than a minister of sin. I repeat it, then, the question at issue in respect to the Sabbath, is not, whether the burden of old rites and ceremonies is done away, but is the Sabbath a part of it? And this is a thing to be proved, not assumed.

6. The question is not whether it is our privilege and duty to have peace and joy in believing; to enter into rest; to become freemen in Christ Jesus; to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ maketh free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage, &c. &c.; for all this the friends of the Sabbath most fully believe and teach. But the question is, whether this peace, and joy, and rest, and liberty, are the peace, and joy, and rest, and liberty, of doing without a Sabbath. That is the question.

7. And finally, the question is not whether the letter (2 Cor. iii. 6—11) killeth while the spirit giveth life; nor whether the Jewish dispensation is done away by the Christian; nor whether the Christian is so much more glorious than the other as to eclipse and throw it into the shade; for this, too, is clearly taught in the passage quoted and fully believed by the friends of the Sabbath. But the question is whether the Christian dispensation is so glorious as to dispense with the Sabbath. And this, as in all the other cases, is a matter to be proved, not assumed. Let it be well considered, then, that the inferences so confidently drawn to the non-existence of the Sabbath, from the several premises now noticed, are, after all, mere assumptions. Of course they are all to be set aside at the outset, as having nothing to do with the question really at issue. This done, we may profitably proceed with the discussion.

CHAPTER II.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS.

IN the discussion of every subject, much depends on a correct explanation or definition of terms. It is so in the present case. Some really seem to suppose that the friends of the Sabbath regard one day as intrinsically more holy than another, and that when they use the terms sacred, sanctified, holy, and Sabbath, they do it with such an understanding of them. But is it so? Learning, as they do, all they know of the Sabbath from the Bible, it is but fair to suppose that they use these terms in the same sense that the Bible does. What, then, is the Bible use of them?

1. Sanctified. This, in the Mosaic use of it, denotes, among other things, "set apart specially to sacred or religious purposes." Thus (Lev. viii. 10-12) we are told that Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle, and all that was therein, and "sanctified" them; and sprinkled the altar and all his vessels, to "sanctify" them—not that the materials of which these things were made were intrinsically more holy than the same materials wrought into other vessels; nor that the vessels themselves were made intrinsically more holy by this act of consecration; but only that they were thus set apart specially and exclusively to the services of religion. In like manner, also, "he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's

head, and anointed him, to sanctify him;" i. e. to set him apart to the services of religion—not that he was thereby made intrinsically more holy than before. In the same sense, when they came up out of Egypt, the Israelites were commanded (Ex. xiii. 2) to "sanctify," or (v. 12) "set apart unto the Lord," all the first born of man and beast-the beasts for sacrifice and the men for the religious services of the altar and the temple. In Joel also (i. 14; ii. 15) the priests are called upon to "sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly," &c. ; i. e. obviously, to appoint or set apart a time for that religious service. And in the same sense, beyond all question, it is said, (Gen. ii. 3,) "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it;" i. e. set it apart specially to religious purposes.

2. Holy. This is used in the same sense with the term sanctified. Thus the "holy garments" (Ex. xxviii. 2) of Aaron and his sons are not garments intrinsically more holy than others, but merely garments made and set apart specially for the religious services of the altar and temple. So, when it is said, (Ex. xvi. 23,) "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath," the meaning is, not that the morrow is intrinsically more holy than any other day, but that it is the day set apart from the ordinary avocations of life to the purposes of religious rest, improvement, and worship. Literally translated, the passage reads, "To-morrow is the rest, the rest holy (Sabbath-quodesh) unto the Lord." And this gives you its true meaning, viz. To-morrow is the rest, the rest that is holy; i. e. consecrated, or set apart to the Lord. So, in the account of the original institution of the Sabbath, (Gen. ii. 3,) the term which is translated

sanctified is yekaddesh, and means, literally, he caused it to be holy; i. e. he hallowed or set it apart to the purposes of religion.

3. Sabbath. This term, in view of what has just been said, is readily understood. Literally, it means merely rest. Applied to a particular period of time set apart as holy, as of a day, it means a day set apart to rest from the ordinary avocations of life, and specially devoted to the duties of religious instruction, improvement, and worship. The Sabbath, then, as an institution, is a season of rest, holy or consecrated to the Lord. It consists of two parts, the Sabbath or holy rest, and the time or day set apart for it. This distinction is clearly recognized in the account of its original institution. God (Gen. ii. 2) rested (sabbatized) on the seventh day; and then (v. 3) he " tified," or set that day apart, as the day for sabbatizing, "because that in it he had rested," (sabbatized.) The sabbatizing or holy resting is therefore one thing; the particular day set apart for it is another. The particular day may therefore be changed, as from the seventh to the first day of the week, and yet the institution itself, as a season of holy rest consecrated to the services of religion, remain unchanged.

sanc

CHAPTER III.

THE SABBATH AT CREATION.

THE question, then, or rather questions, at issue in this discussion, are these -1. Is the Sabbath, as an institution, perpetually binding on men? 2. Has any particular day been set apart, by divine appointment, for its observance? and if so, what day is it?

IS THE SABBATH PERPETUALLY BINDING ON MEN? It will be my object to show that it is.

1. Its perpetual obligation is manifest from its original institution. Like marriage, it was instituted at creation, and instituted, not for the Jew alone, nor for the Greek, nor for any particular age or nation, but for man- the race; to live, therefore, like the marriage institution, while the race, in its present state of being, lives; and to be binding in its observance, while there is such a race to observe it. This is manifest from the inspired record. According to that, the first period of creation (Gen. i. 1—5) brought forth the shapeless mass of chaos, and separated the darkness from the light, and gave being to Day and Night. The second (vs. 6-8) gave the firmament, and separated the waters which were beneath from those which were above it. The third (vs. 9—13) gathered the waters that were under the firmament into seas, brought forth the earth, clothed it with the tender grass, and the herb, and tree, and made it in