only be as this day is an evangelical symbol, and a weekly remembrancer of the Church's present rest in Christ, and of her future rest with Christ. To avoid this obvious inconsistency, many Chris- tians, though tenacious of the Jewish name Sabbath, yet qualify it by prefixingthe epithet Christian ; call- ing the first day of the week the Christian Sabbath. SABBATH DISCUSSION. 133 But might not those Ohristians who observed the seventh day, with equal — nay, with much more propri- ety, call that day the Christian Sabbath ? that being the day known in Scripture as the Sabbath. Be- sides, if it be proper to call either day the Christian Sabbath, why is it not equally proper to call the Lord's Supper the Christian Passover ? Shall we, then, call the day under consideration Sunday ? So far, indeed, as etymology is concern- ed, there is just as much propriety in calling the first day of the week Sunday, as there is in calling, as we do, the second Monday, the third Tuesday, &c., each name being of heathen origin, and an acknowledgement of some one of their idols. The heathen nations having received the notion of a week- ly division of time by tradition, from their patriarchs, Hafn and Japheth-, and having through ignorance of the Supreme Being, addicted themselves to the ado- ration of the heavenly bodies and of other agents, natural or imaginary, dedicated the days of their week to these objects of their idolatrous worship. While their idolatry was confined to "the host of heaven,^' they dedicated the days of their week to the seven planets, as then called, including the sun ; but the northern nations, having extended idolatry to other objects, made some variation in the dedication of their seven days. The first, as being esteemed the most honorable, they still dedicated to the sun, the most illustrious of their deities. This day the Sax- ons called Sunna-dczg, the sun's day ; hence Sunday. The second they dedicated to the moon, the planet next to the sun in conspicuity and usefulness. This day they called Monan-dceg, the moon's day ; hence Monday. The third they dedicated to Tuisco, th« most ancient idol of the Teutonicks, and which is thought by some to be the same with Mars, the god of 134 SABBATH DISCUSSION. war. This day they called Tiues-d ^^ obsorvo either tho sanv3 day, or any other, as a ^^J *^-' Treekly rest and devotion, under the Christian dispensation. And it has always been owin? to an oversight of this fact, when the framerg of a civil tro''^'^^"'f'"<^"^ ^^^^'® ^ii"*!^^ ^i^h it ''an estab- lishment of rom the fall, or the introduction of the Gospel, as I think eve- ry person must admit since sin had no existence in the world when it was instituted. Nor does the pen of inspiration so represent it to my understanding, and I think to no other person, with sufficient clearness to authorize him in deciding against its present va- lidity. It may be assumed, that the Sabbath was typical of the rest of Canaan, and of the gospel dis- pensation, or of the seventh and last thousand years of the world, or millenium ; but when it is recollec- ted that God has not authorized these assumptions, they should be considered merely as visionary. But, were these positions authorized by inspiration, still as it is admitted and with scriptural propriety, that the weekly seventh day's rest is typical of the more glori- ous rest of the saints, after death, in the paradise of God.IIeb. iv. 9 ; from which appears the adapta- tion of the Sabbath to the Gospel dispensation ; as its typical uses have not all yet been accomplished, and will not be till the last Saint shall sabbatize with Christ in his father's kingdom. I concur in your remarks upon the applicability of he Sabbath to be difleient meridians and hemispheres of the earth, in you fourth letter, (June 5,) and also in your views of the identity of the seventh day of the original institution, with that enjoined in the fourth commandment, as stated in your hfth letter, (June 19.) In connection with your observations, I will add in evidence of their correctness that the sev- enth day of the Jews, appears to have been very ex- tensively known and respected by the most ancient Gentile nations. Josephus against Aplon, b. ii., SABBATH DISCUSSION. 155 says : * 'There is not a city of tlie Grecians, nor any of the Barbarians, nor any nation wliatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come.'' Philo, as quoted by Grotius, in his Truth of the Christian Religion, remarks, con- cerning the seventh day, "It is a festival celebrated not only in one city or country ; but throughout the whole world." He quotes Homer and CalUmachus, to the same effect. And alsoSuetoniub, in his Sibeiius, as saying that "Diogenes used to dispute at Rhodes on the tSabbath." And "Theophilus Antiochenus, to Antolychus concerning the seventh day, which is to distinguished by all men.*' And adds, "That the memory of the seventh day's work was preserved not only among the Greeks and Italians, by honoring the seventh day, but also among tlie Celts and Indians, who all measured the time by weeks." This is af- firmed by other authors of the Assyrians, Egyp- tians, Arabians, Romans, Gauls, Britons and Ger- mans. Nov/, when it is considered how widely scattered over the earth these nations were, and that in the age referred to but little or no intercourse was had among the most of them, the reader will readily discover the difficulty of accounting for this remarkable agreement in their sentiments and practice relative to the seventh day upon any other hypothesis than that of the ear'y institution of the Sabbath. For it cannot be supposed that the Jews, who v*^ere generally hated and whose religious peculiarities were despised, could have given a religious custom to the whole world, and this, too, in a period when their nation was in its minori- ty. The only rational and natural conclusion is, that the division of time into weeks, together with the knowledge of the Sabbath, was handed down to them by Noah and his family, and thus spread with 156 SABBATH DISCUSSION. the increasing and spreading population of the earth. I will further add, that there appears to have been an entire uniformity among all nations in regard to the beginning and ending of the week. That is, the sev- enth day of the week among the Gentiles uniformly corresponding with the seventh day of the Jews. The reader will also see that these citations support the remarks I made in my last letter to you, showing that the Sabbath Day of the fourth commandment was not peculiar to the nation of the Jews. ^ 1 think we are now agreed that the seventh day (if this term is more acceptable to you than the Sab- bath,) of the fourth commandment was obligatory on all the Gentile world at the time the law was given, as well as on the Jews, and this is settling an important point. I fit should be supposed they were ignorant of their duty in this respect : still they were as inex- cusable in this, as they were for their neglect of other religious duties, of which they are supposed to have been ignorant. It is not probable that they would re- tain an accurate knowledge of its duties, when they had lost the knowledge of true religion in other re- spects. What God had made their duty, however, still remained their duty, and this could not be affec- ted by giving the law to the Jewish nation. But I see no good reason for objections to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, rather than to the Pafriarchal Sabbath. You admit that the seventh day, in its week- ly returns, was the same, and it has not been shown that the restrictions of the former were more severe than that of the latter ; or that there was any es- sential difference between them. If, as you say, the original Sabbath was promulgated ; not by com- mandment ; but bv example, and that its duties were to be learnt by the example of God in his resting on that day, from all his works ; the example in this SABBATH DISCUSSION. 157 case must be the rule and measure of the duty re- quired. He rested on the seventh day from all his work, Gen. ii. 2, 3. This entire rest, then, was en- joined by his example, which is precisely the duty en- joined by the fourth commandment, Ex. xx. 10. And we may learn the nature of this restriction by our Lord's exposition of the subject in Malt. xii. 1 — 13. Luke iv. 9, and several other pk^-ces, from which texts with their connections; it appears that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day ; or, in other words, the performance of such work as is dictated by mer- cy, or necessity, is in accordance with the spirit and design of the fourth commandment. This was more probably the design of our Lord in his instructions on this subject, then as you suppose, viz. to teach that the restrictions of the commandment might be infrin- ged with impunity, on account of its richly and ex- piring state. No child of God can complain of the injunction to '•''Itememher the Sabbath day to keep it holy.'' From the foregoing illustrations it appears that the Sabbath derived no new character or qualification from the fourth commandment. And that subsequent instructions and prohibitions given to Israel directly by- Moses, as well as the corporal penalties of its viola- tions, which, in some particulars were limited to the circumstances of the Jews while in the Wilderness, and which are not known in the fourth commandment, are what constituted it the Jewish Sabbath. It is also evident that the Sabbath as enjoined in the fourth commandment was not peculiar to national Israel, of which 1 think you will be satisfied upon perusing these remarks. You are aware of the hazardous situa- tion in which the sentiment which I have been labor- ing to correct is placed, by the view we have taken of the subject, and have anticipated me as saying, 168 SABBATH DISCUSSION. what every intelligent, unbiased person, who has ex- amined this subject, must be constrained to say, name- ly, that the seventh day originally appointed the Sab- bath, divested of its Jewish peculiarities, remains still the Sabbath unless abrogated by proper author- ity. The fitness of this day to the solemnities of the Christian religion, I must defer to my next. I remain yours in the Lord, W. B. MAXSON. LETTER XVI. To TiiE Rev. Wm. Parki?.\sox. November 13, 1835. Dear Brother, — I come now, as I proposed in my last, to consider the seventh day as a proper sea- son for the worsliip and solemnities of the Christian religion. I v/ish however, to notice, in the first place, the objections you have proposed to this in your sixth letter, (July 17.) The pleasing and exulting recollections to which you have called my attention, respecting the pie eminence of our divine Master Je- sus Christ over Moses — the Gospel dispensation over the Mosaic — and the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ over those which were under the Levitical law, I hope ever to delight in, as must all true believers in Christ. But I do not see what bearing they have upon the subject before us. That the Gospel dispen- sation, compared with that of Moses, is new and pre- eminent, I grant. And also, that all the institutions particularly pertaining to it are new — that is, they must be iristituted by the authority of Christ, as head of the Church ; the ministration of the JVord, of Baj)tism, and of the Lord/s Sitppei', are doubtless the most prominent ; but these affect not the subject in hand. Tlio Christian dispensation has, indeed, a 160 SABBATH DISCUSSIOX. new Sabbatli, endowed as it is, with the worship and ordinances of the Christian religion, in the same sense that the ministration of the Gospel is new. But the preaching of the Gospel is, in fact, as ancient as the fail of man, and it has been published in every dis- pensation in such manner, and by such symbols, as God saw fit to appoint ; but the authorized change which took place in the manner of publishing it in the Christian dispensation, emphatically entitled it to the appellation of a new institution. Had the Sab- bath i)cen originally designed for, and limited to na- tional Israel, it would have been contained in the hand- writing of ordinances, (Col. ii. 14) and consequently abolished with it. Whatever there was in the Sab- bath ])eculiar to that people, or the Mosaic dispensa- tion, I agree was abolished. The Jeurish Sabbath was abolished — but the patriarchal Sabbath, which was the same with the original institution, as written in the fourth commandment, remained, as well as the other precepts with which God associated it. You suppose the seventh day can, with no possible propriety, commemorate the work of redemption, al- though it might still serve as a memorial of creation ; and that both these events could not be so properly commemorated on any other day as the first day of the week. I will presently notice the reasons you assign ; but wish fi -st to observe, that it is not the day itself, but the duties to which it is devoted, that waken recol- lections to divine subjects in the Christian's mind. — In the absence of some conclusive indication of the divine will, we should be naturally led to concludo that the day which was originally designed as a sea- son for innocent beings to commune with God, and learn his will, and subsequently, for guilty men to remember their Creator, call his works to mind, and SABBATH DISCUSSION'. 161 ssek his blessing, and, as you suppose, to remind tho Hebrews of their deliverance from bondage, that God designed (t as the most proper season in which all his works of creation^ provideiice, and grace should be brought to mmd. But, if this day cannot be a proper memento of the latter work, because it was not originuUy appointed for this purpose, the same difficulty mustattend the observance of the first day of the week ; for upon this ground, it could not be a fit reason to commemorate the work of creation. And, if it require, as you believe as well as myself, that the time must be divinely appointed to make it a proper memento of either, the Sabbath has certainly the strongest claims to religious distinction. The ground taken here by those who contend for the unfitness of the Sabbath for Gospel purposes, is assumed and maintained only in opposition to facts, as well as rev- elation. The Christain Church, worshipping on the Sabbath do, for oughttheir opponents can say to the contrary, enjoy as much of the divine presence, and take as much pleasure in Gospel institutions, when thus engaged, as those who observe the succeeding day. But 1 come to your reasons : 1. As a reason for the peculiar fitness of the first day of the week for this two-fold purpose, you ob- s<3rve that " it is ejiiTphaticaUy the creation-day.^^ It is, indeed, true that God, in the beginning, or on tho first day of time, did create the chaotic mass, which was subsequently arranged and put in order, of which the vegetable and animal kingdoms were subsequent- ly made ; but it could scarcely be said to be a world. If it were proper for men to appoint a season to com- memorate distinctivehj the respective productions of the divine Word, chaos might be celebrated on the first day of the week, this being all that was created on this day. By reasoning thus, however, the analogy be- 162 SABBATH DISCUSSION. t^veen the two appointments of a day of commemora- tion is lost in seleciing the first effort of God in crea- tioih and what is generally supposed to be the last ill redonption. Besides, God has decided the first day of the week to be the most unfit season that could be appointed to commemorate any of his creative op- erations, by appointing the seventh and last day of the week for this purpose. This day was created a Sabbath, and God has ever claimed the entire sove- reignty over it. See Is. Iviii. 13. Mark ii. 28. This plea for the observance of the first day was as good in the first age of the world as it ever has been since, and seems to be an impeachment of the discernment of the all v/ise Creator, for not selecting it at first for the weekly day of rest, instead of the seventh. I do not mean to charge* my venerable correspondent with originally making this irreverent suggestion. The first to whom I recollect seeing it ascribed, was Jus- tin Martyr, who offered it as a a reason, in want of a better, for paying some religious distinction to Sun- day, as he termed it. In short, if the first day of the week have any divine warrant for its observance in the New Testament, it needs no help on this ac- count. 2. Another reason you assign for the distinction here claimed for the observance of the first day is, that *'?7 was validly the day of redemption '' I shall have occasion to notice your remarks under this head more particuhrly on considering your seventh letter. A.t present I Wvould remark, that if it were granted, that not only the resurrection of Christ, but all the remarkable events said to have taken place on this day, actually occurred upon it, they could not have rendered it the most proper season of Christian woi'- »hip without a divine aj-p ointment to this effect. — Now, as none of those events are mentioned as giv- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 163 ing importance to the day on v/hich they occurred, by any of the inspired writers, we certainly can have no assurance that the day was esteemed by them on account of those events. But more upon this point hereafter. 3. I shall now notice your third reason for consider- ing the first day of the week the most proper day on which to commemorate the two great events — Crea- tion and Redemi^tlon. You observe ^'tltat on this day of the week, the manna begoji io fall.'^ I v>'ould here ask, Iiow are we to know this to be the case ? The only record which may be relied upon, v/hich can give us any knowledge of this event, is found in Ex. xvi. 22. The sixth day mentioned here may not be intended as the sixth day in succession after the man- na began to fall ; for the record is not particular in relating how many mornings they had gathered it during that week. As the sixth day there mentioned, was the sixth day of the week : 1 am inclined to the opinion that it is mentioned only as such. The opin- ions of Robbins and Commentators, who have no better method of knowing the truth than we have, are of very little weight in determining this matter. Your demonstration of this subject in your 5th letter (Juno 19) throws but very little light upon the point in ques- tion. The main thing is assumed, viz : that the manna began to fall on the first day of the week : it is there- fore a matter of uncertainty. Nor can 1 discover the propriety of your conclusion, that the Jews, while in Egypt, had entirely lost the arrangement of the week. It would seem incredable, that an Insti- tution like the so Sabbath, universally knoinv in th-a world from remote antiquity, and the tradition of it at least, retained to a period subsequently to tho bondage of the Hebrews in Egypt, could have been forgotten by that entire nation alone ; for even tho 164 SABBATH DISCUSSION. Egyptians, their tyrannical masters, possessed the knowledge of the Sabbath. I think the citations in my last kitter, places this suijjcct beyond all legitimate scruples. It is therefore altogether an assumption that God made known to the Jews the beginning and ending of the week by the falling of manna. The withholding it on the seventh day seems not to have been to inform themv/hen the Sabbath occurred ; for they knew this, as fully appears by their gathering a double portion of manna on the sixth day. This divine arrangement of the manna was evidently made to prevent there being any necessity for laboring on the Sabbath, in gathering it. Nor do I think that the reference in the sixth chapter of John, to the manna which fell in the wilderness affords any advantage to to the lirst day. If the manna is considered here a type of Christ, it is very faintly done ; and so con- sidered, merely from the Jews mentioning the cir- cumstances of their fathers eating manna in the wil- derness ; and our Lord improved the occassion, by stating to them, that he was the living bread that came down from Heaven. There may be something in the manna symbolical of Gospel grace. It is also called in Ps. xxviii. 25, '-'-angels food^'^ which is by no means calculated to strengthen the symbolic signification you have given it ; for it is not on Christ, as a crucified Saviour, that angels live, as do the redeemed among men : and the generation which partook of the first falling of the manna, was cut off from the grace of Christ by unbelief. No inference can therefore, be allowed in favor of the first day, from the falling of manna. [See close of the letter.] 1 will mention one more objection brought against the fitness of the Sabbath, as a proper season for Christian worship by Dr. Dwight ; not on account of any allusion had to it in any of your remarks; SABBATH DISCUSSION. 165 but because I wish to meet fairly whatever is sug- gested as a difficulty to what I understand to be a Christian duty. The objection I refer to, is drawn from Matt. ix. 15. " Can the children of the bride- chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them ; but the days will come, whem the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. '^ The ingenious author states that Christ vras crucified on Friday, at the close of which he was taken from the children of the bride-chamber, that is, from the disciples. Throughout the Sabbath he lay in the grave, and on the first day of the week he was restor- ed to them again. His method of managing this text go as to bear against the Sabbath is this ; that the seventh day became, by the absence of Christ from his disciples, the proper season for fasting ; but that the Sabbath was from the beginning, a festival, and designed so to be to the Christian Church. Fasting, therefore, he says, can never accord with the origi- nal and universal design, and concludes that this day is altogether improper for commemorating with glad- ness, the work of redemption. Although this argu- ment may be considered plausible, it is a deceitful one — a mere logical artifice. It proceeds upon the ground that the Saviour was taken from the disciples on the weekly Sabbath ; whereas, he was taken away from them, very early on the the day previous to the great Sabbath of the Passover, let it have fallen on whatever day of the week it may. Again, he will have it that he was absent from his disciples but one day, although his absence from them embraced a period of not less than three. His argument supposes the following first day, to be a day of joy and glad- ness, on account of the Saviour's resurrection ; but the whole day, even until the evening, was a season of the deepest gloom, fearing for their personal safe- 166 8ABBATH DISCUSSION. ty and doubting as to the resurrection. Again, the argument supposes that every succeeding first day was kept as a holy festival, and every Sabbath a day of humiliation and fasting — a sentiment at vari- ance with facts, and the avowed sentiments of every denomination of Christians The inspired history of the Church gives no instance of Sabbatli fasting nor first day rejoicing, subsequent to this particular sea- son. These inconsistences wc have noticed, effectu- ally destroy the argument, as evidence against the Sabbath being a fit season for Gospel worship. And wc cannot imagine that Christ designed ; or that the disciples ever understood these remarks of Christ as indicating a change of the Sabbath, or that the ven- erable Doctor would ever have had his attention drawn to them for proof ofa change of the Sabbath, had there been other and plain Scripture at his command. From the preceding remarks it is obvious that the Sabbath which was originally instituted, is divinely appropriate in every dispensation, for the instituted worship of God, as well as for the purpose of rest. We have seen that it was originally the duty of all man kind to observe it ; and that this duty was not affected by the peculiarities in its observance, imposed upon the Jews. Your reasons for considering it an improper season in which to celebrate the Christian worship together with those you have given in favor of the first day, as far as I have examined them, ap- pear to me to be illusive, and have no weight when brought against a plain appointment of God. The passages of Scripture to which you have referred me as proof of the repeal of the sabbatic institution, viz. Rom. xiv. 5, and Col. ii. 16, can have no bearing upon the subject of the weekly Sabbath, any farther than to signify that its ceremonial peculiarities were a shadow of better things ; and therefore, notofsuf- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 167 ficient consequence to become the proper subject of contention among the Jewish and Gentile converts. Whatever there had been in the manner of its ob- servance peculiar to the Mosaic dispensation, was un- questionably blotted out, and nailed to the cross. Col. ii. 14, and consequently, not binding upon the Church. If there can be found in the New Testament, suffi- cient proof for the religious observance of the first day of the week, ( after which I intend carefully to inquire ) it is certainly the duty of the Church to re- gard it as there enjoined ; notwithstanding the obli- gation the world is under to keep the Sabbath. But the institution of a new religious memorial could not render nugatory an original moral duty. 1 am vours affectionately in the Lord, W. B. MAXSON. Note. — In considering tjie manna as a type of Christ and the promulgation of the Gospel, it would be well to notice its typical import in the only pas- sage found in the New Testament which mentions it, viz. Heb. ix. 4. where the apostle notices the putting the jjot of manna into the ark of the covenant j with Aaron^s rod that budded, and the tables of the cove- nant, on which were written the laws of the decalogue, exclduing the hand-writing of the ceremonial law : thus indicating that the precepts of the decalogue should be associated with the doctrine of Christ, who was typified by the manna ; and that their promulga- tion should be attended by the miraculous demonstra- tions of the Holy Spirit ; thereby proving their dir vine and important character. k2 LETTER XVIi. To THE Rev. Wm. Parkinson. December 4, 1835. Dear Brother, — In my last letter I stated, and I think successfully proved, that the vSabbath original- ly instituted, was divinely adapted to the instituted worship of God in every dispensation — that as it de- rived a peculiar fitness for religious uses from the ex- ample of God and its being sanctified by him for this purpose, it was the duty of all intelligent beings, whose existence resulted from God's six day's labor to regard it. It must, therefore, be a suitable me- mento of all God's great and good works of Creation^ Providence raid Grace^ — becoming thus a kind of common link, by which a proper connection is pre- served between the several successive dispensations given to the world. It follows, then, as stated by the venerable Dr. Dwight : " If we cannot find in the Scriptures plain and ample proof of an abrogation of the original day, or the substitution of a new one, the day undoubtedly remains in full force and obliga- tion, and is now to be celebrated by all the race of Adam. " This question, then, will very naturally be suggested to the reader : Has the institution been ab- rogated, or the obligation to keep the seventh day which it enjoins been discharged by Divine author- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 169 ity ? I will therefore endeavor, explicitly and can- didly, to answer this inquiry. And, 1. To me it appears an unreasonable con- clusion, that the abrogation of the institution or the observance of the seventh day, should as a matter of course result from the introduction of a new dispen- sation ; for they had both remained through several preceding ones without any known change. Nor must they of necessity expire with the Jewish cere- monial sabbaths, as you suppose, (Letter 8, Sept. 18) since they were not peculiar to that dispensation. Af- ter you have, at length, and I think successfully proved that the seventh day was from the creation of the world obligatory on all mankind to the time of the giving of the law ; and that it was the- same seventh day in its weekly returns, that the Jews were enjoined to keep ; I confess myself at a loss to know how to understand you^ when you insist that the seventh day as specified by the falling of manna, and recog- nized by the fourth commandment, was peculiar to national Israel, and never required of the Gentiles. This appears to me an inexplicable decrepancy. — The same inconsistency attends associating the weekly Sabbath with circumcision, or Abrahamic covenant, or the legal dispensation, any farther than concerns its Jewish peculiarities ; since it was re- quired of Abraham's progcnators, back to Adam, the the father of us all. The only texts insisted upon as proof of the abrogation of the institution, or change of the day, are Hos. ii. 11 — Rom xiv. 5 — Gal. iv. 10, 11 ; and Col. ii. 16, 17. The former has been shown to refer to Israel's captivity, and not to the Gospel dispensation ; and it has also been shown that the other texts relate only to the Jewish ceremonial observances. The citations from Collossians is mostly relied upon as proof that the sabbatic law is done 170 SABBATH DISCUSSION. away, and I have stated that sabbaths in this text refers only to ceremonial sabbaths. I will add that the reader is requested to read the twenty tliird chapter of Leviticus, where he will find the annual festivals, in which labor is forbidden, are called , sabbaths. — And it is evident that sabbaths in this place, referred only to such as rank with meat, drink, and nettr moons, &;c., which are known to be of a very differ- ent character from the weekly Sabbath. Henry, Clark, and most other commentators, understand this text as referring only to ceremonial festivals. See Adam Clark on this place, where he has supported, at some length, the opinion I have given of it. From hence it appears that there is not sufficient and am. pie proof that the institution is abrogated, or the sev- enth day set aside. 2. The weekly Sabbath appears to have been thus understood by the inspired writers. David says, (Ps. cxi. 7, 8,) " All his commandments are sure ; they stand fast forever and ever. '^ This can only apply to the decalogue, in which the command to keep the Sabbath is embraced. He therefore in ef- fect, declares this precept to be as durable as the oth- er nine with which it is associated. See also Isa. Ixvi. 23, where it is predicted that the Gospel dispensa- tion, and particularly when it shall gloriously triumph over the whole earth, the Sabbath shall be univer- sally and religiously regarded. These inspired proph- ets could see nothing in the institution itself, nor in any divine instruction concerning it, that could lead them to anticipate its abrogation, as many good and wise men have since seen. 3. We may learn the unchangeable nature of the Sabbath from its association with the precepts of the decalogue, the whole of which, without alteration, our Saviour has declared a law to the Church till SABBATH DISCUSSION. 171 heaven and earth shall pass away. See Matt. v. 17 -^—19. His remarks in this place necessarily include the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment. In accordance with this instruction, he declared himself '* Lord of the Sabbath. *' See Mark ii. 28. By this he intimated the permanency of the institution, and that he was not Lord of a shad- cw — a weak and beggarly element ; but of a solid good, which the Sabbath has alw^s been to the people of God. Again, he intimated to his disciples that the Sabbath should remain after the shadows of that dispensation had fled away. Whatever his ob- ject might have been in directing them to pray that their flight from Jerusalem, ( which he knew would be about forty years after that dispensation would be closed,) might not happen on the Sabbath, it is cer- tain he knew there would be a day known and re- graded as such ^at that time. 4. It appears to have been thus understood and regarded by the disciples after the resurrection of Christ. They are uniformly represented as attend- ing public worship on the Sabbath. In the very brief history given us in the Acts of the Apostles, of their practice and labors, their meeting and preaching on the Sabbath are more frequently mentioned than any other particular relating to their history. In Antioch, Paul preached one Sabbath to an assembly of Jews and Gentiles in the Synagogue, and on the following Sabbath, perhaps in the street, being requested by the Gentile converts, he preached to the whole city. Acts 13th chap. The inference fairly drawn from this account is, that the Sabbath was the only day known to these Gentiles as a season of religious as- sembling. In Iconium, Paul and Barnabas again preached in the Synagogue, which (according to your conclusion, Letter 1,) must also have been on 172 SABBATH DISCUSSION. the Sabbath. At this time they preached to a large congregation ; for a great multitude, both of Jews and Gentiles, were converted. The like occurrence took place in Salamis. See Acts xiii. 5, and xiv. 1. The same course was pursued by Paul and Silas, after their separation from Barnabas. In Philippi, where there appears to have been neither Jews nor Synagogue, Paul and his companions retired from the city to a place of prayer by the side of a river on the Sabbath ; at which time and place, Lydia and her house-hold were both converted and baptized. — Acts xvi. 13, 14. In Thessalonica, Paul preached three Sabbaths in succession. And we are here in- formed that this was his common custom. Acts xvii, 1, 2. Accordingly, they are in the Synagogue in Berea, preaching to Jews and Greeks : and not a few of them were converted at this time, verse 10-12. Again, Paul is in the Synagogue of Athens, preach- ing to Jews, and devout persons, who attended wor- ship with them, and daily to such as he" met with in places of public resort. Verse 16, 17. From Ath- ens, Paul went to Corinth, where he preached to Jews and Gentiles three Sabbaths ; and after this he con- tinued his labors in a private house for a year and six months. Acts xviii. 4 — 11. In Ephesus, also, he taught in the Synagogue for three months ; and when opposed by unbelievers, he taught every day in the school of Tyrannus for two years. Chap. xix. 8-10. From the above references, it is put beyond dispute that the disciples observed the Sabbath, externally at least ; and there can be no authorized assurance that they were not conscientious in their practice. No one can be warranted in saying that this constant atten- dance upon the public ministration of the word on this day, resulted from the want of opportunity to SABBATH DISCUSSION. 173 preach to the Jews at other seasons. The Scriptures intimate nothing like this .5. From the conduct of the first Christians in things relating to the legal dispensation, it is very evident that they did not consider the* former Sabhath as abrogated. It is well known that the first Chris- tians v/ere Jews, as were all the apostles ; and that in general, they adhered tenaciously to many things of a national character. It was eight years after the ascension of Christ before Peter understood that he might go among the Gentiles, or eat any thing that Avas legally unclean : during which time he was zealously and successfully preaching the Gos- pel in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria ; and the Church- es in those regions " walked in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Ploly Ghost, and were multiplied.'' Acts ix. 31, 32, and x. 14. St. Paul was not so much opposed to certain peculiarities of the Jews as many imagine ; for he had put himself under the vow of a Nazarite, and when he v/as in Cenchrea, shaved his head on that account. About six years after this, by the advice of the other apos- tles, he went into the Temple with certain disciples who v/ere under a similar vow, and there performed the rites of purification with them. This seems not to have been done from the conviction that le- gal ceremonies were religiously binding [; butlo con- vince the Church in Jerusalem that he himself " walk- ed orderly and kept the law. " As this latte r act was performed some years after his rebuking Peter for his dissimulation, recorded Gal. ii. 11 — 14, and his last recorded act while he had his liberty, I con- clude that you will admit that he did not view a con- nivance at Jewish usages so grossly and sinfully in- consistent as you formerly supposed. Again, Paul declares at Rome, that he had done nothing against l'/4 SABBATH DISCUSSION. the customs of the Jewish fathers. Acts xxviii. 17. I do not understand by this that he strictly adhered to all the customs practiced by the Pharisees, but we must infer from Jience that he had not departed from the course prescribed by the "Law and the Proph- ets ;'' otherwise this declaration would not have been true. And, finally, the elders of the Church declar- ed, that there were many thousands of believing Jews, and that they were " all zealous of the law. " Acts xxi. 20. These things considered, it cannot be reasonably doubted that all the Churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, were more or less tenacious of the ceremonial law. If, then, those Churches which embraced the greatest number of believers in the apostolic age were not free from Jewish usages, it must be next to certain that they had not departed from the observance of the weekly Sabbath ; which, in their estimation, was by far the most important.— The Thessalonian Church was composed of both Jews and Greeks, and, at the time of their conversion, were in the habit of attending worship on the Sab- bath. Acts xvii. 1 — 4, This Church followed the Churches in Judea. I Thes. ii. 14. And they were examples to all the believers in Macedonia, and Achaia. Chap. i. 7. From these revealed facts we may properly infer that all these Churches observed the Sabbath, as did the Churches in Judea. This inference is strengthened by the fact that a religious regard to the seventh day never had been considered by either Jews or Gentiles, as originating with the Jews, or that it belonged to their ritual. 6. Had the weekly Sabbath undergone any change as to the day on which it had been kept, it is unac- countably strange that neither the unbelieving Jews, who were ever watchful and ready to bring accusa- tions against the Christians, nor the Judaizing class SABBATH DISCUSSION. 175 of believers, appear ever to have had any contro- versy concerning the Sabbath. When a difference arose about circumcision, the whole Church was ag- itated with the subject until it was settled. Acts 15th. And when Peter went unto the Gentiles, he was called to an account by the Church in Jerusalem. — Acts xi. 1 — 3. And long after their time, all the Churches in Christendom were thrown into com- motion on account of a difference in the time of keeping the passover, which nearly affected an en- tire separation of the eastern from the westerrr Churches. Had the apostles and Gentile converts disregarded the ancient Sabbath, the Jews would not have failed to urge it against them, and they would not have been allowed to preach in their Synagogues. Nor would the Jewish Christians have more quietly submitted to such a difference and given the right hand of fellowship. Gal. ii. 9. We can- not, therefore, avoid the conclusion, that both classes of converts observed the same Sabbath which had always been kept. 7. As a confirmation of the above, I will notice some remarks from the early Christian writers rela- tive to this subject, although I place but little con- fidence in them in determining a religious duty any farther than they accord with the holy Scriptures. — Socrates, whose history extends from about A. D. 310, to A. D. 440, states that for more that three hundred years, almost all the Churches in the world received the holy mysteries every Sabbath, except- ing those of Rome and Alexandria. And yet Dr. Cave and R. Cornthwait quote Athanasius, Bishop of the latter city, as saying, '* We assemble on Satur- day, not that we are infected with Judaism, but only to worship Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath. *' Sozo* 1*76 SABBATH DISCUSSION. men, whose history refers to the same period, gives much the same account. These authors have been admitted by subsequent writers to have been correct in their statements. Dr. Chambers, ( Encyc. Art. Sunday, ) when speaking of Constantino, says, '' be- fore him, and in his time, they observed the Sabbath as well as Sunday ; both to satisfy the law of Moses and to imitate the Apostles, ^^ Calvin, in his Christ. Inst. chap. 9, says, " the old fathers put in the place of the Sabbath, the day we call Sunday. '' Grotius, in his Explicafio7i of the Decalogue, as quoted by Cornthwait, says, '' the Christians who believed that Christ would restore all things, kept holy the Sab- bath, and had their assemblies on that day, in which the law was read to them, as appears by Acts xv. 21. which custom continued to the time of the council of Laodicea, ( about 335 ) who then thought meet that the Gospels should also be read on that day. '' M. Dela Roque, a French Protestant, in answer to Bossuet, observes : Mr. Bossuet tells us of the ob- servation of the Sabbath was a thing taken for grant- ed in the Church. He has reason to say so ; and the learned Grotius has imanswerably proved it mfhis re- marks upon the decalogue. What consequences should we draw from these premises 1 Certainly this, as it evidently appears that before any change was introduced, she religiously observed that day for many ages. We of consequence are obliged to keep it. " A quotation from Morer shall close these cita- tions on this point. " Socrates tell us that all the Churches over the world, excepting Rome and Al- exandria, set apart as well Saturday as Sunday for religious uses. Even the Egyptians, and those that dwelt at Thebais, borderers on Alexandria, complied and had on both days prayers and collections. '^ — SABBATH DISCUSSION. 177 Sozomen has the same exceptions of Rome and Al- exandria, but ( to use his own words ) ail, or most of the other Churches carefully observe the Sabbath. — And so great stress was laid on keeping it, that Gregory Nyssen expostulates thus, " With what eyes can you behold the Lord^s day when you des- pise the Sabbath ? Do you not perceive they are sisters and that in slighting the one you affront the the other. '^ And as sisters they went hand in hand in the ecclesiastical canons. " If any clergyman be found fasting on the Lord's day or on the Sabbath, let him be suspended. " Can. 66. And in the sixth council of Trullo, the canons obliged all people to fast throughout Lent, except on the Sabbath and the Lord's day. And so they are joined together in 49 and 51 of the council ofLaodicea. " In some, " says Balsamon, " the holy fathers make the Sabbath and the Lord's day to stand on the same ground , and they were equally respected in ancient times. " In the proceeding remarks, I have shown, 1. That the texts cited from the New Testament to prove the abrogation of the Sabbath, do not refer to the subject, and therefore cannot prove it. 2. That the inspired writers David and Isaiah, intimated that no change would take place in regard to the law of the Sabbath in the Gospel dispensation. 3. That our Lord con- firmed it, together with the whole decalogue, as a law to the Church, and intimated its continuance after his death. 4. That the apostles and primative Church, by their constant attendance on the worship of God upon the Sabbath, give ample evidence that no change had taken place in their time. 5. That from their apparent attachment to many of the abol- ished ceremonies of that dispensation, they leave us no ground to imagine that they thought the Sabbath 178 SABBATH DISCUSSION. was abolished, or the day changed. 6. That there was no complaint, or difficulty, between the Jews and Christians ; nor between the Christians them- selves on account of any difference between them on the subject of the Sabbath ; which there would have been, had such difference existed. And 7. From numerous citations from ancient and modern Chris- tian writers, it appears that the Sabbath for many ages was regarded out of respect to the fourth com- mandment. The only just conclusions we can draw from these facts, are,^ 1. That whatever regard was paid to the first day, the Sabbath was not abrogated, nor tlie time of its observance changed. 2. That to assert that the primitive Churches assembled not on the Sabbath, nor attended upon Gospel ordinances on that day is plainly at variance with facts. 3. — That it was not only the Jewish part of the Church that thus regarded the Sabbath ; but by far the greatest part of the Gentile Christians, and this not for a short season only, but for several hundred years. 4. That it was not a matter of forbearance on the part of the Gentile Christians, that their Jewish brethren were allowed thus to keep the Sab- bath, but that the Gentiles themselves were strenuou in enforcing its observance. 5. That the observ- ance of the Sabbath was not the result of a misera- ble declension^ as some good and learned men have asserted ; but on the contrary, that it was relin- quished in the age of the greatest darkness and de- clension, that ever oppressed the Chur^^h. And fi- nally, as no change of the Sabbath took place in the age of inspiration, there has been no authorized change since. The Church and the world are there- fore bound to observe it. SABBATH DISCUSSION^. 179 I have in this letter traced the evidence which relates to the Sabbath, without particularly atten- ding to the claims of the first day of the week. — I intend, however, not to neglect them. I remain yours in the Lord, WM. B. MAXSON LETTER XVill. To THK Rev. Wm. Parkinson. Becemher 11, 1835. Dear Brother, — Agreeably to the intimation in my last, I will novv endeavor to investigate the claims of the first day of the v/eek to sanctification. In exam- ining this subject, however, let it be remembered, that I am not looking for evidence to strengthen the obli- gation due to the seventh day : for this is effectually enforced by the fourth commandment of the deca- logue. And we have already proved that this pre- cept has never been abrogated : nor has there befen any evidence offered to prove that the first day has ever been, by Divine authority substituted for the seventh. If, then, there should be found sufficient authority for observing the first day, the consequence is, we have two Sabbaths in a week instead of one. In my letter of Nov. 13th, I proved the improprie- ty of claiming any advantage for the first day on ac- count of its being the first day of creation ; as God has decided otherwise by appointing the seventh and last day of the week : And also, that the analogy sought for in the falling of manna in the wilder- ness, is entirely uncertain ; and therefore, not enti- tled to any weight in this question. It remains for me to consider your second reason in favor of keeping SABBATH DISCUSSION, 181 the first day, viz : That it is validly the day of re-^ demption. The argument you offer in support of this reason, however plausible it may appear, is attended witii entire uncertainty, as it proceeds wholly upon as- sumption. For the Scriptures do not inform us that the resurrection was validly redemption ; or that the day on which it occurred, was to be esteemed on that account. Were you to abide by your first rea- son for celebrating this day, viz : That it was em- fhatically the creation day, because God began his work on this day ; you would find it difficult to con- sider the day of Christ's birth in any other light than as the day of redemption. Christ began his woi'k then, and as a suffering Saviour, closed it on the Cross, when he said, " It is finished, and bowed his head and gave up the ghost. '^ To this important transaction, do the holy Scriptures direct us for what was emphatically the work of redemption ; in this sense, the day on which Christ suffered, was the day of redemption. By tho death of Christ, God hath commended his love to us while we were sinners. — Rom. V. 8. The Church is purchased by the blood of Christ. Acts xx. 28. By this also she is reconciled, justified, and saved. See Eph. ii. 13. I Peter i. 18, 19. Rev. V. 9. Much more of the like import might be cited, but these are sufficient to show how much stress^the Scriptures lay upon the death of Christ. From this, all the influence his resurrection has upon the joy and triumph of his disciples, is derived. The resurrection, although a great and joyful event, was tmlike, in magnanimity, the disinterested act of of- fering himself a sacrifice for us. This has, in truth, out-shone any other act our Lord could have per- formed. In short, if the Work of Redemption was not validly completed on the Cross, it will not be un- L 182 SABBATH DISCUSSION- til Christ shall have finished his mediatorial work. — This argument, then, however plausible, and gener- ally concurred in, is powerless in regard to the insti- tution of the first day ; because it is unaccompanied with a " Thus saith the Lord.*' Hence the difficul- ty ol* understanding how the resurrection could con- stitute the day on which it occurred, the proper sea- son for Christian vvorship, rather than the Nativity y the Crucijixion, or the Ascension, The whole preference claimed for the first day must rest upon the certainty of its being the day of the res- urrection. I do not recollect that I have danied ei- ther this, or that our Lord was crucified on the sixth day ; although I have given you to understand that I inclined to another opinion. Although Mr. Burnside agrees with you as to the time of these events, I can- not say that I am convinced of the accuracy of your illustrations. My reasons for dissenting from you are — 1. The definite manner in which Christ predicted the length of time he would lie in the grave. Matt, xii. 40, leads me to believe that he designed to signi- fy that a longer period should elapse from his burial to his resurrection, than is generally allowed. We are unquestionably bound to understand this predic- tion as we do other parts of inspiration ( in its most obvious sense ) if it can be done without violence to the other forms in which the prediction was uttered. Hence, " in three days," " the third day, *' "after three days, " and " three days, and three nights,'' are to be understood in that sense in which all these parallel texts will unite, and the latter is certainly the inost definite. Allowing that Christ accomplished the full term of three days and three nights in the sepul- chre, all these forms of the prediction are harmonized, but not otherwise. It is evident the Jews so under- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 19S jgtood the prediction from what they said to Pilate the day after the crucifixion : " we remember that that deceiver said, After three days I will rise again. '"' — Matt, xxvii. 63. 2. I am inclined to the opinion, that Christ fulfil- led his predicted period in the grave, from his making the case of Jonah typical of his own. Now we are told that *' Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." Jon. i, 17. There can be no doubt but Jonah was in his wretched prison the full term here mentioned, at least, the greater part of each respective day and night — otherwise, the nar- rative is calculated to convey error rather than truth, which cannot be admitted. As the three days were accomplished by Jonah, so they were by Christ. 3, Another fact which strengthens this opinion is, this definite prediction was uttered by Jesus in reply to the Jews, vvho asked him for a sign ; that is, g, sign that he was the expected Messiah. He was probably the more precise in his expressions on this account, that they might have the fairest opportuni- ty of bemg convinced of tlie truth. Had the sepulchre been vacated before the appointed time, there would have been more difficulty in convincing them that he was actually risen from the dead. I am not igno- rant of the fact, that the Jews were not always ex- act in their manner of expressing a number of days ; but I believe a parallel case cannot be furnished from the Scriptures, where a term as definitely expressed as this, was not fulfilled. And if it be as you have stated (Letter 1, Jan. 30) that this mode was pursued only in regard to sacred time, it has no influence in this case : for it was not mentioned, nor understood as a sacred, or religious season. We are sometimes referred to the case of Esther, which is said to be similar, *' Go, neither eat nor drink three days, night l2 184 SABBATH DISCUSSION* nor day, and so I will go in unto the king. " It fol- lows that on the third day she stood in the court of the king's house. Est. iv. 16, and v* 1. But therfe is not the slightest evidence that the fast was not ob- served the full term of three days, night and day. — Although the Jews sometimes so counted their days, they had no fixed rule for this. They sometimes made the number less than what it was. An instance of this occurs in Matt. xvii. 1, and in Luke ix. 28. — They both record the same events ; the former says it was after six days : the latter " ai)out eight days after. *^ In this example, Matthew omitted two days which were counted by Luke. When a night and a day a.re mentioned as in the case of Paul, 11 Cor. xi. 25j we must suppose that, at least, the greater part of both are intended ; or, for what intent are both night and day mentioned at all ? Upon the suppo- sition, that the shortest pei'iod of time is to be con- sidered equal to a day and a night. Paul may only have fallen overboard, and immediately been extri- cated ; but we might as well deny the truth of the Apostle's assertion, as to contend for it in this sense. I conceive the same accuracy should be admitted in the fulfillment of the three days and three nights, which Christ lay in the grave, that is allowed in the case of Paul. 4. We are informed in Luke xxiii. 56, that after the burial, the females who attended the solemnity, returned and prepared spices and ointments for em- balming, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. The labor here said to be per- formed was not inconsiderable. They did not obtain those articles prepared at their hands. This labor must occupy time ; but no time is allowed in which it could have been done, unless a season in which it was lawful to labor intervened. It certainly was SABBATH DISCUSSION. 185 not done on the weekly Sabbath, for on that day they rested. The paschci] Sabbath too, v/as a day in which work would not have been allowed. Although females were not enjoined to appear in the public as- i5embly, they as well as males were forbidden to la- bor. See Lev. xxiii. 7. Allowing a season for work to intervene between the burial and the commence- Tnent of the weekly Sabbath, and that the convo- cation day was not thus employed, we account for the full term for which 1 contend. You seem to be very confident that our Lord suiTered on the sixtli day because it was the day before the Sabbath. This however, is altogether inconclusive ; since the feast of unleavened bread was always denominated a Sab- bath, let it fall on which ever day of the v/eek it might. That it was not a common Sabbath, is evident from John xix. 31, where it is said 'Mhat Sabbath was a high day. " As no evidence is given that the weekly Sabbath was designed, I am at liberty to believe that the Sabbath of the passover only was intended. As there is no evidence that the day in question was the weekly Sabbath, so there is none that there were two preparations on the preceding day. The Scrip- tures mention it only as the prcvaratioji of the pass- over. From the foregoing statement of facts, it is probable that our Lord suffered on the fourth day of the week, rather than on the sixth. Respecting the time of our Lord's resurrection, I have no particular interest, besides what is imposed upon me by consistency. I have already shown that no duty is settled by it. I have no objections to its having occurred on the first day of the week ; but, as the Scriptures do not state, nor necessarily imply that it took place on that day, I am under no obligation to believe it, excepting what is due to general opinion. Still; it maybe proper to state, that as Jesus was inter- 186 SABBATII DISCCrsSION. red in the evening, or a little before the setting of the sun on the preparation, three complete days which he was to lie in the grave, would point out the evening as the time of his resurrection. Hence I am inclined to believe that this glorious event occurred not far from the close of the weekly Sabbath. Mat. thew states that, "in the end [Gr. eveningj of the Sab- bath, when it began to dawn [Gr. draw on] towards the first day of the week, '■ the women came to see the sepulchre. And there had been an earthquake, an angel had descended and rolled the stone from the door, and sat upon it when they arrived. The Sa- viour was then risen and gone, and this appears to be not far from the time the event took place. For this understanding of this text, and a defense of it, I refer the reader to Parkhurst, and Mackniorht. There is no contradiction between this text thus understood, and the testimony of the other evangelists who re- cord a visit of the women to the sepulchre in the morning. Two visits are recorded, and the circum- stances connected with them are sufficiently distinct to show that two visits were made. All the attempts at harmonizing these different accounts and reconci- ling them to one visit, have been, in my opinion, at the expense of consistency. This passage thus un- derstood is conclusive evidence that the resurrection occurred that evening, for the sepulchre was empt}-. The foregoing calculations in regard to the time of our Lord's death and resurrection, are not unaided' by prophecy. I refer to Daniel ix. 27, where it is said, " In the midst of the week he [Messiah] shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease." The weeks mentioned in the preceding verses, are un- questionably prophetic weeks, and point out the time of Israel's captivity, and the incarnation of the Lord Jesus. But the event has shown, that " The SABBATH BISCUSBION* 187 midst of the week," while it predicts the sacrificial of- fering of Christ upon the Cross, whei-eby he caused every legal sacrifice and oblation to cease, is subject to a more literal construction : and points out the pre- cise day of the week on which Christ should sutfer. To the resurrection of Christ in the evening of the Sabbath, I am aware that the words of the two disciples, whiJe on their way to Emmaus, Luke xxiv. 21, " To-day is the third day since these things were done • ' seem to present an objection : for they are thought to be equivalent to saying that Jesus rose on that day. It is liowever much easier to reconcile the words o[ these arly pro- ved, it would not render it the most proper season for Christian worship, without a Divine appointment to this effect. Again. You have plead iis fitness for tliis purpose, from the supposition that the manna, began to fall in the wilderness on this day — that it was typ- ical of Gospel gTace, and from the extraordinary out-pouring of the Spirit on the day of 2:)entecost ; which you are confident was upon the first day. I have considered it a sufficient refutation of this argu- ment that the main point, viz. the falling of die manna on the first day of the week, was merely an assump- tion and that no certain conclusions can be dra^vn from uncertain premises. I have ( Letter 7, Dec. 4 ) proved l)eyond successful contradiction that the sev- enth day Sabbath was recognized and observed by the apostolic and primitive Church. I have also ( Letter 8, Dec. 11 ) investigated the claims of the first day of the week ; and I have adduced evidence tliat the most prominent act of our Lord in the work of redemp- tion, was dying for our sins : that the Scriptures are uniformly explicit on this point ; and therefore, the day of his death was validly the day |of Redemption, rather than the day of his resurrection. I have also evinced the improbability of the crucifixion occurring on the sixth day, from the probability that three days and three nights were accomplished in the sepulchre. — -From the uncertainty that these three days and three nights were counted by any peculiar Jewish method of reckoning. — From the fact that Christ was interred nearly at sunset, and that the pious females who attended, returned to the city and prepared oint- N tl4 SABBATH DISCUSSION.' ments and spices before the weekly Sabbath commeiv ced ; I inferred the probabihty that a day in which it was lawful to labor intervened between the burial and the commencement of the weekly Sabbath on which- they rested, 1 evinced tlje improbability that tho great Sabbath which inimed lately followed the cru- cifixion was- the weekly Sabbath, from the foct, that- the feasts of unleavened-bread was uniformly and scripturally called a Sabbath, let it fall on which day of the^ week it may. And also from the prophecy of Daniel, which ]>oints out the fourth day of the week as the day on which Christ slioald be crucified. Hence the evening of the Sabbath was marked as the predict- cMitime of th:? resurrection, agreeably to the record in Matt, xxviii. 1. And have shown that the Scriptures present the least difficulty upon this calculation. You have gone to some length to prove that Christ ate his last passover a day sooner than tlie time appointed by the^letw. In my reply I proved (as I believe ) that tlie Jews made void the law through their tradition, aaid deferred eating it to a day later than the legal time ;. but th^ Christ fLdfilled the law in this particular, afl well as in all other things. Hence, I have proved that the subsequent feasts of Pentecost did not fall up- on the Brst day of the week as is frequently asserted. In my last letter I have explained to you the grounds ofihe objection to the supplied word, day^ in the trans- lation of Vila ton sabhatofi, by showing that it literally signlfios, one of the Sabbaths, and that it is doubtful whether it were ever rendered the first day of tha week, until Protestants so construed it, I have also attentively noticed all the acts of our Lord and his dis- ciples, referred to, as conferring honor upon this day ; or as pointing it out as the proper season for Christian worship, and have fully shown that they afford neither example nor precept for its observance. And finally, SABBATH DISCUSSION. 215 fKave evinced the impropriety of introducing- as evF- sAjJij^XH, Discusjsjojjr. hdtXh, ; as well a^s of infant as-per^sion, iipistesd of adult baptism. In^ shaking off Popery, they retained these ei^iTpr?, and tlieny but not till then, they attempted to. SLLgta-iii them by the Scriptures. Hence, all the thep- n§§, ( fo;' they are many ) which are resorted to for thp, pW'pQse of viAdicating the observaace of the first day of, the week are unsound, being foimded in errone- - short of civil law, and legal penalties, could restrain it in its pursuits after Avealth and pleasure. 1 will here remark, that it is unjust to excite preju- dice, and contempt for the day which God has sancti- fied, and claims as his Sab7)afh — calling it, " t/ie lioly of the Lord, " by terming it the Jewish Sabbath, and representing its observance as Judaism, and cen- surable among Christians. Whatever may be tlie motive of those who do it ; the practice is not only wrong, l:iut ag-ainst the la^v of Christian kindness.— It represents the observance of the Sabbath as con- temptible, and is considered by Sabbath-keepers, in the same light that their brethren of the first day would view the custom of calling the day they observed the RomisJi Sabhath. Undoubtly they would be sensitive to this ungenerous course. Let the day be called what the Scriptures call it, and it will be suflficiently distinguished from the other days of th^ week. Respecting the question of evangelical correctness, you will allow, I think, that the person who believes SIS SABBATH DISCUSSION- thefourtTi commandment to be in force, and accordingrj^ observes the Sabbatli, lias a stronger claim to it, than: those "who acknowledge its authority, and yet disre- gard the day it enjoins. I do not wish to be unreasonably confident in the correctness of my views. I may have erred : if so, I hav^^e erred in a matter of no small consequence ; and I shall hold that man to be my friend, who will cor- i*ect me with a " Thus saitTi the Loi'd. "■ If I and my brethren are as conscientious in regaj-d to this subject as you consider us to be — we may yet be conscien- tiously ivrong. I admit that education and habit have a great influence in forming, and governing conscience. Still, as great as is the danger of our being misguided thereby, it should be recollected, that this influence is more than counterbalanced by the loss of worldly in- terest and convenience. It should also be remem- bered, that our friends who differ from us in the ob- servance of the Sabbath, are exposed to still gi'eater danger from the combined influence of education^ worldly interest, convenience and respccfahilky. I s incerely reciprocate your kind wish,es for me. — May it please Grod in the riches af his grace to cheer your advanced age with, the constant assurance of that rest Avhich remains for the people of God. I remain your frien-d and brother in Christ, W. B. MAXSON . ■LETTER XXI. To THE Rev. Wm. B. Maxson. Fehruary 26, and March 4, 1836. Dear Brotber, — To account for my long silence, please to recollect that your series, in rcpiy to mine, closed at about the commencement of tiie year, a sea- son when pastors in this city ai'e expected to mak-e txnd receive more visits than usual, and to perform other extra services. I have not treated your letters with neglect : for, besides reading each when it ap- peared, since the publication of the last, I have reaci them aPi carefully and thoughtfully over. I candidly acknowledge that they are ably and respectfully written, and am glad to find that they contain about all the strength of the Sabbatarian cause. But, strange as it may seem to you, \ conscientiously say that, in my opinion, tl>ey leave my views of the sab- batic institution wholly unshaken. Nevertheless, as you have succeeded so well in giving a show of plau- eibility to your own views and in spreading a cloud of words over mine, I deem it incumbent upon me to make a rejoinder. In doing this, however, I shall not minutely trace the course of your letters, form- ally noticing every thing you have advanced under the appearance of an argument or an objection, T many of them being refuted by my former series,)-? bul 220 SJLBBATll DlSCCrSSrOr^', shall endeavor to bring the wide-spread discussiofi tc> a few points. According to your own avowal, (February 27, 1835, ) the chief matter of difference between us re- spects the decalogue ; and this you have, at length, brought to a very narrow compass. You agree with me, — 1. That the decalogue is a verbal copy of the moral law, that is, of the law of nature — that it ex- presses the standard of morality under which man was made, and that, by consequence, it was binding on Adam and all his posterity as such. 2. That the fourth commandment *' ^s both moral and positive — moral as to the appointment of a season for the rest and devotion, and positive as to the appointment of the seventh and last day of the weel- for this purpose ; *' October 16, 1835. 3. That the day of the week specified by the falling of the manna, and recognized by the fourth commandment, was the same day, in weekly rotation, that God sanctified from the begin- ning;'' October 23, 1835, and January 1 and 8, .1836. And 4. That "the Jewish Sabbath was abolished ; '' as you positively assert. November 1^, 1835. By this assertion, taken in iia connection, nc- reader, it is true, can understand you to mean that the duty of observing the seventh day was abolished. But, recollect, you presently go on to say of the sab- batic law delivered to the Jews, " It embraced nc- new prohibitions, and enjoined no new duties. ' * What, then, was abolished 1 Here you must per- ceive that, what you ( under date last referred to ) say devolves on me, devolves equally on yourself; namely, ."to show that there is a substantial differ- ence between the Sabbath originally instituted and the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.'' For, if there was no such difference between the two, ho\Y SABBATH DISCUSSION. ^21 could *' the Jewish Sabbath," which certainly was the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, be abolished while the original Sabbath remained, as you contend it did, and does. To me it is very obvious, that the weekly day of sacred rest was the same under the Mosaic dispensation that had been sanctified from the beginning. But the fourth commandment, both as delivered ( Exo. xx. ) and as recapitulated, ( Deut. v. ) contains prohibitions and enjoins duties v/hich could never have been known by the record in Gen. ii. 1 — 3 ; however so7ne of them may be now inferred from that record, by the light of the commandment. And I firmly believe that some of the prohibitions and injunctions^ contained in the fourth command- ment were never understood as appertaining to the Sabbath, nor observed as such, until they were made known to Israel after their exodus from Egypt. For, if these prohibitions and injunctions had been under- stood and observed by the Israelites before, what ne- cessity was there for the special directions which, by revelation, were given to them respecting the manna ? — to wit, that the double quantity thereof that would fall on the sixth day, must on that day be prepared for eating, that the portion thereof allotted for the Sabbath might be in perfect readiness. Exo, xvi. 5, 23. And, admitting that the specifications of duty, negative and positive, embraced in the fourth com- mandment, to remain in force, are not many Sab- batarians, at every return of the seventh day, guilty of Sabbath-breaking ] Is all their food for the seventh day cooked on the sixth ? and are their servants and horses entirely exempt from service on the seventh ? Besides, all subsequent injunctions and prohibitions regarding the observance of the Sabbath, with all tlie penalties annexed to the smallest violations thereof, must be understood as sustained bv the tenor of the S22 SABBATH DISCUSSION. fourth commandment. Thus sustained, therefore, was the following : " Six days shall work be done ; but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord : whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. '" And further, to show the strictness of the mandate, the Lawgiver adds, *' Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habi- tations upon the Sabbath day. '' Exo. xxxv. 2, 3. Compare chap. xxxi. 15. So fearful, indeed, was the penalty annexed to the violation of the Sabbath, that when an Israelite was found gathering sticks npon a Sabbath day, even Moses did not venture to put the law in force against him till he had inquired of the Lord ; hoping, perhaps, that so small an of- fense might not require the death of the offender ; or, if it did, that he might know the manner, which had not yet been revealed. " And the Lord, '' to de- cide both questions, " said unto Moses, The man shall surely he put to death ; all the congregation shall stone him without the camp ; '' and which was accordingly done. Numb. xv. 32 — 36. Extra sac- rifices, too, were required on the Sabbath, Numb, xxviii. 9, 10. Did the fourth commandment, then, with the sub- sequent precepts founded upon it and explanatory of it, *' embrace no new prohibitions, and enjoin no new duties 1 '"' That there is nothing required by tlie fourth commandment which is inconsistent with the record in Gen. ii. 2, 3, I admit ; but if the Creator had required all the sabbatic duties by the original institution of the Sabbath which he afterwards re- quired by the fourth commandment, and precepts ex- planatory of it, there can be no reasonable doubt that he would have expressed them, either in the record of the institution itself, or in some additional explari- atioi) of that record. To say, as some have done, SABBATH DISCUSSION. 223 that Adam's condition when he received the sabbatic institution, accounts for the omission of duties speci- fied in the fourth commandment, is manifestly futile; for, though he then had neither son nor daughter, man-servant nor maid-servant, the institution, as we both believe, extended to his posterity, among whom all these co-relations soon existed. Now, my brother, I again ask, what do you mean when you say, "the Jewish Sabbath was abolished 1 '^ If you mean that only the ceremonial appendages to the Sabbath were abolished, with the other rites of . Just as well, and for a much stronger reason, might a Jew say that the ^vhole Christian community "You impeach the wis- dom of God, in saying that He indeed, instituted Ju- daism, \vith all its solemnities ; and yet, that, being disappointed in its effects, He sent his Son to abolish it.'' — Or, when we say, " All the ceremonies of the le- gal dispensation were only to prefigure Christ, and therefore, that they answered the ends of their insti- tution; " — might not the Jew again say, "This im- plies a still greater impeachment of God's wisdom ; for if indeed He intended to ma.ifest his Son in human nature, and to accept his sacrifice as an atonement for the sins of men, why did He defer it so long — ^vhy did he keep mankind in abe^^ance by promises and shadows four thousand years 1 — if the incarnation and death cjf his Son was ever necessary, it was so 262 SABBATH DISCUSSION. froin the beginning. " We, it is true should agree m telling the Jew, that we see much of the wisdom of God in his having adopted this method ; it serves to show the eternity of his purpose to save sinners thiough the Media tar, and enables all who read the Old Testa- ment, (if not wilfully blind,) to see that Christ came according to promises, predictions, and types, never fulfilled or realized in any other ; that, withal, he was virtuoJly " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ;" and that all who believed in him from the beginning, were sa,ved by him, Heb. vii. 12 ; xi. 18 ; Rev. xiii. 8. So I behold a great display of the wis- dom of God, in his having appointed the seventh day of the week to be sabbatically observed ; it was not merely to commemorate his works of creation, but also his rest thercfi'om : " God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it ; because that in it he had rested from all his work." Gen. ii. 3. The seventh day rest, however, was designed not only to commemorate what \vas past, but also typically to symbolize what was then future ; namely, that rest which God, as a God of justice, constantly required, and which, " in the fulness of time," he actually found in the vicarious death of Christ, Avho, agreeably to covenant engagement, made himself, for all he represented, " an oftering and- a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savor." Eph. V. 2. Thus Christ, by fulfilling the Father's law, which was in 7iis heart, ( Ps. xi. 8,) became the anti- type of the ark, in which both tables of the law were kept inviolate ; Exo. xl. 20. Dcut. x. 5 ; and his atonement which was satisfactory to divine justice,, became the antitype of the mercy seat which, covering the law in the ark, w^as God's resting place. I Chron. vi. 41. Comp. Rom. iii. 25, 26. Accordingly when the Jews, in the latter day, the ten tribes as well as the two, shall be gathered fi'om t;heir present disper- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 253 sloiis into their o\vn land, and be converted to the faith of the Gospel, they will no longer regard the arh^ having embraced its Antitype, and being under evangelical 'pastors. They will ilic7i^ as believing Gentiles do now, behold God by faith, as the God of grace, enthroned in Christ his chosen rest, and ack- nowledge and worship him as such, in the ne^v Jeru- salem, \he Gco&'^el ChuvcAi. See Jer. iii. 16 — -19. — It is absurd to refer this prophecy, as many do, to the return of the Jews from Babylon. Were all nations then gathered to Jerusalem ? Have the Jews never since walked after the Imagination of their evil heart "l ver. 17. Did the house of Judah, the two tribes, then walk with the house of Israel, the ten tribes % ver. 18. There is only an allusion to their return from Babylon , as in Hosea ii. 15, to their exodus from Egy23t. Comp. Ezek. xxxvii 19- — 28. Observe, hovv^ever, that the true resting place for divine justice, was not found in any provisions of the legal dispensa- tion ; " for the lav/ made nothing perfect ; " Heb. vii. 19 ; and therefore, that the symbol of the rest deman- ded, was continued in the observance of the seventh- day Sabbath, till it was realized in Christ. But when Christ, as noticed in my former series, had, on the sixth day, finished his covenanted sufferings on the cross, and, on the seventh his predicted humiliation in the tomb, the Father, as the Lawgiver and the God of Justice, in acknowledgment that m Z??m he had found a satisfactory /est, raised him on the frst day of the w^eek, and released him as the Surety of his people, Rom. iv. 25. Hence, — 2. As a very important reason for observing the frst day of the week, I contend that it was validlf/ the re- demption-day. According to prophecy,Christ's resurrec- tion was his own redemption. Ps. xlix. 9, 15. Actis ii. 31 ; xiii. 35 — 37. But till Christ himself vras redeemecl, 254 SABBATH DISCUSSION. that is, released from any further demands of law or justice, surely none whom he represented could be released or justified on his account. His official re- lease, indeed, shows that he had previously completed the full extent of his stipulated sufferings and humila- tion, and therefore, that he had " made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteous- ness ;" yet the acknowledgment of it, and therefore its validity^ was in his discharge, at his resurrection ; "If Christ be not raised, '^ said Paul to believers, " your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. -^ — I Cor. XV. 17. " But now'' adds he, verse 20, " is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits, '^ &c. ; wherein he was the antitype of the sheaf of first fruits presented on the morrow after the Sabbath. Levit. xxiii. 11. That the Sabbath du- ring which Christ lay in the tomb, was not only, as you contend, the first of the two convocational Sab- baths appertaining to the feast of unleavened bread, but likewise the weekly Sabbath — and, therefore, that Christ v/as crucified on the sixth day of the week, commonly called Friday, and raised on the Jirst day of the week, commonly called Sunday, I have proved to the satisfaction of any unprejudiced mind, in my letter of August 7, 1835. You do not, indeed, venture to deny that Christ was crucified on the sixth and raised on the Jirst day day of the week) ; yet ['j^ou make a feeble effort to render it doubtful. All j^ou say, however, to pro- duce and to fasten this doubt, is a mere contortion of the question, whether Christ lay three entire days and nights in the tomb, or only the whole of the Sab- l;ath, with part of the sixth and part of the frst day. The latter side of this question is so universally con- curred in by learned commentators and theologians, that 1 think it needless to add any thing, but to refer SABBATH DISCUSSIOxV* 255 you to my letter published January 30, 1835. Your remark, that according to this mode of calculation, Paul might have fallen overboard, and presently have been taken out of the water, though true, is re- ally frivolous. I neither said nor thought that he was less than a day and a night in the deep ; but referred to his words, in II Cor. xi. 25, merely to prove that a niichthemeron, a night-day, means a natural day of twenty-four hours ; yet showing that, in the Jewish calculation, both the day within v/hich any state of things commenced, and that within v/hich it ended, were included in the number of days during which it was said such a state of things last- ed. The same mode of calculation indeed, obtains among us. A meeting, for instance, that begins on Saturday afternoon, and ends on Monday morning, is often called " a three days' meeting. Changing the former order of ideas, I proceed to mention, — 3. The Redeemer's ascension-gift of the Holy Ghost, bestowed on the first day of the week, and which certainly was a very memorable distinction of this day. Here again I find you, as Bunyan says, in "doubting castle." But, however much you doubt it, the Scriptures plainly show that the pente- cost, which next succeeded the passover at Avhich Christ suffered, fell on the first day of the week. Christ died on "the day before the Sabbath." Mark XV. 42. Compare Luke xxiii. 54 — 56. And that he rose on the Jirst of the week, is asserted by all the evangelists. Hence, beginning with the morrow after the Sabbath, that is, the morrow after the first of the con vocational sabbaths appertaining to the feast of unleavened bread, which Sabbath I have proved to have concurred, at that season, with the weeklv Sab' ^56 SABBATH DISCUSSION. bath, — beginning, I say, with that morrow, the very- day on which Christ arose, and counting off seven sabbaths, that is, weeks, or fourty-nine days, as the law required, they are found to end with a weekly Sabbath ; so that the fiftieth day, which was the day of PENTKcosT, 7nust havc been the first day of the week. See Levit. xxiii. 15, 16. To evade the force of this obvious fact, you say, in one of your letters, something like the following : — If we could even ad- mit that the day of pentecost in question fell on the first day of the week, the descent of the Spirit on that day was not to honor it as the first of the week, or as the resurrection-day of Christ, but as the day of pentecost. Shocking to come from the pen of a Christian ! What! did Christ come to abolish Juda- ish — did he 7iail its lohole ritual to Ms cross ; and yet did he shed down the Spirit as if purposely to confirm and perpetuate it ! Oh ! my brother, think more consistently, and never publish nor utter such a sentiment again. But to return. As the Gospel, after the resurrection of Christ, was not preached till on the day of pentecost, and which, that year, fell on the first day of the week, our Lord, who had so directed, (Luke xxiv. 49,) herein evidently indicated his purpose, that this day, in its weekly returns, should constantly be observed as a day of public worship — a day that his disciples should spend in prayer and thanksgiving, and espe- cially in publishing the Gospel to all that should as- semble. Again, therefore, I exclaim, this is the day which the Lord hath made ; as an appropriate symbol of our present rest under the Gospel, and of our future and final rest in heaven ; ice u'ill rejoice and J?e glad in it. Ps. cxviii. 24. SABBATH DISCUSSION* 257 April 15, 1836. That the Lord would distinguish the first day of the week, under the Gospel, as a day of spiritual feasting and gladness, he was pleased to pre-signity, choosing it as the day on which he first granted the manna. Can you be serious when you say, " This is a mere assumption '? '' 1 have indeed shown, by a rational chronology of the events recorded in Exo. xvi., that the manna must have begun to fall on the 18th day af the month, and not on the 16th, as com- monly supposed. But what has this to do with the matter in question 1 You surely have intellect enough to perceive that a week of seven days is the same, on whatever day of the month it begins or ends ; also that the seventh or last day of a week necessarily supposes that week to include six prece- ding days, and no more nor less. Now, that the Sabbath mentioned in Exo. xvi. 23, was the seventh day of the week, who will not deny. And the double quantity of manna granted on the sixth day, that there might be a supply for the Sabbath, on " which none fell, shows that, during the six days, it fell " daily,'' or " every day,'' as asserted in the 4th and 5th versos. But as it fell every day for 5i\rdays, on the last of which a double quantity indicated a sabbatic suspension on the next day, even a child can perceive that the falling of it must have com- menced on the first day of the the week. To tell me, therefore, that J assume this point, is equivalent to telling me that I have not mind enough to count seven, at least not to count seven backward. Besides, that the following weeks for about forty years, were successively measured in like manner, you cannot deny. See verses 26 and 35. Your suggestion that the manna might have begun to fall some days he- fore the first day of that week, is a mere subterfuge. 258 SABBATH DISCUSSION. As the Israelites, at that time, had no other suste- nance, they doubtless gathered the manna as soon as it was made known to them, and that was on the Jirst day it fell. See verse 3, and from verse 14 to verse 19. " And they gathered it every morning," (ver. 21.) " And it came to pass, (as promised ver. 5,) that on the Six/A day (of its falling, and of tlio week thereby measured,) they gathered twice as much," (fee. (ver. 22,) the reason for which, as giv- en in ver 23, was that the next day, the seventh, was the Sabbath. Nor is it any less evident, that the manna thus given, was typical of Christ, the true bread from heaven ; and especially as he is exhibited to believ- ers in the Gospel and its ordinances ; and as he, being received and fed on by faith, renews our strength day by day. See John vi. 3132. I[ Cor. iv. 16 ; viii. 15 ; and Rev. ii. 17 ; compared with Exo. xvi. 18. Your intimation that Clirist could not be the an- titype of the manna, because the manna, is called *' angels' food," I consider as another instance of reprehensible inconsideration. We know, indeed, that the manna (in Vs. Ixxviii. 24, 25,) is called the *' corn of heaven," and " angels' food ;" yet, who but an idiot ever supposed that it is so called because the inhabitans of heaven (immaterial spirits !) live on manna, or any other material substance ? The manna is called " the corn of heaven," probably, because it was rained from the clouds of heaven ; Exo. xvi. 4 ; and was the gift of God ; Neh. ix. 15. John vi. 31 ; and it is called "angels' food," because, proba.bly when God had produced it, he employed angels in collecting it, and in directing its daily descent to the camp of Israel ; and hence, by allusion thereto, Gospel ministers are sometimes SABBATH DISCUSSION. 259 Galled angels, that is, messengers ; because Christ employs them in collecting the edifying truths which are revey.lcd concerning himself the true bread, and in dispensing the same to tlie sojourners in the camp of his spiritual Israel. " the Church of the living God." See Matt, xxiv. 31. Rev. i. 20. Also my Sermons on Deut. xxxiii vol. i. p. 72, To evade the manifest fact, that God, by the fall- ing of the manna, renewed to Israel the certain knowledge of the seventh day, in its weekly returns, you affect to believe that the Jews, to the end of their stay in Egypt, retained that knowledge, by a weekly observance of the Sabbath, and that they brought both the knowledge and the observance vv^ith them into the wilderness. But, if so, why did none of their rulers, v/ho had the oversight of gathering and distributing the manna, know the reason and design of the surplus moiety, when they found a doiible quantity on the sixth day ] Exo. xvi. 22. — This, to, is the more remarkable, because the design had been hinted to them before, as in verse 5. But " the rulers of the congregation," nonplussed at the sight, " came and told Moses ;" w^ho, by inspira- tion, '• said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said To-morroicis the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord ; bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe ; and that which re- mainethover, (it being baked or seethed,) lay up to be kept untij the morrow. Verses 22 and 23. Be- sides, the highest authorities among the Jews admit, that they did not keep the Sabbath in Egypt ; mean- ing, no doubt, during their great oppression, for about 150 years, commencing when " another king arose, who knew not Joseph. " Acts vii. 18. Even Maimonides, speaking in the name of his nation, af- ter mentioning their servitude in Egypt, immediately 260 SABBATH DISCUSSION. adds, " all which time we could not serve according to our own will and pleasure, nor had any rest, nor observed a Sabbath. More Nevocli. p. ii. c. 31. Your attempt (December 4, 1835,) to prove that the Gospel Church continued the observance of the seve7ith-day Sabbath, by showing that the apostles, on that day, commonly wont into the synagogues to preach, is weak in the extreme. That the apos- tles did so, is as well known to other Christians as to Sabbatarians ; but I hesitated not to say, that no enlightened reader of the New Testament, de- liberately considering the circumstances of those times, can regard this usage of the apostles as any evidence that they retained the sabbatic observance of the seventh day. It only proves that the unbe- lieving Jews continued in that observance, as they do to the prsent time ; and that the apostles, knowing that such Jews statedly assembled in their synagogues on the seventh-day Sabbath, went thither on that day to preach to them ; not to support Judaism, but to show that it was abolished by Christ. For this pur- pose, " Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures ; opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead ; and that (directly addressing them,) this Je- sus whom I preach unto you, is Christ." This he did in the synagogue at Thessalonica. Acts xvii. 1 — 3. The same also he did at Athens, both in the synagogue and in the market daily ; verse 17. And at Ephesus, *' he went into the synagogue and spake boldly (whenever opportunity offered,) for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. Acts xix. 8. "But (being much opposed,) he departed from them, and separated the disciples, (the twelve mentioned ver. SABBATH DISCUSSION. Hdt i, 7,) who followed him when lie departed from the synagogue, and listened to him " disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus / verse 9. The same was the object of Paul and Silas at Salamis ; Acts xii. 5. Again as recorded in the same chapter, when Paul and Barnabas had arrived at Antioch in Pisidia, Paul, being invited to speak in the synagogue, gave a brief history of his nation, from their exodus out of Egypt, to their rejection and crucifixion of Christ ;■ noting the sad consequences to which the latter, i£ not repented of, would subject them. See verse 14 — 41. ** And,'' as follows, "when the Jews, '' displeased at what the apostle had said, "were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles, '' who had attended, and who were moved by what they had heard, " besought that these words, *' these Gospel doctrines, " might be preached to them the next Sabbath ; ''^ thus suggesting that they would gladly hear what the Jews rejected ; yet v/illing that the Jews, if so disposed, might participate in the favor, they requested that it might be granted on the the next -ensuing Sabbath, when the Jews, as usual, would be assembled. " And the next Sabbath day, " the ru- mor having gone abroad, " came also the whole citv together, to hear the word of God. Nor did they come in vain ; for " as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. '' See from verse 42 to 48. That the apostles themselves, for a time, felt a lingering adherence to Jewish usages, is evident from the case of Peter, who needed and received a vision from heaven to instruct him. Acts x. And even af- ter thus instructed, they did some things merely to gain access to the JewvS. For this reason, manifestly, Paul circumcised Timothy. Acts xvi. 3. Comp. I Cor. ix 19 — 23. Besides, in regard to things indif- ferent, Paul exercised and inculcated much forbear- 20*2 SABBATH DISCUSSION. aiicc toward Jewish converts, who were weak in the faith. Rom. xiv. The sam6 also was felt and done by other distinguished Christians. According- ly, when Paul came to Jerusalem, James and the el- ders, though glad to hear of his success among the Gentiles, were afraid that his doctrine and practice would grieve weak believers, and exasperate obstinate unbelievers ; to prevent which, they persuaded him to concur with four men, v/eak brethren, who had a Nazaritish vow on them ; hoping that by so doing, he would be the more acceptible and useful. This affair, much as you make of it, was, on the part of Paul, and of James and the elders, at most a mere effort of Christian prudence. Paul, persuaded there- to by James and the elders, ventured to comply, that, for the time being, he might not grieve, but have the better opportunity to teach the many thousands of the Jews who helicved ; hut loere all zealous of the law. — See Acts xxi. 17. You think it strange that, if the apostles and other < Vnrisliftns in their times had observed the^?'5^ day of the week instead of the seventh, there was no disputation about it between them and the Jews, as there was about circumcision, the passover, &c. The reason of this diflerencs is easily accounted for : the controversy which the apostles had v/ith the Jews . related cliiefty to such things as, according to Jewish principles, in- icifercd with the apostolic doctrine, that free justifi- cation, by faith in Christ, should be preached to all nations. Sec Acts x. 43 ; xi. 21 ; xiii. 38, 39. Rom. iii. 19— 28 ; x. 1— 4. I Pet iii, 18. I John i. 3, 7, 9 ; ii. 1, 2 ; iv. 9. Now, according to the doctrine of judaizing teachers, except even Gentile converts were circumcised, and kept the law of Mo- ses, to which also the passover belonged, they could not he saved. Acts^x-V. 1, 24. But the Sabbath had SABBATH DISCUSSION. 263 no direct concern in this question. The Gospel of the grace of God, publishing free justification in the impu- ted righteousness of Christ, received by faith, might be preached on the seventh, or on any other day of the week, as well as on the first. Moreover, as the apostles, for reasons above mentioned, attended the Jewish synagogues on the seventh day, and, no doubt, the other Christians also, to hear the apostles preach, the Jews seem to have disregarded their meeting in Christian assemblies, as they constantly did, on the first day of the week. Acts xx. 7. J Cor. xvi. 2. Read the comparison o? synagogues with pagodas, in my letter of JSeptember 18, 1835 The testimony in favor of observing the seventh day, v/hich, in your letter of December 4, 1835, you adduce from early Christian writers, is, to say no more, extremely equivocal ; for each of them says at least as much against the observance, as in favor of it. Taking for granted, that by Socrates you mean Socrates Scliolasticus, and having in my possession a copy of a very ancient edition of his history, bound up with what the learned consider the best edition of Eusehiiis Pam-phylus, who preceded h im, and a copy of Evagrlus Scliolasllcus who succeeded him, as also one oi Dorotheus on the prophets, apostles, and sev- enty disciples, I turned to the work, and was rather surprised that any man should refer to Socrates for the purpose you do. The words you quote are in Lib. 5. c. 21 ; corresponding to the Greek of Keph. 22. The author's subject in that chapter, is the controver- sy about keeping Easter as a substitute for the Jew- ish passover. In his account, those who kept that festival and other days specified in the law of Moses, were " such as observed Jewish customs — neither weighed deeply that when Jewish forms and figures were translated into Christian f^iith, the literal ob- q2 164 SABBATH DISCUSSIO.V. servation of I\Ioses' law and the tyi^es of things to come, wholly vanislied away.'' Applying his dis- course to all days observed by the Jews, he saj's, ^' The apostle hath in plain words forbidden it'; '^ and having shown by what the apostle said to the Gal- atians against observing days, and months, and times^ and years, [Gal. iv. 10,] that " the Jews, [under a Christian name,] were become servants to the law,'' from which " such as were called into the Christian faith, were of right made free,'' he observes that '* The apostle unto the Colosslans, [chap. ii. 16, 17, J IS as plain as may be, saying. That the observance of such things was nothing but a shadow; Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, in a 'piece of an holy d.ay, or of the nev) moon, or of the Sabbath, ivhich are as but shadows of things to conip..^^ Thus Socrates proceeds to inveigh against judaizing, till, as if to expose the most extravagant instance of it, he exclaims, " In a manner alt the Churches throughout the whole world do celebrate and receive the holy mysteries every Sabbath-day af- ter other." But, if this testimony be of ary avail, remember that the same Socrates, and in the same chapter, says, " Every one in every place, of a cer- tain custom, do celebrate the remembrance of the Lord's passion ;'' which affords equal, nay, strong- er evidence that the Lord's day, the first day of the week, was then observed ; for that, we know from Scripture, was the day on which the disciples of Christ met to break bread. Acts xx. 7. Athanasius, re- ferred to by Dr. Cave, like many others in his time, observed both days, and, by way of apology,, said, *'We assemble on Siturday, not that we are infected with Judaism, but only to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath ;" and who, as such, had power to (ro-nsfer the observance, by his example, to the day SABBATH DISCUSSION. 165 of his resurrection. As Sozomenus was cotemporary with Socrates, and said much the same things, his con- trndictory testimony, h'ke thai of Socrates, stands for nothing. Alt that GroUus, on this question, proves, amounts to no more. Of what 31. Dela Roquc asserts in answer to Boseut, I can say nothing ; not poss- essing his book, nor having, that I recollect, ever read it. By Moi^e, you must mean Morei'i, author of the French Historical Dictionary which bears his name. On turning to his dictionary, 1 find Tittle more than a record of tlie clashing opinions of others. I am glad you have referred to Br. Cham- bers ; he says much in favor of my views of the mat- ter in question. In his Cyclop. Art. Sunday^ having mentioned Constantiue^ he says, " Betbre his time, and even in his time, they,'' the Christians of whom he was speaking, " observed the Sabhath as well as Sunday ; both to sanctify the law of Moses, [in ob- serving the seventh day,] and to imitate the apos- tles ;" who, therefore, must have observed Sunday ; indeed he says, " they used to meet together on the lirst day. '' He adds, " It is certain that the regard was had to the Jirst day, during apostolic times, in the meetings of the Church. And under the Art. Sabbath, Chambers says, " The first day was in- stituted by the apostles to take place of the Jew- ish Sabbath, and by us is observed in remem- brance, not of creation, but of the work of re- demption ; being completed by our Saviour's resur- rection on that day." Your quotation from Calvin I have not yet been able to find. But, if yoii will read his explanation of the fourth commandment, you will see that he considered the observance of the seventh day to have been abolished by Christ ; — nay, he goes farther than I can ; he considers those to judaize, w^ho only retain the moral obligation of the ^^^ SABBATH DISCUSSIOI^. sabbatic institution, under the Gospel dispensation ; and commends the observance of the first day which he calls " the Lord's day, '' merely as a matter of religious and civil decorum, and as an occasion for ttie assembling of Christians, and the preaching of the Gospel to all that convene " The apostle, " he ob- serves, " says that the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Col. ii 16, 17. " See Calvin's exposition of the moral law : Ihst. book II. chap, viii sect. 2 8 — 34. Your conclusions, therefore, however specious they may appear to yourself or others, are in my htimble opinion, wholly unfounded ; being all drawn fh>m arguments and objections thus fairly met and refuted. One letter more will finish my present se- ries. With all due esteem, I remain. Yours in cordial friendship, WM. PARKINSON. LETTER XXIV, Dear Brother,— A few things move in your letter of December 11, 1835, claim some notice. Of these, the first is your further effort to render it doubttul whether Clwist rose on the first day of the week. You say, ** respecting the time of our Lord s resur- section, I have no particular intere^, besides what is imposed upon me by consistency.^' But this, by th« way, ( in regard to the question between us, } is tti« sreate&t interest you could possibly have in the decision. You well know that the befef that Christ rose on the first day of the week, is universally the principal rea- son for observing the day ; also, that many Sabbat- rarians avow, that if they were convinced that Christ rose on that day, they would observe it. Therefore, io be consistent with yourself, and to sustain the con- tinued observance of the seventh day, it is the highest interest of your cause to obscure what you know you ^..annot confute. — to wit, the scriptural evidence that Christ rose on the first day of the week. You further say, *'I have no objections to its having occurred on the first day of the week ; but as the Scriptures do Bot state, nor necessarily imply, that it ( the resur- rection of Christ, ) took place on that day, I am under ^68- SABBATH Drscussroi^. no obligation to believe it, excepting what is due te= general opinion. " Shocking audacity ! Like other Sabbatarian writersy \jnd like those wri- ters, too, who contend that the observance of the first day should commence at sunset on Saturday evening, you avail yourself of Dr. McKnighl's comment on Matt, xxviii. 1- 1 admit that our version of the words in question, though ii exhibits the true time of our Lord's resurrection, does not fairly present the evidence of it as given ill the original. Therefore 1 will give a translation of the disputed words in the verse as I understand them. But, prepanitory thereto^ I beg leave to make the following remarks : 1. That opse, rendered "in the end,'' is used by Greek writers as meaning afler, and not only iviine- dialely after, but inde finitely so. See Dr. Lightfoot. vol. i. p. 746. And Dr. Wells, ( Annot. on Matt, xxviii. 1. ) says, that " with a genitive case, " ( as in the instance before us, ) " it is used to denote a good while after J^ Thus, in Philostmtus we have opsc ton troikon, which we know from the coniiection must mean a long time after the Trojan war ; and opse tou basileos chrinon, a long while after the king^s days. So opse, in the text before us, means after the sabbath, long enough to agree with the other evan- gelists, wno make it reach to the morning dawn. Mark xvi. 1, 9. Luke xxiv. 1. John xx. 1. 2. That, in the passage under consideration, the same word is rendered sabbath and weeL It is in each place sabbaton, genitive plural ; literally, of the sabbaths. In its first occurrence in this this verse, I believe it should be rendered sabbaths, as meaning both the seventh-day sabbath and the fir.st of the two con vocational sabbaths appertaining to the feast of unleavened bread, which, at that season, as proved in my letter of August 7, 1835, fell on the weekly SABBATH DISCUSSION. 269 Sabbath. And in its second occurrence in the verse, it should be rendered weeksy as denouug the seven Sabbaths, that^is, weeks ; which, according to Levil, xxiii. 15, began to be counted on the morroio after the Sabbath; that is, on the morrow after the first day of the feast of unleavened bread ; Vv'hich was always called a sahbath, whatever day of the week it might fall on, but which, in the year of our Lord's cruci- fixion, concurred with the weekly Sabbath, as just noticed. These seven weeks reached from the pass- over to pentecost. Hence pentecost was called " the feast of shabugnoth,^^ sabbaths, or weeks. Exo. xxxiv. 22. Deut. xvi. 16. II Chron. viii. 13. And whereas, at the all-important season under consider ation, '• the morrow after the Sabbath" was the mor- row after the iceekly as well as the festival Sabbath, the numbering of the seven weeks, or forty-nine days, must have commenced with the first day of the week — nay, with that identified /rs^ day of the week on which Christ arose ; and, consequently, the for- ty-ninth day must have been a weekly Sabbath, and th3 fiftieth day, the day of jjentecost, that season imist, as before proved, have fallen on the first day of the week. 3. That epiphoskouse, ( from epi, upon or besides, and phosko, to shine,) rendered "as it began to dawn," denotes, like the Hebrew word Nashaph, "a mixture of light and darkness," commonly called twilight ; and which is alike applicable to the morn- ing as to the evening. Scripture often mentions the dawning of the morning and of the day. Sec Josh, vi. lb. Judges xix. 26. Job iii. 9 ; xxiv. 15. Ps. cxix. 147. Mv translation, therefore, of the words in question, and which I propose as the literal meaning of them, is this : After the sabbaths, as it began to dawn to- ^70 «ABBATH DISCUSSION. toard the first of the iceeks, came Mary Magdalene, &c. Herein observe, that the words " as it began to (lawn toward the first of the weeks,'' must necessa* rily mean ''as it began to dawn toward the first day of the weeks ;" and, therefore, that the time thereby noted is precisely the same that is noted by our com*- mon version ; to wit, the breaking of day in the morn-- ing oHhc first ( day ) of the week. " Of seven weeks, as well as of one week, there must be a first day. Thus Matthew's account of our Lord's resurrection, perfectly accords with that given by the other evan- gelists. They all speak of the paraskeue, the prepar- ation^ i. e. for the Sabbath, as having occurred on the day of our Lord's crucifixion. — Matthew (chap- ter xxvii. 62, ) calls the Sabbnth during which Christ lay in the sepulchre, " the next day that followed the day of the preparation ; " substituting this periphrasis for the word Sabbath, to signify that the Jews had spent the day, not sabbaticaJly, but wickedly, in cher- ishing and venting their maiice against Christ, as re- lated in verse 63. Mark ( xv. 42, ) speaking of the crucifixion-day, says, "when the even was come, (^because it was the preparation, that is, the day be- fore the Sabbath ) &c. Luke ( xxiii. 54, ) says, " that day, " the day of the crucifixion, " was the preparation, and the Sabbath," for which the prep- aration was to be made, " drew on. " And John says, "that Sabbath-day svas an high day, " because that year the festival Sabbath fell on the weekly Sab- bath. John xix. 3L Compare verse 42. The day on which such a concurrence happened, was called sabbatum magnum, a great Sabbath. See Godwin, Mosc.7, and Aaron; L. 8. cap. 3. p. 110. It is also known to the learned, that the Hebrews called the afternoon of the sixth day of the week, from three to six o'clock, gnereb hashabbath, the Sabbath-eve, and SABBATH Discussror^. 271 that the termination of that time, or six o'clock that evening, as being the end of the preparation, was, by the Greeks, called parisodon sabbaton, and by the Hebrews, biath hashabbath, the entrance of the' Sab- bath. Moreover, they had an appropriate term to de- note the time between three and six, P. M. on Friday ; to wit, hachannah, which, like the Greek paraskeue, signifies preparation or *' disposition, i. e. a regular arrangement, " or setting in order. See Sealig de emend. Temp. I. 6. p. 269. Godwin M. 8f A. L. 3. c. 3. p. iii. ; and hingua Sac. under cun, to prepare^, set in order. Wherefore, as noticed in a former letter, the women who had witnessed the crucifixion and inter- ment of their dear Saviour, though they " prepared spices and ointments to embalm his sacred body," yet (because the Sabbath drew on, ) deferred the ap- plication, "and rested the Sabbath, according to the commandment. '' Luke xxiii. 56. But, " after the sahhaths, ihe festival Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath, which, at that season, concurred, they '' came early to the sepulchre, " as testified by all the evangelists, to accomplish their holy design. In the mean time, however, the angel had descended, the earthquake had occurred, and the sacred body, being " quickened by the Spirit, " was raised and removed : "He is not here, " said the angel ; "for he is risen, as he said. " Matt, xxviii. 6. His redemption from the tomb, therefore, with the virtual redemption of all represented in him, must have occurred long before day ; and, very probably, at midnight, as tvpified in the redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage. See Exo. xii. 29 — 31. The very darkness of the hour was mystically significant. How dark was the condition of Israel in Egypt — especially just before their release ! How deplorable the apparent condi- 27*2 SABBATH DISCUSSION. tioa of mankind — nay, of the disciples themselves^ until it was known, at day-light, that Jesus, the Sa- viour, was risen ! And how dismal are the appre- hensions oi' sinners under the conviction, till the light of salvation, through the risen Saviour, dawns upon their souls ! That " the Sabbath was past " when Christ rose, we know from Mark xvi. 1 ; and that he was risen on "the first of the week, early, when it was yet dark, " we know from John xx. 1. Therefore, though we a:re not told the precise hour in which he rose, as nothing appears to the contrary, I believe that, correspondent to the type in Israel's redemption, he rose at midnight. Hence, also, I believe that the sacred time appertaining to his resurrection-day, pro- perly commences at midnight. — To this, you, like others, will object that it supposes a chasm (as it does, ) of about six hours between the end of the Sab- bath, at sunset, and the commencement of the first day of the week, at midnight. This chasm, however, you must remember, made no abridgement of the natural day which succeeded the Sabbath ; foi; this, as a natural day, must, as always, have begun when the Sabbath ended ; and the time of that natural day, from its' commencement till midnight, was the time that constituted the last of the three niichthemera, night-days, in which Christ was in the sepulchre. — But the chasm related to sacred time ; it intervened between the going out — nay, the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath and the commencement of the sacred rest, as then transferred to the Lord's day. And that some such variation, in regard to the weekly period of sacred time, would occur, was plainly indi- cated at the institution of its observance ; for, as noticed in a former letter, though it is said, "the evening and the morning were \\\g first — second — SABBATH DISCLSSION. 273 third — fourth — fifth — sixth day ; Gen. i. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 ; yet no such specified limits were assigned to the seventh day. Gen. ii. 2, 3. Accordingly, it is certain that, in regard to sacred time, the day on which Christ rose did not begin at sunset ; for then it must have ended at sunset ; whereas we know that, on the evening of the same day on which he arose, *' being t\\e first of the week, " as also on the evening of the next ensuing first day, he appeared in the midst of his assembled disciples ; John xx. 19, 26 ; and that his appearance among them on the evening of the da}'^ on v/hich he rose was after night, is evi- dent from the fact that the two disciples with whom he had supped at Emmaus, and to whom he had made himself known " in the breaking of bread, '' had trav- eled back to Jerusalem, a distance of "three score furlongs, " that is, seven miles and a half, and were with their brethren when the Lord appeared among them — This, too, is b}^ Luke called *' that same day, ''' noted before as tiie day of his resurrection ; and, by the two disciples, " the third day'' from his death, and the day on which the women, who were early at the sepulchre, reported that they had not found the Lord's body, but had seen " a vision of an- gels, which said that he was alive. " See Luke xxiv. 13, 34. But as, according to John xx. 19, the time of that appearance of Christ among his disciples was on "the same day" before described as his re- surrection-day, " boing the first day of the week*, '■ it is certain that, in regard to sacred time, that day did not end at sunset, but at ( or about ) midnight. It is also worthy of notice, that to have the obser- vance of the Lord's day to begin and end with the setting of the sun, is an almost certain way to have much of it at least secularized, if not 'profaned. It is well known that, on Saturday evening, many, especi- 274 SABBATH DISCUSSION. aliy females, are usually, and it would seem inevitably, engaged liU eight, nine, or ten o'clock, in finishmg their week's work. Many, too, on Saturday even- ing, as the result either of necessity or of antecedent neglect, have to procure supplies from groceries ; which, to accommodate such customers — nay, often to accommodate tipplers, are kept open later than usual on that evening. Moreover, many, having closed their week's labor and received their wages, make Saturday evening, and often till late at night, a time of idle and sensual gratification. And these habits, among those who regard hohj time merely as idle time, are doubtless greatly promoted by the usage of beginning suck time at sunset. Nor is this usage any less pernicious in regard to Sunday evening ; for, not only the irreligious^ old and young, male and female, bond and free, ( who had been kept under some restraint by the idea of sacred time, ) but the religious also, understanding the Lord's day to have ended at sunset, all hasten to the pursuits which they respectively choose ; as, for instance, the children to play — the apprentices, perhaps, to haunts of vice — the gay, to amusements, at home or abroad — and the avaricious, to labor : whereas, if they understood the Lord's day, as it would seem the disciples did, to begin and end at midnight, like them, Christians at least, and probably many others influenced, by their example and persuasions, would attend an evening meeting for devotional purposes. Nay, more ; some of those who by reason of a Saturday-night's revel, had slept or lounged aw^ay most of the Lord's day, might, peradventure, be prevailed on to go to a reli- gious meeting in the evening ; and, for aught we know, might hear a sermon to their everlasting advantage. An objection, I am aware, may also be offered SABBATH PISCUSSIOX. 275 against the usage founded upon the belief that the Lord's day begins and ends at midnight. According to this belief, the day of our Lord's resurrection be- gins and ends whea mankind, with few exceptions, are asleep ; but it should be recollected that so oc- curred hiS' resurrection itself; few were then awake, none of the disciples saw him rise, but they saw him afterward by the light of the sun ; and so do all be- lievers see him as risen by the light of the Gospel. It is to be believed, too, that Christians, generally speaking, awake on Lord's day morning with recol- lections appropriate to the day ; and that the means, private and public, in which they are employed dur- ing the day, are such as happily serve to keep such recollections in their minds till they retire at night. Nor do I doubt that respect for the belief and usage thus imperfectly advocated, has occasioned most of the civilized nations ( including our own ) to begin and end their civil day at midnight. And, indeed, when it is recollected, that God required Israel, as a memorial of their redemption out of Egypt, thence- forward to begin the year, at least in regard to sacred festivities, six montks later, to wit, with Ahib ( after- ward called Nisan, ) instead of Tisri, what wonder that, to commemorate the so much greater work of redemption by Christ, we should be instructed, in con- formity to' the time of his resurrection, to begin the day, sacred and civil, six /lours later, that is, at mid- night instead of at sunset. Sea Kxo. xii. 2, 29, 3L Compare John xx. 19. To proceed. The use j-ou make of Dan. ix. 27, is singular in- deed. To give my views at large of this prophecy, would be foreign to the object of these letters : yet, as serving to shov/ the ab.su rdity of your application of it, a few things must be noticed. 1. Then, the seventy weeks mentioned in verse twenty-four, are all 276 SABBATH DISCUSSION. to be undei'stood of prophetic weeks ; that is, weeks of years ; making seventy times seven, or four hun- dred and ninety years. Hence, when the prophet afterward had occasion to mention ordinary weeks, lo distinguish them from the weeks in question, he called them shavugneem yameem, weeks of days. Chapter x. 2. And Isaiah, to distinguish a natural from a prophetical year, calls it " the year of an hireling. '' is. xvi. 14 ; xxi. 16. 2. Although the seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years, to determine more minutely the succession and distinc- tion of the times and events which they embraced, were cut out into three sections ; to wit, 7 weeks, '^ 49 years, ) 62 weeks, ( 434 years, ) and 1 week, ( 7 years, ) the kind, nevertheless, of all the seventy weeks remained the same ; they were still all iceeks of years. 3. Chatzi, the word rendered the midst, being iVom chatsah, to divide, more properly and fre- quently denotes half, and, in this instance, evidently the latter half Accordingly, Prideaux understood the single week, the last of the seventy, to be equally divided between the ministry of John and that of Christ, assigning to each three and a half years ; and hence, that during the latter half of this week of seven years, Christ, doctrinally, by his preaching during that time, and virtually, by his sacrifice at the end of that time, "caused the Mosaic sacrifice and oblation to cease. *' But Bp. Lloyd, and after him Bp. Lowth and Dr. Gill, understanding the seventy weeks to have begun in the twentieth year of Artax- crxes hongimanus, when he gave authority to Nehe- miak to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Neh. ii. 1 — 8 ; and calculating the 490 years after the oriental usage, allowing only 360 days to each, make the 62 weeks, as following the seven, to end with the 33d year of Christ ; which was at the feast of tabernacles, SABBATH DISCUSSION. 277 in ^risrif after which, that is, six months after th© expiratiuQ o[ the 02 weeks, '* the Messiah was cut off, " according to verse 26. Then, ieaving a spacQ of 30 years tor. the turther calling and repentance of the Jews, the last, the single, the separated week of the 70, must have commenced at the end of A. D. 63, and, including, ( like each of the rest, ) seven years, it must have extended to A, D. 70 ; wtien the Prince Messiah, (by " the peopleof the prince,'^ meaning the army of Vespasian or Titus, the prince of the Ro- mans,) came and destroyed " the city'' (Jerusalem) *' and the sanctuary,''' (the temple,) and so "caused t\\o sacrifice and tiie oblation, offered there, actually and totally to cease. " With this 1 concur; believ- ing that the prince of whom the angel [verse 27] said, he shall conhrm the covenant with many for one week," is not meant the Messiah ; for when He, by his death, confirmed the covenant of grace for his people, it wixs forever, and not for a week or 7 years only ; but Vespasian, the prince, the Em- peror of the Romans, who, by his general Corbulo, made and confirmed a covenant of civil peace, for seven years, with the Parlhians, Medes, and Arme- nlans, that he might be the more at leisure to make an entire conquest of Judea. Accordingly, Tacitusy the Roman historian, writing of those times, saya Tiiere nzcer loas so firm a p3ace as now, Annal. L. xv* April 29, 1836. The reason you assign for not believing that Christ ate his last passover With his disciples before the time the Jews statedly ate theirs, is the sams that I for- merly employed for the same purpose ; namely, that he inust then not have complied with the law in Lev. xxiii. 5. But when 1 come duly to consider the ob- vious fact, that the passover was a specified type of R 279 SABBATH DlSCVSSWlSt. Christ, and that he was then about to abolish it 111 his death, ( I Cor. v. 7.) I found the supposed reason to be no reason / and the difFrculty which it had oc- casioned, in a moiTient vanished. This, too, might be the tru3 reason why, so far as 1 can see, Christ did not present the usual sacrifices, datli/ and weekly, which the law required ; they were all types of him- self, and to be abolished in him. ( f f Cor. lii. IS", 14. Heb. X. 11 — 14.) One thing m relation to this mat- ter is certain ; to wit, that if Christ, that year, observ- ed the passover at the legal time, the Jews had either lost the knowledge of the true time, or had changed it ; for we know that he ate the passover wiih his disciples, the night before the day on which he was crucified ; but the day of his crucifixion was the day of " the preparation of tlie passover.'' (John xix. 14 ;)and when the Jews caret'ully avoided ceremoni- al uncleanness, " that they might eat the passover. " (John xviii. 28.) The interpretation which I gave of Mark xiv. 12, and Luke xxii. 7, (and of which you take no notice,) shows tliat even those passages, right- ly understood, do not, aslonce thought I did, stand in the way of the supposed anticipation. Your quotation from Dr. Adam Cf'ark^ on this ar- ticle, does him great injustice ; for though you cite words that he used, you pervert his meaning, by sup- pressing his connection. He was comparing differ- ent opinions : and, having rejected two, one of which denied that Christ ate the passover that year at all, and having mentioned another, he says, " this third opinion, which states that Christ did eat the passo- ver with his disciples that year, but not in the same hour with the Jews ; and that he expired on the cross the same hour in which the paschal lamb was killed, seems the inost 'prohahle.''^ Again, he says " Our Lord and he disciples ate the passover some hours SABBATH DISCUSSION. 279 before the Jews ate theirs ; for they, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day^ but Christ appears to have eaten his the preceding evening which was the beginning of the same day, and which v/as the sixth day of the week, or Friday ; for the Jews begin their day at sunsetting : we at midnight. Thus (continues he) Christ ate the pass- over the same day with the Jews, but not in the same hour. Christ, therefore, (as our author adds,) kept the passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the pre- cise day in which the Jews had eaten their first pass- over in Egypt : see Exo. .\ii. 6—12.'' Godwin, it is true, in his Moses and Aaron, p. 138, says what authorised the words of Carloic which you cite ; but turning to Godwin's book, 1 find in p. 142, that when, lilte Clarke, he had rejected other opinions, he says, *' Lastly, others more probably hold that both Christ and the Jews did eat the passover the same day and hour; namely, on Friday, or the fourteenth day of the montli, if we count the beginning of Fri- day according to the mnnner of the Jews, from six o'- clock at night on Thursday.'' Thus he clearly shows what he meant ; to wit, that both Christ and the Jews, at least that year, ate the passover on the evening of Thursday, the 13th o'i Nisan, when (in Jewish calcula- tions) Friday, the 14th of Nisan, had commenced ; for he adds, " Friday morning he [Christ] was judged and crucified ; and inthe afternoon, about three o^clock, parnskeue the preparation^ of the Sabbath began, he (having given up the Ghost on the cross) was buried : There laid they Jesus, because of the Jeivs prepara- tion.'^ (John xix. 42; comp. Mark xv. 42 — 47, and Luke xxiii. 54.) Bp. Lloyd also, as quoted and ap- proved by Bp. Lowth, says, " He [Christ] died in the month JSisun, the very same day and hour that the paschal lamb was wont to be killed ; " and, by way r2 ''iBO SABBATH DISCUSSIONT. of demonstrating the fact, Lowth refers to LloycFs Chronological Tables. See Lowth on Dan. ix. 25. I now proceed to your last letter, publishad Jan. 1 and 8, 1830. In this, the first and principal thing which claims my notice, is your attempt to idvaiidatc the testimony 1 adduce from Ignntius and Justin M'/rlijr^ in favor of observing the first day of the week. I attach as little imj)ortance to the theologi- cal dogmas of those men commonly called the futh- ers, as you do, or as any other Christian does. I am also well aware, that before the art of printing was in use, manuscripts were sometimes interpolated, both l)y Jews and by Papists. But I quoted from Ignatius .nnd Martyr only such of their sayings as have been quoted in past centuries by Protestant writers, whose times, learning, and diligence enable them to judge between what is genuine and what is spurious, much better than you or 1 can. Besides, I have as much reason to suspect that what you quote from them was interpolated by Jiidaizers, as you have to suspect that what I quote from them, was inter- polated by papctJizcrs. The obvious reason why (gnatiiis said, " Let us no longer ^sabbatize, '^ was that Christians remained tinctured with Judaism ; and he added, " but let us keep the day on which our LIFE rose from the dcad.''^ because he perceived hat this day was sadiy neglected, or only partially ^^'oserved. But I will give you an authority whicli so far as I know has hitherto escaped the imputation 61 being interpolated ; I mean Eusebius surnamed Pamphylus, the first ecclesiastical historian after the apostles. My copy of this History in folio, is very !?incient, and highly commended ; but of what edition it is I cannot say, its title page being worn ofT. — Even Eusebius (though his work reterred to was published as early as a. d. 326, and contains the SABBATH DISCUSSION, ' 281 Vistory of the Christian Church from the birth of Christ to that time,) had to discuss the question which tie found to have arisen between the eastern and western Churches, about the observance of easier, a Saxon name signifying the feast, that is, the pass- over ; from which it a[)i)cars that the former were jiulaiziiig and the latter innovating. He says, ** all the Churches throughout- A5?«, as of an ancient tra- dition, thought good to observe the high feast of eas- ier in the fourteenth [of the] moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to offer their paschal Iamb. As much as to say, as upon what day soever in the week that [ day of the ] moon fell, the fasting days, " ( those which they observed preparatory to the feast, ) " linished and ended : when, as the other Churches throughout the world accustomed not to celebrate easier after this manner, but observed the aposfoJic tradition and custom as yet retained ; to wit, that the fasting days should be broken up on no other day .but the day wherein our Saviour rose from death to life. Wherefore synods and meetings of bishop** were summoned, where all with one accord ordained an ecclesiastical decree?, which they published by their .epistles to all Churches ; that upon no other than the Sunday the mystery of our Saviour's resurrection should be celebrated. '^ He also further relates, that at Rome, at Ponttis, throughout Fra.nce, and through- out Ostroena, similar synods were convened, and that all, with one and the same sentence and judgment, ordained the same decree, and their uniform assent was thus made manifest unto the v/orld. '' This oc- curred in A. D. 190. Eus. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5. cap. xxi ; corresponding to^the Greek of Keph. 23. This ancient scrap shows indeed, that Christianity theri was still much shackled by Judaism, and that it was ^0:eady ^reaify imbued with that spirit of antichrist 288 SABBATH DISCUSSION which even in the apostolic age had '* hogun to work :^ (II Thes. ii. 7 ; ) nevertheless, it also clearly evinces, — 1. That the Christians, at that time, were univer- sally agreed that the first day of the week, called Sunday, was the day in which Christ arose. 2. That, by " apostolic tradition and custom, " they regarded and observed it as being the most sacred of all days. And, 3. That on that day, and on no other, they deemed it lawful to " celebyate the inystery of our Saviour's resurrection ;" that is, to receive " the Lord's Supper, " a& a memorial of his vicarious death, the acceptance of v/hich as a satisfactory atonement to divine justice for all the sins of all he represented, was openly acknowledged in his authorized resurrec- tion. See Is. liii. 11. Matt. i. 21. Acts xx. 2B. Rom. iii. 25, 26 ; iv. 25. Titus ii. 14. Heb. x. 14. I Pet. iii. 18. I shall conclude with a brief notice of several things which incidentally occurred in your letters ; chiefly in that of February 27, 1835. In this you say, *' when the Sabbath was instituted, sin had not come into the world ; and, therefore, that it ( meaning the Sabbath, ) did not originate in the grace of God to sinners, nor could it be affected by that plan of grace revealed and compleatcd in Christ. " But, surely, you believe that God^s purpose of grace in Christ was before the sabbatic institution, and before the creation of the world. If so, your remark is idle. See Eph. i. 3 — 5 ; II Tim-, i. 9 ; and Titus i. 2. In the same letter, you say of the Sabbath, "it was a symbol of the felicity of heaven, to which men would undoubtedly have been ultimately exalted, had they remained innocent. '^ That the sabbatic rest was a .symbol of heaven, I do not question ; but that men^ had they remained innocent, would have been exalted to heaven, by their natural innoceace, I see no SABBATH DISCUSSION. 283 scriptural evidence. They would have remained happy in the state of iimocent Adam, hut had no proiiiise of heaveri ; for this, as well as the promise of it, comes only through the Mediator, the second Adam, *' the Lord of heaven. " The beavenly state is, «*that eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, prom- ised oeiore the v/orid began ; '"' vvhich promise, there- fore, could not tiwii have been made to any creature, — oat was made to Christ, as the covenantee and suRc:Tir of God's elect. Titus i. 2. Accordingly, *' eternal life is l\\e gij't of God, ihrough Jesus Christ our Liord. Kom. vj. 24, Between your expression of the two sentiments just noticed, you say, " we have as iiitie interest in the continuance of Jewish rites as yourself, although we may not have indulged in so much acrimony against thom. " I have said nothing a^xiust Jewisk rites as divine institutions ; nay, as such, 1 higldy venerate them and their appropriate uses, and have said and written much to sustain them, as also to explain their typical design ; but as con- tinued under the same or other names, since realized and abolished in Christ, I cannot, I must 7iot endure them : for, so continued, they ate abhorred of God ; ( Is. Ixvi. 3 ; ) and the apostle calls them " weak and beggarly elements, " and speaks very reproachfully of judaizing teachers ; calling them dogs, and evil- ivorkers ; such as would trouble the Church, *'and pervert the Gospel of Christ ; " nay, said of them, »* 1 would that they were even cut off, '' at least from the Church, if not from the earth. See Gal. iv. 9 ; V. 12. Phil. iii. 2. In your letter of October 16, 1835, while endeavoring to extricate yourself from your strange allegation that Brown and Lighffoot as- sign the ascension and gift of the Holy Ghost to the seventh day, you would have your readers believe that Brown, ( in vol. i. p. 444, ) actually agrees with 284 SABBATH DISCUSSION. you ; whereas you very well know that his agree- ment with you is only in beginning the weekly day of sacred rest at sunset : he on Saturday evening, and you on Friday evening. For afterward, ( p. 446,) he expressly says, " that the particular day on which the Holy Ghost descended was the Christian Sab- bath ; " adding. '' thus an additional honor was put by the Trinity on that holy day. '' I am glad, how- ever, that you could defend your unhappy ueciaration even as well as you did. But I must not forget to account for what, in yo'ur second letter, you notice as a mistake in my first let- ter, wherein I referred to Josephus, ( lib. 7,"^c. 9, ) for proof that the Jews called a week eight days ; the place intended may be found in chap, viii, sec. 5, of that book. Whether Josephus was right in supposing, as he seems to have done, that " Absalom's head, after the week's end, v/as polled every eight day, -' does not affect the object of my reference. Our trans- lation says it was done ** at every year's end ; " but the Hebrew is, mikketz yameem laynmeem, from the end of day&, fa days^ II Sam. xiv. 26. Whether it ineans when the days of som.e natural division of time, or of some stated period ended ; or simply, every return of the time when the polling was needed, is immaterial to my object ; which is only to prove that Josej)hus, by "every eighth day, " noted the be- ginning of every week, which was equivalent to noting a week, as an evangelist did, by the phrase, *' about an eight days. " Luke ix. 28. ' Thus, when the sacrifices appropriate to Gospel times are pro- phetically mentioned, they are said to be offered on the eighth day, this being the day after the Jewish Sabbath, and, therefore, the frst day of the week, called the Lord^s day. Rev. i. 10. See Ezek. xliii. ^7, Compare Is. Ivi. 7 ; and theri read the fylfiU^ SABBATH DISCUSSION. 285 ment of the prediction, ( both as to the allar and the sacntices, ) m iieb. xiii. 10, 15, 16 ; and I Pet. ii. ^. \our comparison between calling the seventh day the JeiDisli teabbalh, and the first day the Romish ISabbath, is unjust. You know that, during the Mo- saic dispensation, the scriptural observance of the seventh day was peculiar to the Jews and those prose- lyted to their leiigion ; but you will scarcely say that, under the Christian dispensation, the vvcekly observ- ance of the first day is peculiar to jj-'pists. Besides, the observance of the fiirst d/y, sanctioned by the marvelous descent of the Spirit on that day, was practiced by the apostles and primitive Christians, be- fore Romanism, under the name of Christianity, had any being. Moreover, I have proved that the word S 'bhath was never used in Scripture till at the giv- ing of the manna, nor afterward, but as denoting either the weekly or some other Sabbath peculiar to the Jews. See my letter of October 2, 163.3. A scriptural tenet, remember, does not become unscrip- turai because the p ipists hold it, or the doctrine of the divine Trinity must be so. All the reasons you assign as evidential of sin- cerity, I readily admit ; and, could I believe that Sabbatarians are right, their paucity would be no ob- jection to my becoming a candidate for union with them. Popularity is a matter of very small consi- deration with me. But be assured, my brother, that the more I investigate the subject, and consider the question on both sides, the more 1 am established in my belief that the blessed Redeemer rose from the dead on the jirst day of the week, and that, for this reason chiefly, " the same day '"' should be weekly observed as a day of sacred rest and of grateful devo- tion. Having written thus much to explain and defend 286 SABBATH DISCUSSION. my conscientious belief and practice, in regard both to the Saf'hath and to the Jii'st day of the week, called **the Lord's day, *' I leave you, my brother, and ail who think with you, to enjoy your supposed proofs of the contrary, with all your correspondent conclusioas undisturbed ; not intending to notice any thing you may further say on the subject. For, having several unfinished works on hand, and " knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle,'"' I have neilher time nor inclination to prolong this discussion. Thus impressed, I now bid you and your Christian frater- nity a cordi d fareicell ; hoping ere long to meet you and all who "have received an unction tVom the Holy One,'' in the true and everlasting rest that remainefh for the ycojple of God. Yours in the Lord, WM. PARKINSON, Pastor of the 1st Bap. Ch., city of N. Y. ELDER MAXSON's LAST SERIES OF LETTERS. LETTER XXV. To THE Rkv. W. Parkinson. Dear Brother, — 1 have received, and repeatedly perused your second series of letters in reply to mine addressed to you, relative to the weekly Sabbath ; and they would have received an earlier acknowledgment, had not other engagements absolutely prevented. — And I now assure you, that it is not by a desire to have the last word in this discussion, that I am led to this reply ; for I am a^vare that the patience of our readers, as well as the liberality, of our brother, the editor, has been put to a serious test. But a sense of duty to myself, and to the truth I have endeavored to maintain, together with the desire that we may leave the field of controversy fully apprized of each others views of this subject, and ( 1 should be glad to hope ) with feelings becoming our profession, constrain me to ask a little farther indulgence. In this reply, it is not so much my design to notice the very unkind and sarcastic manner in which you have animadverted upon my letters, which you admit to have been *' respectfully written," as to correct the numerous misconstructions you have put upon them. If the support of my views by Scripture is a mere pre- tense, and my arguments are so obviously weak, that 288 SABBATH DISCUSSION- ihej may only seem to some few conscientious per- sons, to be solid and conclusive, as you have represen- ted them ; (March 11 ; ) it must be allowed that you have bestowed much gratuitous labor in confronting' them. Let them be understood as I have expressed them, and I am quite Vvilling the reader should decide as to their merits. The first things I wish particularly to notice, is your labored effort to draw out of what I had written ; an undesigned admission that the seventh day recogni- zed by the fourth commandment, was abolished. — Were it true that I had used terms im]:)lying more than it was apparent I designed they should, 1 ask, Sir, is it an act of Christian kindness to force these words to misrepresent what you know I designed to ex- press ? When I stated ( Nov. 13 ) that whatever there was in the Sabbath peculiar to the Jews, or the Mosaic dispensation was abolished — that as these l^eculiarities constituted it to that people, the Jewish Sabbath : so when these peculiarities were abolished, the Jewish Sal:>bath was abolished ; but that the patriarchal Sabbath, which was the same with the original institution, and written in the fourth command- ment, remained : — I say when I made this statement, it ^vas in vie^v or your own avo\ved o})inion as to what constituted the seventh day, the Jeivish Sahbath, (July 17, 1835,) namely, " When I contend that the Sabr bath of the fourth commandment was peculiar to the Jew's, I mean that it was so in regard to the manner of its observance, &c. " And also with a full explanation of my meaning when I used the phrase Jcivish Sabr hath, see my letter ( Nov. 6, 1835) one week earlier than the date you quote. I then stated to you, that I miderstoodby your letter of July 17, that by the obser- vance of the seventh day, you had only intended the peculiar manner which the Jews were required to ob- SABBATH DISCUSSION. , 289* serve it. And you permitted me to remain in the lie- lief that you intended to he so understood. Nqw, with all this explanation made in connection Avith the avG\\'- al of my opinion that the Jewish SaLbath was abolish- ed, no person can, in candor, say that I have virtuallv admitted the abrogation of the fourth commandment. Again. You represent me as saying that the sabbat- ic law given to the Jews embraced no new prohibitions and enjoined no new duties. (Feb. 26. ) If you mean that I have said this in reference to any la\v given to them other than what is recorded in the fourth com- mandment, Exo. XX. 8 — 11, I sho-uld consider it un- just ; for my words (Oct. 23) are expreressly limited to this precept. And I say the same now, that this law as recorded in Exo. xx. 8 — ^11, enjoins nothinf'- but what is implied in the record of Gen. ii. 2, 3, and is fairly inferable therefrom. Nor have you attempt- ed to make a distinction, without associating wnth the precept, the insti'ucdons and penalty subsequently re- vealed to Israel, which you well know I have vicnved as distinct from the law of the fourth commandment. Why then should you ask, " What then was abolish- ed 1 " TJiis inquiry has been rej^eatedly answered in my former letters to you ; and I will now once foi* all say, that all the sabbatic service of the temple and svn- agogue worship, peculiar to that dispensation — -the particular restrictions to that people, relative to o'oing out of their houses, gathering of sticks, kindlino- of fires, stonlng-to-Jaath, &c., with whatever else relative to the Sabbath there may have been, not implied in the fourth commandment, were unquestionably abolished. But it has been shown, and any person who will lake the trouble of comparing Exo. xx. 8 — 11 \vith Gen. ii.. 2, 3, can see that nothing vv'as required by the pre- cept that is not plainly inferred from the record. If anything could be learned from he example of God in 290 SABBATH DISCUSSION. resting on tlie seventh day ; it is this, namely, to imi- tate his rest. This you expressly admit. ( Feb. 26, 1836.) You here say, " By the record, Gen. ii. 2, 3, we certainly know that God having finished his work of creation in six days, rested therefrom on the seventh, and that he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, thus teaching by his example, that during that day, man should rest from all servile labor, and be employed in contemplating the works, and adoring the perfections of his Creator." You have here virtually admitted all I have contended for, namely, that the record is as express, and as extensive in its restrictions and injunc- tions as the commandment is. Your denial that there is any command for the sabbatic observance in Gen. ii. 2, 3, avails nothing ; it is a mere split about words of the same import. Nor is it dealing fairly with me to say as you do, that according to my own declaration *'the Jewish Sabbath was abolished as to all things which the institution required under the Mosaic dis- pensation ;" for this I never have admitted, and you well know that I have constantly mamtained that the institution required, under all dispent^ations, the reli- gious observance of the seventh day, viith such reli- gious services, as God should see fit, from time to time to enjoin. It still remains a duty you owe to your- self, to ascertain in what consists the essential differ- ence between the precept and the record. By your own statements you relieved me of the labor of point- ing out the diffei-ence between the fourth command- ment and the sabbatic law of the Jews. In your 2d letter of your first series, you say, " according to the Sabbath law, the Jews were forbidden to carry any burden on the Sabbath day : yet he [Christ] both did, and sanctioned what was forbidden according to the Sabbath law." Again, (March 11, 1836,) you say that " the fourth commandment indeed makes pro- SABBATH DISCUSSION. 291 vision for works, of necessity and mercy, and such works might, consistently with the sense of the commandment be done on the Sabbath, " and add that the labor which Christ justified his disciples in doing was lawful on the Sabbath day. As you have thus asserted a dif- ference between the two laws, there need be no more words how one could be abolished, and the other re- main. You eftbrts, still to insert the Jewish restric- tions and penalties in the decalogue, in my estimation, are of no weight. Nor do I see what good purpose can be promoted by your insinutaion, that many Sab- batarians are weekly guilty of Sabbath-breaking. If it be really as you suppose, I see not how this can ei- ther help your argument, or prejudice mine. We have reason to be glad, however, both on our own ac- count and on the account of our anti-sabbatarian breth- ren, that there Is no s Zoning to bo done in this case ; but that such wilful offenders may live to obtain forgive- ness. The above explanation furnishes an answer to your repeated inquiry as to what I mean when I say, " the Jewish Sabbatli is abolished." You take a very strange course in supposing, that by the above assertion, I mean that the ceremonial appendages to the Sabbath only are removed, and that I must su])pose the Gospel Church is bound to observe the Sabbath on pain of corporeal death. This I deem mere trifling. In my turn, I ask, what you mean when you say, " the fourth commandment makes provision for the works of necessity and mercy, and that such works might, consistently with the sense of the commandment, be done on the Sabbath ] " Your following remarks about the Church being under a stonlng-to-death disci- pline, are perfectly idle. I will also ask, what you mean by " believers not being under the Law," &c. If you only intend by these remarks, that believers are S92 SABBATH DISCUSSION. not bound under the penal curses of the law, or to ob- tain salvation by the merits of its works ; you contend for what no Christian denies. But if you mean that believers are not bound to obey the law of the deca- log-ue as a rule of duty, you had better come out at once — pull down the standard of Orthodoxy, and un- furl the banners of Antinomianism. We shall then know what we have to meet. Again you anticipate me as saying, the Jewish Sabbath was abolished as to all things relating to the sabbatic institution that was positive ; and thus, by my avowed opinion of the pos- itive appointment of the seventh day, bring me into the diltmma of admitting that it was abolished : and to avoid this dilemma as saying, it was abolished as to all things annexed to the institution by the Mosaic dis- pensation, and thus virtually admitting the fourth com^ mandment to be abolished. You find it very easy to meet these objections you make in my behalf ; but Sir, I have not said nor do I admit that all that is positive in the fourth commandment was abolished ; and con- sequently, am not brought into the dilemma you have anticipated. Nor would you derive any advantage from tlie confession, \vere it made according to your wish ; since you admit that the example of God in resting the seventh day, teaches man as authoritatively that durino; that day, he should rest from all survile labor, and be employed in worshiping God. The du- ty still to observe the Sabbath, is as binding in the one case as in the other. Tn your your concurrence in the opinion that the sabbatic institution is of a compound chai'acter, that is, that it is both moral and ■positive. You say you have not intentionally said any thing, contrary to it.— I cannot say what you have intended ; but you have stated, ( Letter 2^ first scries,) that the Sabbath law in its nature, was not moral but positive," and " that SABBATH DISCUSSION. 293 our blessed Lord placed a bi'each of the Sabbath on a par, not with a breach of mo]'al law ; but with a breach of the law by which the Levitical priesthood was in- stituted and j)rivileged, and which was ceremonial and repealable. " You may say you designed these remarks to apply to the fourth commandment. But it has been sho^vn to the satisfaction of every unpre- judiced reader, that the institution, and the command- ment are perfectly similar in their nature, and in the duties they inculcate. And your remarks here cited, I consider as pointedly against the morality of the fourth commandment as they can well be, and conse- quently as much against the m.orality of the sabbatic in- stitution. Again, under the same date you assert that I admit that God if he please, might direct to the ob- servation of another day of the week, instead of the seventh in perfect harmony with the perpetual morali- ty of the institution. I am not a little surjDrized that you should tax me with admitting this, since I stated my opinion so explicitly to the contrary. Under date of Oct. 16, I said, " To me it appears to be both mor- al and jjositive ; moral as to the appointment of a season for rest and devotion, and positive in the ap- pointment of the seventh and last day of the week for this purpose." But instituting the Sabbath con- sisted in the appointment of the seventh and last day of the ^^^eek : to annul the latter, would be to abro- gate the institution ; as the reasons assigned, for it could apply to no other day than the seventh. God could do this if he please, and if he see fit, appoint an- other day, and assign other reasons for it; but it would be entirely another institution." I have made this ex- tract at large, that you may see that I have given you no grounds for making the assertion and I am not re- sponsible for any of the conclusions you draw from it. That the Jews were under a special obligation to ^94 SABBATH DISCUSSION. keep the SabLatli on account of their national deliver- ence from Egypt, and their other national blessings, as you argue, no one ^viil deny, and the same special rea- sons require that they should observe every other moral and positive duty ; but aside from this speciality, there was a common reason why they, and all other men should obser^^e them. To this the Jewish author Maimonides, whom you quote, attests. According to him, the first and principle reason for the fourth com- mandment w^as, that in six days the Lord made heav- en and earth- ; but the special reason urged upon the Hebrews was, that they were servants in Egypt. — ■ And you have now virtually admitted that the Tyrians [Gentiles] were under moral obligation to keep the seventh day. As to my having alledged that lyou maintained otherwise, as you say I have, must be a mistake. I think I have no where said this. But had I alledged it, your remarks ( 2d letter, first series ) world have sustained me. You there cite the case of the Tyrians as a. decisive proof that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was peculiar to the Jews, and say, " The Tyrians are represented as tempters of the Je^vs, by offering their fish for sale on the Sabbath : yet the Jews only v/ere called to account for the breach of the Sabbath ; " and add, " nor is there, that I re- collect, a single divine charge of Sabbath-breaking up- on sacred record before, or after the Mosaic disj^en- sation." I should understand this as maintaining that the Tyrians v,''ere not morally bound to keep the sev- enth day. In the illustration of your declaration that the au- thority for observing" the first day is essentially the same as that by which the seventh day was observed ; you cannot conceal the difficulty to ^vhich you are subject-' odj in finding something for a divine warrant for the practice. Among other things you say *' the Logo& SABBATH DISCUSSION. 295 [ word ] in delivering the law of faith did, though not verbally yet virtually command the observance of his resurrection day. " And in answer to the question, Where ? you say, " In his last great commission for preaching the Gospel." When you came so near to the'proof of your position as this, had you quoted the words in which this virtual command M'as given, it would have been what I had a right to expect ; but instead of this you tell me that many other things must be understood as enjoined in the commission, thouo-h not expressed in it. " " I feel, " you say, " no hesita- tion in believing that the observance of the Jirsi day of the week, was likewise hei-eby enjoined. " And you finally conclude that as Abel and Noali probably had instructions concerning the sacrifices and build- ing the ark which are not recorded ; it is *' not less probable that Christ, either personally, or by his spir- it, gave some instructions to his aj^ostles in reoard to the observance of his resurrection day, \vhich are not recorded. " Nor are your subsequent reasons on this point of much more weight. I think, brother Parkin- son, you ought not to blame me if I involuntarily smile at such reasoning as this, for I cannot avoid it. Under March 11, after reciting from mine of Oct. 16, 1835, the following, " The Scriptures know of no dis- tinction between moral and positive injunctions and prohibitions," you say interogatively, " surely you cannot mean that the Scriptures do not contain positive asVell as ';/i(?r«Z injunctions and prohibitions." And your remarks which follow indicate that I intended to de- ny that the Scriptures contained positive duties. But you must have known that I did not mean this ; but that the Scriptures held them both alike sacred ; as my re- mirks there made, fully show. Your efforts to prove that the Scriptures contain such precepts were alto- gether surperfluous. On Matt. v. 18, 19, you observe s2 296 SABBATH DISCUSSION. that I " reason, if not unfairly, at least queerly ; " but in your efforts to obscure my queer reasoning, you reason still more queerly. That Christ literally and perfectly observed all the moral law is certain ; and also, that the ceremonial law was fulfilled and abolish- ed in him ; but the whole of his sermon on the Mount shows that his discourse did not relate to himself, any further than it regarded his doctrine. By the words of our Lord, " I came not to destroy ; but to fulfill," he must be understood in a sense opposed to destroy- ing the law or the prophets. The words, therefore, cannot apply to th,e ceremonial law ; for he did des- troy this ; and there Vk^as no divine law then in being, \vhich his disciples could understand him as intending, but the decalogue ; and his illustrations which immedi- ately follow, proves that he intended to be so understood. On jiilerosai, the word which in this place is rendered '■' to fulfill, '' Mr Parkhiu\st observes that in order to make out the connection between this, and the two fol- lowing verses, we must take plerosai in its most ex- tensive sense, as denoting that Christ came not only to fulfill the types and prophecies, by his actions and sufferings ; but also to perform perfect obedience to the law of G-od in his own person, and fully to enforce and explain it by his doctrine." This sense is given to plerosai in Col. i. 25. " According to the dispensation of Grod which is given unto me for you, to fulfill (ple- rosai) the word of God," that is _/?/ZZ^ to preach the word of God. The passage thus understood, pre- serves its close connection with the preceding and fol- lowing verses, and sustains my queer reasoning upon it. But in your remarks upon this text, you represent Christ as enforcing upon his disciples, the precepts of the ceremonial law — that while it was in force, they should regard it as the law of God, and carefully ob- serve its precepts, you add, " Hence still addressing SABBATH DIcfCUSSlON* 297 them, ( his disciples, ) he said, " whosoever shall break one of the least of these [ ceremonial ] commandments and teach men so, (as if by his order) he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, that is, among his disciples them com.posing his visible kingdom, which in chapter xviii. 17, he calls the Chmxh. 13ut whosoever { among his disciples ) shall do and teach them [ the precepts of the ceremonial law] shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven, both as it then was and as it should become after ascension." It follows, accor- ding to this interpretation, that Christ came not to des- troy, that is to abolish the ceremonial law ; but to con- firm, obey, and inculcate it as the law of the Church, and that till heaven and earth pass, not one jot, or one tittle of the ceremonial law shall be annulled. — Now I do not think you believe tliis doctrine, or that you are willing to abide by the necessary results of your comment upon this text. I charitably believe that you have been driven to this interpretation, by your zeal in opposing my queer reasoning. I wish to noti<;e something further, but must defer it for a future letter. I therefore close, w4th my best wishes for your present and future welfare. W, B. MAXSON. LETTER XXVr. To THE Rev. W. Parkinson. Dear Brother, — Pursuing the consideration of your last series of letters to me, the next particular I wish to notice, is, the sense of the original of sohhaths in Col. ii. 16. I am satisfied that it is not limited in the New Testament to the ceremonial sabbaths. From a more particular examination into its application in its plural form, I find it frequently applied to the weekly Sabbath ;' but not always, as you have sup- posed, meaning a succession of weekly Sabbath-days. In Matt. xii. 1, 11. Mark i. 21 ; ii^ 2a, 24 ; iii."^2. Luke iv. 16 ; xiii. 10. Acts xiii. 14 ; xvi. 13 : we find sahhaths in the genative or dative plural. By ex- amining these places, it will be seen that they cannot be understood as intending a succession of weekly sabbaths ; nor can they mean the Jewish sabbaths collectively ; but a single weekly Sabbath only. In the same sense we stould understand this word in its first occurrence in Matt, xxviii. L This, therefore, relieves your interpretation of Col. ii. 16, of the ob- jection I formerly suggested ; namely, that sahhaths in the New Testament usually refer to ceremonial sabbaths : yet it by no means confirms it ; for sab- baths in this text may very properly, and without tautology, apply to the ceremonial sabbaths. This SABBATH DISCUSSION. ^99 will appear evident when we consider that, in some of those feasts, there were both festive duties and ab- stinence from labor enjoined. The former made the day a feast, and the latter a Sabbath. This was the case with the feast of unleavened bread, and the feast of tabernacles ; Levit. xxiii. 0, 39 i each of which was held seven days ; the first and last days of those feast were sabbaths, while the iiiterveDing days were feasts only. Pentecost also was of this class ; it was both a feast and a Sabbath ; veri:e "1\. So, also, was the feast of trumpets, on the first day of the seventh month ; verse 28. All tliese were sabbaths of rest, as well as feast days. Between these sabbaths and the other days, wh^ch were feasts only, there was an important distinction ; and this is recognized in verse 37, 38, where the feasts and ithe sabbaths are dis- tinctly mentioned. There was also a seven-th year Sabbath for the land to lie untilled, and is so call- ed, Levit. xxvi. 34, 3.5, 43 ; and also a fiftieth year jubilee, Levit. xxv. 8 — 13, admitted to be a Sabbath in your Summary : these could not be included in the iioly clrnj in the text, but comes wiiliin the denomina- tion of sabbaths, and to which this v-'ord must neces- sarily refer. Hence it is absurd to argue, as you do., that holy day [heortes,/ea^/5, ] must iaclude the fes- tival sabbaths, and th^t sabbaths [sabbaton] must in- clude the weekly Sabbath. But there is still another important difficulty in the way of your opinion upon ihe text under consideration. The weekly Sabbath is admitted by yourself to be a moral institution. If sabbaths in this text were designed to embrace the^ weekly day of rcst, it strikes not at the branches of the institution, but at the root itself; and levels, not rthe observance of the seventh day only, but the sab" batic institution, to the standard of meat and drink, ^iid other ceremonial observances. Even the septe- 300 SABBATH DISCUSSION, nary division of time which resulted from it must also be annihilated. If the root be dead, the branches must be dead also. It appears to me, therefore, morally certain, that the word sabbaths, in Col. ii. 16, was never designed to affect the weekly Sabbath, any farther than the Jewish ritual v/as concerned ; and there is but little probability that the apostle had any allusion to it whatever. I do not understand your meaning when you say in the beginning of your let- ter, (March 18,) "you do me injustice." You seem to intimate that I had charged you with sup- plying the word days in Col. ii. 16. \^ this is what you design, I would say that I have not intimated that you have so done. In noticing, ( May 18, ) my observation made to you, ( October 16, ) that Israel had the " lively ora- cles '' — the decalogue, committed to them to be finally given to the Church, Acts vii. 38 ; you entirely mis- apprehend me ; and, therefore, say my argument stands for nothing. I designed not to intimate that the ecclesia, [Church,] in this place, meant the Gos- pel Church, nor that the pronoun ?«5 referred to "the congregation in the wilderness ; '' but to Stephen and his cotejnpories, who then had these living vjordSy and especially his associate believers in the Gospel, to whom alone were they really valuable. Now you surely will not deny that God designed, when he gave these " lively oracles " to Israel, that they should be- preserved, and eventually, through that people, be given to the Gospel Church, Unless you deny this, your objections to my argument stand for nothing. In quoting my remarks on Mark ii. 28, ( March 18, ) you seem intent upon misconstruing my mean- ing. You do, indeed, cite my words, fitting them better for your purpose, by a parenthesis, than I wrote them. Had you quoted niy sentence entir-^., SABBATH DISCUSSION". 301 you would not have been inclined to follow it with your censorious comment. In reterring to this text, 1 said, ''by this he [Christ] intimated the perman- ency of the institution, and that he was not the Lord of a shadow — a weak and beggarly element ; but of a solid good, which the Sabbath has always been to the people of God. " By this it will be seen that I limited the remark to the Sabbath : asserting that it was not a shadow — a weak and beggarly element ; but a solid good. The negative part of this asser- tion you say is not true. And the positive part has no more truth in it than what every Christian thank- fully acknowledges. By this you make the Sabbath a shadow and a solid good at the same time. I leave the reader to judge which of us is on the side of truth. In support of your assertion that Christ retained the moral part of the sabbatic institution, and trans- ferred the positive part of it to the day of his resur- rection, you have cited Heb. iv. 10. " For he that is entered into his rest, " &c. This passage has not before been considered ; for I considered it entirely irrelevant to the subject of our discussion. But, as it seems to be much relied upon as evidence of a change of the Sabbath, I will here state that I see not hov/ it has the slightest reference to the subject. The whole argument of this chapter has especially in view that state of rest into which the militant believer has not yet entered ; that is, the heavenly rest. The pro- noun he cannot be designed to refer to Christ, as is frequently urged ; for he had not been mentioned in the whole of the apostle's proceeding argument ; nor can it refer to Jesus in the eighth verse, for this means Joshua, and should be so rendered. The only antecedent to i.he pronoun is 'peo-ple, in the preceding verse, which is also m the sinsfular number. And it 302 SABBATH DISCUSSION. is not true in point o{ fact, that Christ, after he had finished his work, entered into his rest on the first day of the week ; for this must have been on the day of his crucifixion. When lie entered paraiiise, or forty days after his resurrection, generally supposed to be on Thursday. In short, the whole scope of the apostle's argument, in this chapter, siiows that his sole object was to impress upon the Hebrew Christ- ians the necessity of perseverance in order to their final success. In considering my argument drawn from Ps. iii. 7, 8, you ask, "can you be quite certain that the psalmist, by 'all God's commandments,' meant all ins commandments in the decalogue ? -' To this I reply, that I am fully satisfied that the passage ap- plies to the decalogue, more properly than to any other class of commandments or ordinances then given to men, or known to the world. You object to the application of kol-pekudaiv, the word rendered " all his commandments, ^' to the decalogue, and say it will not bear my interpretation. Let us see. The words occurs in Ps. xix. 9, and in its connection, is thus ''the fear of the Lord. " Ps. cxix. 128, " there- fore I esteem all thy yreceyts ; " verse 87, " but I forsook not thy precepts. " Ps. ciii. 18, " and those tliat remember his commandments. " And the place under consideration, " all thy commandments are sure. " In these examples, it is easy to see that the words in Italic can refer to no law with so much pro- priety as to the decalogue, which was held by the au- thor and the whole Jewish nation in the highest esti- mation, and which is universally admitted to be the standard of morality in every generation. I will just add from Parkhurst's Heb. Lex., under pakad ^ ^' when used as a masculine noun plural in regimen, SABBATH DISCUSSION. 303 it signifies charges committed by God to man for his regard and observance. " Your criticism on this place has not suggested to me any thing more proba- bly correct. In perusing your letter of April 8, I find but very little more in support of your preference for the first day than you formerly published, and to which I have replied. It consists chiefly in unauthorized infer- ences. Whatever reasons you may see, or think you see, from God's beginning his work on the first day, from the resurrection of Christ, the falling of manna, or the descent of the Holy Ghost at pente- cost, for the sanctification of this day ; it is but human reason, which, in its best state, is fallible and inclined to err. No result of this kind can be equi- valent to a divine warrant. After all the learning and ingenuity of the world are exhausted in finding reasons and establishing regulations for the worship of the true God ; without a " thus serif h the Lord, " the almighty Elohim would say, " Who hath re- quired this at your hand V " To obey, is better than sacrifice ; and to hearken, than the fat of rams." I Sam. XV. 22. The circumstance of king Saul should teach every man, and especially every minis- ter of the Gospel, the danger of leaning to human understanding. In this letter you intimate that I think that because Christians enjoy the divine presence when assembled on the Sabbath, it is an evidence that they are right in the observance of the day. I have said nothing like this ; my remark was designed to show that your reasoning thus in favor of the first day is incon- clusive. Respecting my remarks upon the times of the resur- rection and of pentecost, you find it much easier to satirize than to confute them. It is difficult to please 304 SABBATH DISCUSSION. you. If I speak confidently ; I must learn to tvrite more modestly. If I would know any thing ; I am then confining all knowledge to Sabhatarians. If I do not speak dogmatically ; why then I am too dijident and do not venture, or am in douhting castle, or some such place. Now there is no argument to convince in all this. Christian humility does not require me to with- hold speaking what 1 believe to be true in relation to religious duty ; nor will it allow me to be over-posi- tive of what the Scriptures have not plainly asserted. Still I think that you and every other person can, upon reading my remarks upon these points, very easily ascertain what my opinion is. I know not why you should be so much surprised at my not being of your opinion as to the time of pentecost ; since you well know that many good and wise men, who have all the means of ascertaining the truth that either of us have, and whose interest it was to believe as you do, and yet have differed from you as to the day of the week on which pentecost fell. Among others formerly named, you may number ISlr. Barnes. See his notes on Acts ii. 1. According to him, it is impossible for any man to tell whether it fell on the seventh, or on the first day of the week. Near the close of this letter, you charge me with saying, in order to avoid the force of your remarks, '' if we could even admit that the day of pentecost in question fell on the first day of the week, the descent of the Holy Spirit on that day was not to honor it as tlie first day of the week, or as the resurrection-day of Christ, but as the day of pentecost. " Now, as bad as this looks to you, and as much as you are shocked by it, you have no body to blame but your- self; for I never penned those remarks until now while I copy them from your letter, nor ever thought that an honor upon the feast of pentecost was de- SABBATH DISCUSSIOX. 305 signed by the descent of the Spirit at this time. My remark you pretend to cite is this, (December 11.) *' But, sir I can see no advantage the first day of the week could derive from the feast of pentecost falling upon it ; for it was kept as pentecost, and as such only is it mentioned in the Scriptures. If any honor was conferred upon the season by the remarkable out-pouring of the Spirit, it was an honor conferred on this annual feast, and not on the day of the week on which it fell. '' In all this I have said nothing intimating that I believed an honor- was designed to be conferred upon pentecost, or upon any other day either of annual or weekly recurrence ; neither do I believe that God designed any such thing in this gra- cious gift, but to honor the Gospel of his dear son in the salvation of sinners. In your following letter, (April 15, ) you ask rne if I can be serious in saying that your conclusion that the manna began to fall on the first day of the week is an assumption ? Yes Sir, I sincerely believe it is an assumption. By this, I do not mean to say that you cannot count seven either forward, or backward, v/hether I have sufficient intellect for tiiis, or not. — My opinion in regard to your conclusion has nothing to do with your skill in arithmetic. But you have supposed a number of things relative to the manna, which 1 do not doubt, looked very probable to you ; and 'then you seem to proceed upon the principle that a number of probabilities make a certainty. You first think it probable that during the last 150 years that the Israelites were in Egypt, they were in such abject slavery, as not to be allowed "time to observe the Sabbath. Then, as they were without records, you think it is reasonable to suppose they had lost the weekly return of the day of rest, or to have been in doubt about it. You then lake it for granted that 306 SABBATH DISCUSSION. they had actually lost the time of the week. You then suppose that Moses, being inspired, directed them especially, that on the sixth day they should gather a double quantity ; of this you cannot be certain, as the record given in Exodus which is all we have that can be relied upon, gives not this information. You then assume the fact, that the sixth day on which they gathered a double portion, was the sixth from the first falling of manna, and so termed on this ac- count, rather than as the sixth day of the ancient week: of this you cannot be quite certain. Had the names of the several days of the week now in use, been used by the Israelites in the days of Moses, and he had in the account of the manna used the term Friday instead of the sixth day ; how could it have been ascertained from the account he has given, how many days they had gathered manna before Friday come ? Now when it is considered that the sixth day was the only term by which the day before the Sab- bath was then known, it is evident that it is an as- sumption, and, in my opinion, a very improbable one, to conclude that the sixth day here was intended as such from the first gathering the manna, rather than as designating its appropriate place in the week by its proper and only name. That none of the Jews observed the Sabbath^in Egypt — that they had so lost the knowledge of the Sabbath as to render in neces- sary that they should be informed, by revelation when it came, and that they were thus informed by the arrangement of the manna, are, in my opinion, all mere conjectures. What Maimonides has said of the Jews in Egypt, that they could not serve God as they desired ; and that they did not keep a Sabbath, is but the opinion of a man ; but it implies that they know when the Sabbath came, and would have kept it if they could. The suggestion that the manna SABBATH DISCUSSION. 307 might have fallen some days on the preceding weeky with which you have charged me, I have never made. Neither have I, as you assert, ajfected to believe that the Jews obs^^^rved the Sabbath during their stay in Egypt, and brought both the knowledge and the ob- servance of iL with them into the wilderness. I mere- ly said (Nov. 13) that I could not discover the pro- priety of your conclusion, that the Jews while in Egypt had e.Uirely lost the arrangement of the week. And I stated my reasons for differing from you ; but I did not affect this. I really believe it then, and do HOW ; that your conclusion is erroneous. And least of all, could I affect this to evade, what you call the manifest fact, that God, by the falling of manna re- newed to Israel the knowledge of the true time of the Sabbath. It is difficult to reconcile so many great and ])alpabie misrepresentations of my statemements with candid mistake ; and I am very sorry, that, when wri- ting to a Christian brother, I have occasion to cor- rect so many errors of this discription. My remarks in proof that the primitive Christians observed the Sabbath, and which you say " are weak in the extreme,^' 1 am willing should be read bj^ those whose preju lices may not prevent their feeling their force. I have no doubt, but that your reply to them resulted from the persuasion thtit the facts to which 1 have referred, are capable of producing results in the mind of our readers^ similar to what they have produced in mine. At the close of your letter (March 11) you say, *' We know by the example of the apostles, and of the Churches in their times, that they understood Christ to have transferred the positive part, the time of the sacred rest, to the day of his resurrection ; namely, the first day of the week, Acts xx. 7. I Cor. xvi. 2. '^ This is, in my opinion a very bold asser- 308 SABBATH DISCUSSION. tion. Had you said you believed this, perhaps no body would have disputed you. But how can you know that the apostles understood Christ to have done this '? The texts to which you refer cannot give you this information. And why did you not formerly know and believe this 1 And why is it that such a large portion of professing Christians, who observe the first day of the week, do not believe it ? You may say the apostles received this of Christ among other things that are not recorded ; but the question returns again, — how could you have ascertained, with such certainty, what the apostles and primitive Churches understood beyond what is imparted by their authorized records % It would not be difficult to show, by Scripture illustrations, the entire uncertainty of those texts you have cited, when properly rendered, so much as mentioning the first day of the week.* * All that is claimed in Acts xx. 7, and I Cor. xvi. 2, as favoring the sanctity of the first day of the week, is from the import of the phrase te mia ton sabbaton, literally one of the sabbaths, but ren- dered in our version " the first day of the week. " Th's form of ex- pression frequently occurs in the New Testament, where it relates to nouns of different significations. Its proper and scriptural im- port may be gathered from the following examples : Matt. v. 18, e mia keraia, " or one tittle ;" verse 19, mian ton entolon, " one of these commandments." Matt. xxvi. 69, mia ton paidiskon, "one of the maids." Luke v. 12, mia ton poleon, " a certain city ;" verse 17, mia ton hemeron, " a certain day ;" chap. xx. 1, en mia ton hemeron, " on one of those days ;" chap, xiii 10, mia ton sunagogon, " one of the synagogues." A great many other examples might be given, but these are sufficient to show the uniform sense in which this form of phrase is used in the New Testament. And no good reason can be given why mia ton sabbaton, in Acts xx. 7, and mian sabbaton, in 1 Cor. xvi, 2, should not be rendered according- to the same rules of interpretation by which all these other phrases of the same form have been translated. If the foregoing examples give the true sense of the original, which will not be denied, then in the texts last cited we should render the words under consideration, on a certain Sab- bath. — one of those sabbaths, one of the sabbaths, or, what is less eliptical in form, as is expressed in Luke iv. 16, en te hemera ton sabbaton, literally, in the day of the sabbaths, but properly, in our own idiom, as it is rendered, " on the Sabbath day." To insist, as SABBATH DISCUSSION. 309 111 noticing my extract from the Ecclesiastical His- tory of Socrates, you appear surprised that I should quote him for the purpose I have ; namely, to show that in his time, (about the middle of the fourth cen- tury, ) the Sabbath was generally observed by the Churches. But why should you be surprised at this 1 Others, for hundreds of years, have cited him for the same purpose. You admit that he says, that, in a manner, all the Churches throughout the whole world observed the Sabbath. It was for his testimony on this point that I quoted him ; and, hav- ing proved this, it matters not what his opinion of the practice was, nor what his object was in record- ing what he did ; nor is his account of this matter, nor that of Sozomen who corroborates it, contra- dictory, because they state that the Churches generally observed the first day of the week. The testimony of the fathers agree that both days were observed ; the Sabbath, in conformity with the fourth commandment, and the first day, as a memo- rial of the resurrection. But having proved that the early Christians kept the Sabbath in obedience to the fourth commandment ; they have also proved that they did not believe that the commandment was abrogated, or that the sanctity of the seventh day was transferred to the first. In this, Socrates, Sozomen, AtJienathius, and Grotius, agree. I also cited Dr. Chambers as collateral evidence that early- Christians observed the Sabbath from the authority many do, that this phrase, in Acts xx. 7, and other places, is fairly translated the first day of the week, is evincing- great inattention to its scriptural and true signification ; or, what is more reprehensible, an imwillingness to admit its true import. Indeed, there is much more reason to believe that those passages refer either to a ceremo- nial, or the weekly Sabbath, rather than to the first day of the week. The foregoing reference to Matt, xxvi.69, should have been Mark xiv. 66. The passage in Matt. xxyi. 69, is mia paideske, rendered " a damsel. " yf jj jyj T 310 SABBATH DISCUSSION. of the fourth commandment, which you have denied. I must defer a few further remarks upon this last autlior to my next. I remain your sincere friend, W. B. MAXSON. LETTER XXVIL To TfiK Rev. W. Parkinson. Dear Brother, — In my former letter I observed that 1 had quoted Dr. Chanihers as corroborating testi- mony that early Christians observed the seventh day as the Sabbath from the authority of the fourth com- mandment. You say, you are glad I have refered to him, as he says much in favor of your views of this matter. If he agrees with you in thinking that early Christians observed the first day, he differs from you in regard to their observance of the Sabbath, and it is only by disproving this practice that you can be assisted in the support of your views. But even the statement of Dr. Chamhci s seems not to assist you as much as you imagine. In his article, Sunday which you have quoted, he says, " Indeed, some are of opinion that the Lard's day, mentioned in the Apocalypse is our Sun- day, which they will have to have been so early in- stituted by the apostles. Be this as it will, it is cer- tain a regard was had to this day even in the earli- est ages of the Church, as apj^ears from Justin Mar- tyr. " He thus expresses himself as doubtful of the observance of the first day as early as the writing of the Apocalypse, and his " earliest ages of the Church" camiot go farther back than, the time of Justin Martyr, about A. D. 150, for his statement referred to his own SABBATH DISCUSSION. 311 time. In quoting his article SahhatJt, I conceive you have not done him justice. He says, " The Christians also apply the word Sabbath by extension to the first day of the week, properly called Sunday, or the Lord's day, as instituted by the apostles to take j^lace &LC. " So you see he does not assert that the first day was instituted by the apostles, but that the Christians applied the term Sabbath to it, as sujiposing it was instituted by them. Under date of April 22, in remarking upon my say- ing I had no particular interest as to the time of our Lord's resurrection ( Dec. 4 ) you construe me as meaning that it is consistent with my interest to ob- scure the scriptural evidence that it occurred upon the first day. But, Sir, I have there explained what I meant by interest and consistency. It is every man's interest to be consistent, even- in matters of small im- portance, and nominal interest at least, in being of the same mind with his fellow-christians on every reli- gious topic ; but the interest I have in knowino- the precise time of our Lord's resurrection is, in my oijin- ion, of small moment ; as no duty is determined by such knowledge. It is sufficient for me to know that he has risen according to the Scriptures ; " and be- come the first fruits of them that slept. " Nor have I any interest in obscuring any evidence the Scriptures afford on this subject. Arid I say again, that I have no objections to its having occurred on the first day of the week ; but the Scriptures do not contain one syllable, to show that the day of his resurrection was, or should be regarded as the Christian Sabbath, I well know, as you say, that the belief that Christ rose on the first day, is the principal reason for most, and to some, the only reason for observing it; but Sir, that I al- so know that many Sabbatarians avow, that if they were convinced that Christ rose on that day, they would ob- t2 312 SABBATH DISCUSSION. serve it, as you assert, I positively deny. If there are such persons among Sabbatarians, I am ignorant of it ; nor did I ever'know of such a case; but I do know of ma- ny substantial members of our Churches, who avow the belief that Christ rose on the first day ; and that this belief, by no means, affects their vie^vs of the obser- vance of the Sabbath. On this point I am willing ev- ery person shall enjoy his own opinion. Respecting your illustrations of Matt, xxviii. 1. — Dan. ix. 27, and your reasons for observing the day of rest at midnight, with noting a few things, I will leave for the reader to settle his oMm opinion as to their accuracy. 1. To evade the evidence I adduced that the first visit of the two Marys to the sepulchre was in the evening of the Sabbath, you state that o/we signifies after ^rid in Matt, xxviii. 1, a good while after ; but this sense is sustained by no better authority than licentious heathen writers, who took the liberty of giving words an unlimited sense, and often very •wide from their etymological meaning. The instances you cite from the fabulous Pkilostratus are not of suf- ficient weight to settle the sense of a word against the divinely authorized use of it in the N. Testament. — Apply your sense of 6»/7*cto Mark xl. 19, or xiii» 35, where the Avord occurs, and substitute it for the true reading, eve?img ; and what will you make of it ? In the New Testament, opsc and its derivatives have the sense o£ evening. 2. I have already cited instances sufficient to bhow that Sahbato?i, plu. gen. is frequent- ly used for assover ; and cites. Beverage Can. Apost. 6. By your own statements, the first meeting of Christ with his disciples after his return from Emmaus, was not propabiy on the first, but the second day of the week ; as you admit that the sacred day closed at sun- setting, and that it was after night-fall when he made his appearance among his di«ciple^. It is useless, therefore, for you to talk of this meeting beino- on the first day of the weeL To what part of the next week will you bring the next meeting, which was af- ter eight days from this evening 1 John xx. 26. The notion of a cJiasm of about six hours between the close of the Sabbath and the beginning of the first day, together with the reasons you assign for begiunino- the sacred day at midnight, are only such as are dictated by a desire to accommodate duty to convenience. In your letter of April 29, when referring to your former arguments in favor of Christ having ate his last passover with his disciples a day before the legal 314 SABBATH DISCUSSION. time, you complain that I have not noticed your re- marks upon Mark xiv. 12, and Luke xxii. 7. I think they are sufficiently noticed in my letter of Dec. 11, to which I refer you. While on this subject, you charge me with great injustice to Dr. Clarke in my quotation from him by suppressing his connection. However, I am not aware that I have mis-stated his views. To show that I have fairly quoted him, I will give a brief outline of his connection. At the end of Matt. xxvi. chap. ; in giving the opinion of Dr. Cudworth, relative to our Lord's last Passover, and who, he says, of all others has handled the sub- ject the best. After stating that about our Sa- viour's time, the Jewish Rabbins and the ancient Jews, often solemnized, as well the passovei- as the other feasts upon the ferias [holidays] next before and after the Sabbath. And as they reckoned the new m.oon not according to astronomical exactness ; but accor- ding to the moons appearance ; the Senate sat all the 30th day of every month, to receive and examine witnesses who would testify that they had seen the new moon. When this was done, they proclaimed, '■^it is sanctified.'' But if no witnesses come in the course of the day, they decreed the one and thir- teenth day to be the calends, of firstday of the month. But if befoi'e the end of the month, witnesses from far should testify that they had seen the new moon in its due time, the Senate was bound to alter the be- ginning of the month and make it a day sooner. — But as they were unwilling to be at the trouble of a second consecration, they received reluctantly these latter witnesses, and finally made a statute "that whatever time the Senate should conclude on for the calends of the month, though it were certain they were in the wrong ; yet all were bound to order their feasts according to It. '^ This Dr. Cudworth sup- SABBATH DISCUSSION- 315 poses actually took place in the time our Lord, and as it was not likely that Christ would submit to this perversion of" the original custom ; and that following the true appearance of the moon, confirmed by suf- ficient witnesses, he and his disciples ate the pass- over on that day ; but the Jews following the perte- iiacious decree of the Sanhedrin, did not eat it till the day following. '' That Dr. Cudworth shows from Epiphanius that there was a tumult about the passover that year — That what was the real paschal day to our Lord, his disciples, and the pious Jews who adopted the true phesis was only the prepara- tion to others who acted on the decree of the Senate. That the Karaitis and even the Rabbins grant that when the case is doubtful, the passover should be celebrated with the same solemnity two days together. In the foregoing synopsis of the opinion of Cudworth and Clarke, a difference of twenty-four hours is al- lowed between the time when Christ and his disciples ate their passover, and that when the other Jews ate theirs. Dr. Clarke, in order to bring both these sea- sons within the limits of the same day, lengthen it to thirty hours ; for he says the Jews began their day at sunsetting, we at midnight. " This is really cut- ting the knot. Of Godwin's ' ' Moses and Aaron^^ 1 can say nothing, not having read it, but by what you have cited it would seem that Christ and Jews ate the the passover it the same hour on the 14th day of month which was the legal time : the following day — the day of the crucifixion, according to this, was legally the first day of unleavened bread from which they were to count for the feast of pentecost ; which is against its happening upon the first day of week. 1 dislike to be continually complaining of unfair- ness in your references to my letters ; but I find too piuch occasion for it. In your remarks upon my 316 SABBATH DISCUSSION. citations from Ignatius^ you intimate that I charge the interpolations of which I complained upon papai- izers. I have said nothing intimating who 1 sup- poseo had made them. What I cited from him rela- tive to the observance of the Sabbath, is no more than what appears to have been practised by Christians generally long since his time. It is very unlikely that any of them who observed the first day, would have expunged from any of his epistles what some of them say in favor of the practice. I should therefore infer from the fact that some copies of his epistles to the Magnesians and TralUans are said to recommend the observance of the first day, while others, ( acknow- ledged to be genuine, ) are without any thing of the kind, that those originally written had nothing of it in thom. I have no complaint against the history of Eusehius, otherwise than that the whole of it shows his strong partiality for the usages of the Romish Church. In regard to your quotations from him, it is proper to state that the whole of the chapter from which they are taken relates to the annual obser- vance of the passover, and not to the weekly obser- vance of the first day of the week. Those synods which were held upon this subject, were only to settle the particular day upon which this annual festival should close. Those which were so generally held at this time, (about A. D. 200,) agreed Ihat this solemnity, which had been from the first held in memory of Christ's passion,, and answering, as to the time of its commencement and duration, to the Jewish passover, should close only on the first day of the week. But, in the following chapter of Eusebius, we have the protest of all the bishops of Asia against what they considered an oppressive usurpation of the western bishops. According to Polycrates, who wrote to Victor, bishop of Rome, on the subjectj the SABBATH DISCUSSION. 317 Christians in Asia had never had any respect for the first day of the week in holding this feast. He states that John, who leaned on the bosom of our Lord, Philip and his virgin daughters, Throseas, Segaris, Papirius, Melito, all bishops, and, in a word, all the Churches in Asia, observed the fourteenth day for the passover, according to the Gospel ; deviating in nothing, but always observing the day when the peo- ple threw away the leaven. Upon the refusal of the Asiatic Churches to comply with the decree of those jjopish synods, Victor endeavored to excommunicate all the Churches of Asia, together with their neigh- boring Churches, as heterodox. And we learn from what Irenaus said to Victor, namely, that many of former pastors, even of the Church of Rome, did not observe this feast ; and, therefore, that those espe- cially who urged its being kept on the first day of the week, were innovators. Hence the testimony of Eusebius does not appear to prove what you imagine it does ; viz., that the Christians of that time univer- sally agreed that Christ rose on the first day ; for all the Churches of Asia and their neighbors refused to comply with the decree of the western bishops, in celebrating the mystery of the resurrection on this day. We also see that the Asiatic Churches that strictly followed the apostolic custom, were so far from viewing it the most holy of all days, that they appear to have had no regard for it. The above also throws some light upon the manner in which the ob- servance of the first day came into general use. I have no hesitation in believing that, from the custom of observing the Jewish passover, the converted Jews continued to observe the same season ; not to com- memorate their deliverance from Egypt, but the Sa- viour's death and resurrection, which occurred during the passover week, and hence called the passio7i iveek. 318 SABBATH DISCUSSION. But this was not done by all ; some of the early- bishops of Rome not only omitted it entirely, but for- bid their brethren to regard it. It was eventually adopted at Rome and by the western Churches, but not as it was observed in Palestine and other parts of Asia. They closed this annual festival on the first day of the week, iriaking it, of course, a great con- vocatixDn day. It seems to have been a voluntary thing in the Churches; for IrencBus stated "that some thought they ought to fast only one day, some two, some more days ; some computed their day to con- sist of forty hoars, night and day, and this diversity existed among those that observed it. " At length, the western bishops who were favorable to the supremacy of the Church of Rome, with Victor at their head, made this effort by calling together synods of bish- ops in various places, who decreed that this an- nual festival should close only on the first day of the week. They thus succeeded in securing the annual observance of this day ; and, finally, its weekly ob- servance, as far as the influence of Rome extended. But it was regarded as a memorial of the resurrection, and not as a substitute for the weekly Sabbath. In referring to my letter of February 27, 1835, you have objected to my conclusion that, as the Sab- bath was instituted before the fall, it did not originate in the grace of God to sinners, and, therefore, could not be affected by the Gospel. To this you say, that, if 1 believe that God's purpose of grace in Christ was before the creation of the world, my re- mark is idle. I do not see how my belief in the di- vine purpose to save sinners, bears against the rea- sonableness of my conclusion. His purpose of grace resulted from the certain foreknowledge of the fall ; but it would be absurd to say that God anticipated the fall in instituting the Sabbath, and then assign, SABBATH DISCUSSION. 3l9 as the only reason for the institution, that he had rested on the seventh day from all his work. Whether the Sabbath was a symbol of a higher state of felicity for innocent man than was enjoyed in Eden, or whether he would have been exalted to it, 1 pretend not to know ; but it w^ill not be denied that it is a type of heavenly rest for redeemed sianers, Heb. iv. 9 ; and, as such, that its typical designs will not be fully accomplished until the last redeemed sinner of all Adam's numerous family shall enter into that rest. As to your feelings in regard to Jewish rites, you are certainly the best judge ; but, from your general manner of expressing yourself when any thing you conceive to be Jewish is the subject of remark, it is evident you have not been under the influence of feel- ings the most complacent either towards the things themselves, or those who adhere to them. Upon this account only can I charitably account for your many deviations from courtesy in our discussion, t know not what but this could have betrayed you into your hasty — condemnatory remarks upon the act o^ St. Paul, when, in the temple, he performed a rite ac- cording to Jewish usage, Acts xxi. 20 — 26. (Letter I, Januar}^ 30, 1835.) As a Jewish practice you view the observance of the seventh day ; hence it is to you, as were the Hebrews to the Egyptians, an abomination, Gen. xliii. 32 ; and you seem less dis- turbed and anxious in regard to those who believe there is no Sabbath, than to those who observe the seventh day. And your remarks in the paragraph now under consideration, indicate that you have no common-place feelings for Jewish rites. In this place you say of Jewish rites, " continued under the same and other names, I cannot, I mnst not endure them ; for, so continued, they are abhorred of God, Is. Ixvi, 320 SAI^BATH DISCUSSION. 3. And the apostle calls them weak and beggarly elements ; and speaks veiy reproachl'ully of judaizing teachers, calJing them dogs and evil-workers, such as would trouble the Church, and prevent the Gospel ; nay, said of them, ' I would that they were even cut- off, ' at least from the Church, if not from the earth. -' What but strong feelings could have dictated the se- lection of such strong language to express them ? However, I am glad if I have been mistaken on this point. There has been no difference between us ex- cepting in the observance of the seventh day to which your remarks and Scripture references could be de- signed to apply ; otherwise, they are irrelevant. Now, in respect to the remarks and Scripture refer- ence T have just cited from your last letter, can you sincerely believe they are applicable to those whose only objectionable practice is the observance of the Sabbath which God has sanctified ? Surely the affec- tionate Paul, who had never departed either in doc- trine or practice from this observance, could never have expressed himself thus against James, and John, and Peter, and his fellow laborers in the Gos- pel, and the many myriads of Hebrew Christians who, you must know, were then in the observance of the seventh day. If this be not the thing you mean to oppose, you "fight as one who beateth the air;'' but I must view this practice as a Jewish rite before I can feel the force of your opposition to it. As to your reference to Josephus, (b. 7. c. 8. sec. 5.) Admitting that, by every eighth day, he intended the beginning of every week, still it is not equivalent to the phrase ''^ after eight days,'^ John xx. 26, the text you designed to illustrate. Neither is "about an eight days, '' Luke ix. 28, the same in its signifi- cation. The article an, in this place, should not have been used, for you know the Greek language has no SABBATH DISCUSSION. 321 indefinite article ; and, in this place, it ought not to be understood, as it alters the sense of the phrase, making it a singular noun by compounding the terms ; whereas they should be preserved separate, as they are in the original. Besides this, the insertion of the article has the effect to impress the reader with the idea that there was an established cycle of this num- ber of days, or one that was usually styled thus ; and that the Holy Spirit authorized this appellation for a week of seven days. For these reasons, I think the article should be omitted. In regard to the text had in view in these remarks, viz., John xx. 26, its sig- nification must be determined by the sense of the preposition meta, which in this place governs an ac- cusative, and most properly signifies after, and therefore has no equivalent in either of the texts above noticed. In again referring to what you call my "strange allegation, that Brown and Lightfoot assign the as- cension gift of the Holy Ghost to the seventh day, " you seem intent upon misunderstanding mc. 1 have never intimated that I supposed that either of them thought that the^Holy Ghost descended on the seventh day. By referring to my first letter, you will see that my remark was made in reply to your confident as- sertion that pentecostj the year our Lord was crucified, was on the first day of the week. I then observed that writers differed in this matter. Burnside sup- posed it was on the sixth or seventh day, and Broivn and Lightfoot admit that it fell on the seventh day. At this you appear greatly surprised, and, under date of January 30th, 1835, severely censuring me, you firmly denied it. In my letter of October 16th, in order to satisfy you and sustain my remark, I fur- nished you with extracts from Dr. Brown, with his references to Dr. Lightfoot, for confirmation. And 322 SABBATH DISCUSSION. now you charge me with designing to impose upon my readers and persuading them to believe what 1 know to be false. 1 have no "railing accusation" to bring against you in reply ; but, desiring to have this matter understood, and satisfy you, if possible, that I have been honesty if not correct, in this affair, 1 beg leave to give you a part of the extract again — it runs thus : *' When treating of the passover, we noticed that the paschal lamb was eaten on Thursday ; that Friday, when our Lord was crucified, was the first day of passover week ; and that Saturday the first fruits were offered up. Consequently, the fiftieth day after, or pentecost, would fall on a Saturday, after the sun- set of which, or on the beginning of the Christian Sabbath, the Holy Ghost probably descended. '' Now, who that can read English *can be so stupid as not to see that he suj)posed pentecost fell on Saturday ?- or that Saturday and the seventh day are not the same ? As to his 0])inion of the time when the Holy Spirit descended, ( in regard to which m^'^ remark was not made, ) he does indeed say it was probably after sun- set on Saturday, and consequently " on the begin- ning of the Christian Sabbath,'' or the first day, as he bc'lieved this day began at sunset on the seventh day ; but, according to your opinion of the licginning of it, Dr. B. must suppose this miraculous gift was hestovv^ed neither on the seventh nor the first day, but during that chasm from sunset to midnight which you think occurred between the two days. In your last letter you say, "you are glad I could defend my un- happy assertion so well. " 1 am glad I have so much truth to defend it with. The reasons you give for calling the seventh day the Jewish Sabbath, do not appear to me to be very solid ; especially as it is generally received as a term of reproach. Although the Jews and such as were SABBATH DISCUSSION. 823 proselyted to their religion were the only people that observed the seventh day scripturally, yet we have seen that the whole Gentile world was under moral obligation to keep it. The seventh day, tlw^refore, divested of its ceremonial peculiarities, is not, in point of fact, and never has been the Jewish Sabbath. Your proving that tlie word SabbcUh was never used in the Scripture till the time the manna was given, is no more than every other person has proved who has read from Gen. ii. to Ex. xvi. But though this is true in regard to our version, you know that in the Hebrew of Gen. ii. 3, as a verb, shabhath, "Ac rested,^' [sabbatized] occurs, which is the very root itself from which Shabbalh, as a noun, is derived. The omission of this word, as a noun, cannot affect the question whether the seventh day is the Jewish Sab- bath. You, as well as every other reasonable man, must admit that there was a Sabbath, and that it was the seventh day ; and none can deny that there was some word by which it v/as known — but names are but words, and do not affect the nature of the things which are known by them. Again, — although I ad- mit that the first day was observed as a memorial of the resurrection long before there was a j^ojje or jm- plsts ; yet it was through the usurpation and influ- ence of those who were favorable to the Romish supremacy, that cherished its observance while a nursling, and that finally put it in the place of the Sabbath, as will appear to all who carefully and can- didly examine the subject. The Catholics themselves claim to have done this and urge it as an objection against protestanism.* In short, the first day is, in * The Rev. Samuel B. Smith, formerly a priest of the Church of I?ome, says, " Rome affirms that the Church has all power through its ministers to alter or amend the divine commandment, according to the exigencies of the case ; to appoint a day and make it holy, or to make tlic day commou and secular. 324 SABBATH DISCUSSION. point of fact, the papal Sabbath, so far as its being put in the place of the Sabbath by papists can make it so. But the law of Christian kindness forbids a Sabbath-keepe?' reproaching a fellow Christian by unnecessarily using against him this offensive appella- tion to the day he observes. The passage cited from Calvin, may be found in Christian Institutes, ch. 9. He speaks very nearly like this : " It was not without good reasons that the the old fathers put in the place of the Sabbath the day called Sunday. " He does not suppose there is a divine appointment for any particular day, but he says the old fathers made the change. I wish also to correct your mistaking Moreri for Morei', a rector of the Church of England. Having now performed the duty which your last series of letters imposed upon me, I shall close my communications to you on this subject. I am sorry to have had occasion so frequently to complain of unfairness in construing my remarks. I, however, assure you I have no unkind feelings towards you or any of my brethren who differ from me on the sub- ject of this discussion. Should you notice the pre- ceding letters so far as to read them ; be pleased to ascribe to my weakness and ignorance, rather than to a disposition to err, v/hatever you may disapprove. I now bid you adieu, and repeat my former invo- cation of God's blessing upon you, in hope of meet- ing you where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary arc at rest. W. B. MAXSON, Pastor of the Seventh Day Baptist Ch., Piscataway, N. J. ><-J