as necessary now, as ever it was before the coming of Christ. No part of it is sin, no part unnecessary, no part unjust.

Verse 22. "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. Such is the feeling of that Apostle towards the law of God, who has been quoted to prove its abrogation. He still "delights in it." This holy man, in loving the law, did not love that which he had been instrumental in abolishing. He could not delight in a nonentity. The Christian Sabbath was a part of the law he delighted in.

ROMANS viii. 7. "Law of God," i. e., moral law, not the law of Moses; also, xiii. 8, 10, "Love is the fulfilling of the law." Of course, law here means the ten commandments.

EPHESIANS ii. 15. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments, contained in ordinances, to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." This text, the objector also thinks supports his position. But, by a careful examination, it is easy to see the Apostle's meaning. He is giving to the Ephesians a short view of what Christ has done for them, in breaking down the wall of partition between them and the Jews; that he has brought them nigh by his blood— is their peace; and of the twain, the two classes, has made one new man, in himself, by abolishing in the flesh the enmity, i. e., doing away those ceremonial laws, or ordinances, which had been established to keep them separate, and were in the way of their coming together. Thus, by removing the law of commandments, in ordinances, the enmity between Jew and Gentile should by and by cease.

JAMES ii. 8, 10, shows that the whole law was yet in force. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." The sixth and seventh commands are mentioned, which shows that it is the ten commandments, of which the Apostle speaks.

1 JOHN iii. 4. "Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." From this also it appears that the law, the moral law, is still in force.

Let it be observed, that the original institution of the Sabbath, as related, Exodus xx., is not only a moral precept, but is among the immutable natural laws, and can never be abrogated or re

pealed by any being on earth, or in heaven, without a change in the divine government, as appears from Christ's own words, and the declaration of the Apostle, as before stated. Let the enemies of that institution know, that it stands so high, that they cannot reach it, is so broad that they cannot span it, and so deep that they cannot fathom it. It was given, distinct and apart from the ceremonial laws; written on stone by the finger of God, and held a most prominent and honorable place in the decalogue. It was laid up in the ark with the other immutably holy and just precepts, there for ever to remain. Christ did not abrogate it, for one jot or tittle of the law, that is, the moral law, could not fail. The Apostles dared not touch it; and there is not the least evidence in the New Testament that they ever did do it away; but on the contrary, when with Christ they always kept it, and after his resurrection, they observed the same institution, though on another day, which Christ himself honored by his presence with them. If the institution had been abolished, the Apostles would have known the fact, nor would their Leader have encouraged them in keeping a Sabbath, if he had not intended to have one observed after his death.

We consider it as for ever settled, by Christ himself, had we no other testimony than what is derived from his words and actions, that Christians are as much bound to keep a Sabbath, as were the patriarchs, or the Jews. That precept stands, in relation to this matter, just where the other nine do. If the fourth is repealed by his act, so are the others.

If the Sabbath has ceased to be binding, and, as some pretend, it be sinful to keep it, being one of the holy days which the Apostle forbade to be kept, then the declaration of Isaiah, (lxvi. 23,) when speaking of the millenium, that all men would then keep the Sabbath, will never come to pass.

The moral and ceremonial laws God has always kept separate and apart; and by so doing, shown to his creatures his intention forever to keep them distinct. He wrote the one, and caused Moses, his servant, to write the other. In their natures they differ. Their objects are different, and their effects different. One could be spared from the world before the days of Moses, and since the days of Christ; the other could never be

spared from this world, as may clearly be inferred from God's governing his creatures, before the ten commandments were written, by the principles of that law, which, in all probability, were well known to the ancients, though not yet written. Do not these things establish the doctrine, that all men are now under obligation to keep the fourth commandment? Here is a great rule of moral right, which, though the record of it might be burned up and forgotten by man, can never cease to be binding on moral beings. We consider it, in its nature, indestructible-immutable as the throne of Him from whom it emanates. It stands, a holy rule, between God and man. Through it we see and know God, while we learn our duty to him, ourselves, and to one another. All the law is holy, perfect, essential, and everlasting in its very nature. We should as soon expect the infidel and the Deist to succeed, were they to attempt to pull down the throne of the Almighty, as to expect they would succeed in destroying that law, or even rendering one jot or tittle of it liable ever to fail. Let them beware how they lay their polluted hands on so holy and so omnipotent an instrument. Their enterprise is as fruitless as it is wicked and malicious, and may bring down, in this life, merited rebuke. It certainly will, if unrepented of, be punished in the next with everlasting destruction. When we attempt to defend the character of this law, it awakens in us feelings similar to those we have when we undertake to defend the character and existence of God. It seems a work of supererogation, and too holy a matter for sinful man to engage in. The law was from eternity. God has written it, and handed it down to men. He holds it out before their eyes. It is himself in perfection: and rather than suffer it to be blotted out, or any of its principles dispensed with, as it relates to rational, accountable creatures, he would dash this world, which he has made, and which he sustains, to atoms—and none could prevent the awful catastrophe.

This law cannot be lost, nor abrogated, either by men on earth, or spirits in heaven or hell. It is forever settled; it cannot be abrogated or lost. No, not even its author-with deference we speak it—can abrogate it, until he change his own nature and the mode of his government.

But he is immutable. Blessed truth! Let it be repeated by all good men in the ears of the ungodly-He is IMMUTABLE.

OBJECTION IV.-"THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE a SABBATH."

Another objection with which we are often met is, that the New Testament does not require a Sabbath.

The Jewish law, say they, was abolished by Christ on the cross, according to Acts xv. In further proof of the same assertion, Paul is quoted, in Gal. iv. 10, 11: "Ye observe days and times," &c. "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed labor in vain." Col. ii. 16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come." Rom. xiv. 5: "One man esteemeth one day above another. Another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

This objection, and the texts quoted to prove it, remind us of the language of a distinguished divine to a layman who entertained the same opinion with the author of the objection, and cited some of these passages in its defence. “I aver, therefore,” said he, with confidence, " that no truly liberal-minded and competently informed person, could have written like our author. For writing and publishing such a passage as this, I hesitate not to brand him with disingenuousness, or arrogant ignorance."

Those who quote the above passage in Acts to prove that the moral law, or any one of the ten commandments, was abolished by Christ, either have not yet learned how little they know about the subject, or they are not honest. The passage relates wholly to the ceremonial law, as almost any Sunday school child can see. It is surprising to us, that wicked men, haters of the Bible, and rejectors of its truth, attempt to quote, much more to expound it. When they do, their expositions are often very similar to those addressed to Eve in the garden, and to our Savior on the pinnacle of the temple.

If all those who raise these objections had been studying the Bible on Sunday, instead of spending that day in labor and sport, we should not have been made to blush for their ignorance

of its truths, or for their disposition to tear away the main pillars of our religion and our free institutions. We shall, however, subjoin a few extracts in relation to part of these quotations.

PRESIDENT HUMPHREY, on this point, says, "If the repealing act is any where recorded in the Bible, it is either in Rom. xiv. 5, 6, or in Col. ii. 16, 17. No one, we believe, pretends to place much stress upon any other passage. The text in Romans is this: One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.' Does the apostle here mean to say, that under the new, or Christian dispensation, it is a matter of indifference which day of the week is kept as a Sabbath, or whether any Sabbath at all is kept? Surely those who thus construe his meaning, 'do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures.'

"Every attentive reader of the New Testament must have observed, that, for some years after the resurrection of Christ, the Jewish and Christian dispensations were, in practice, blended together; the former being gradually abolished, and the latter as gradually brought in to take its place. And hence the disputes which the apostle endeavors to settle. 'Him,' he says, 'that is weak in the faith, receive ye; but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things. Another, that is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant. To his own master he standeth or falleth, yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord. And he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.' Who, for a moment, after reading this quotation, can doubt that the Apostle had reference solely to the ceremonial law, and had nothing to