SECTION XLI.

ON THE SANCTITY OF THE SABBATH.

THOMAS.-EPAPHRAS.-PHILEMON.

Thomas.-There are professing Christians who consider the Sabbath in the light of a mere earthly institution, without any divine sanction whatever. They adduce innumerable arguments and sophisms in support of their opinions, but not one of them I have ever heard or read goes beyond the merest probability. And who would rest their faith in this matter on so insufficient a basis?

Epaphras.-In the almost worn out state of the world, let not that excite your surprise which is so plainly foretold. "In the last days perilous times shall come," and there shall spring up in divers places men of perverse minds, who shall hold the truth in ungodliness. Not only will they speak against the institution of the Sabbath, but against all that is either sacred or mysterious in religion. Nothing shall be submitted to in humble faith; all things will be searched into with profane hands, and with most unhallowed boldness.

Philemon.-This is the sin of the age in which we live. Ungodly men are fast filling up the measure of their iniquity: an inundation of wrath, I fear, is at hand. Surely, if the present

race of men had any humbleness of mind in them, they would be afraid to set up their finite judgments against the judgments of the ancient fathers of the church. Such men as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and others, would have enforced the sanctity of the Sabbath both by their precepts and examples.

Epaphras.-Many of the opposers of the christian Sabbath are so ignorant of the real nature of the question, and they are so profoundly ignorant of the sacred Scriptures, that many of them have not, to my knowledge, read the Bible once through, and yet they have the effrontery to oppose themselves to men who have not only read every page of Scripture, but every line in every page.

Thomas.-The question, in my mind, is not what good men have believed, or held, or written; but, what has the Lord revealed or sanctioned? Many, I know, undervalue that institution, and take umbrage against it, because they can discover no positive injunction respecting it in the New Testament. They contend, that the Lord is silent on the subject; and they reason, with some appearance of truth, that if it had been his will, it should be kept apart from other days, it had been established with all due authority, and come under express Gospel enact

ments.

Philemon.-But such an expectation proceeds from a mistaken view of the whole matter. It implies great ignorance in the very nature of our laws, both human and divine, even in mere human institutions; every enactment holds good as long

as it remains in the statute book unrepealed. It continues in force, and may be put in force, though for a time it may become somewhat obsolete and lose its vigorous application. Now where have we any repeal of the sacred institution of the Sabbath? We read of its original enactment, but where is there any trace of its abrogation, seeing the same authority is needful to annul it which first invested it with its awful sanctities?

Epaphras.-The line of argument which you adopt is incontrovertible, and the inference to be drawn from it most conclusive. Instead of seeking for any fresh sanction in the New Testament, it would be a work of supererogation to find any. The Sabbath stands precisely on the same footing as any other part of the Decalogue, of which it forms a part.

If you choose to press the matter further, and say that it is not found in the sermon upon the mount, where the law is so fully recognized, expounded, and applied, I say such omission is no warrant for you to go against it, but it rather makes for the original institution itself; and the reason why our Lord does not there allude to it distinctly, probably was, that an ordinance so obviously due to God, so beneficial to man, ought never to be brought into question.

Philemon.-It should ever be remembered that all days belong to God; they are all of his own making; and he may allot what work soever he pleases to be done in them. But while other days are spoken of without qualification, there is always an emphasis put on the Sabbath. Its

P

name bears the stamp of divine authority. Though all seasons are the Lord's, yet the fact of its being styled the Lord's Day shows you that this is his specially and emphatically.

And why, I would ask, should it be thought hard upon the creature that his great Creator should be thus careful of him? Can you suppose that the prohibition respecting the Sabbath should be viewed in any other light than as a privilege, or that divine legislation respecting the keeping of it proceeds from any other consideration than an eye to our spiritual and temporal good? When the Lord permitted our first parents the participation of all fruits, saving of that of the tree of life, was not that a most merciful injunction? And the consequence of their transgression, was it not their fearful overthrow?

Besides, if men did but attach to the ordinance of the Sabbath the importance it deserves, the solemnizing and sanctifying of that day would be no less a matter of necessity to keep it holy than free choice; for what is the tenour of the divine command respecting it? "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do ;" and if professing Christians, and men that fear God, did all in the week, and left nothing to be done of a worldly nature on the Sabbath, did they perform the works of their calling in the six preceding days? Could they say, as their heavenly Father did, "In six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth, and rested the seventh day," they would cease from their works inevi

tably; and when there was no higher motive for the keeping of it sacred, necessity would supply that motive.

I am aware that some scoffers, and sceptics, and rationalists, have attempted to raise objections against the institution of the Sabbath, on the ground that the day is changed; but this is a sorry subterfuge. Were it not for the circumstance, that a change having been made in the day has rather unsettled some minds, I should not have noticed it; but if the Lord did make a change in the day, I would ask, had he not power to do so? Cannot he make whatever changes he thinks best? Has he not just reason for doing so? Is not creation-work equal to that of redemption? the making of all things out of nothing equal to making all things more like himself? Is not redemption the master-piece of all his work? Besides, is not the alteration in question for the better, as all succesive works of God undoubtedly are? He changed the ceremonies of the law into the substance of the gospel; water into wine; nature into grace and grace into glory; happy changes! wherein we go from worse to better! may we go thus onward from imperfection to perfection for ever!

As one, then, my friend, who has received mercy, let me entreat you never to permit the thought, that the Sabbath is without a divine sanction; it is no mere ordinance of man, as some would tell you; it does not arise, as others think, from no higher motive than an eye to our vile being; much less does it take its rise from human policy and priestcraft: on the contrary, this ар