say about the original institution of the Sabbath? He is speaking wholly of ceremonies not then binding on Christians, though, if observed, not sinful, when it was done conscientiously, to glorify God. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.""

From BARNES' NOTES on these passages, we have the following:—" That the Apostle did not mean to say that it was a matter of indifference whether it [the Lord's day] should be kept as holy, or devoted to business or amusement, is plain from the following considerations. 1. The discussion had reference only to the peculiar customs of the Jews, to the rites and practices which they would attempt to impose on the Gentiles, and not to any questions which might arise among Christians, as Christians. The inquiry pertained to meats and festival observances among the Jews, and to their scruples about partaking of the food offered to idols, &c., and there is no more propriety in supposing that the subject of the Lord's day is introduced here, than that he advances principles respecting baptism and the Lord's Supper. 2. The Lord's day was doubtless observed by all Christians, whether converted from Judaism or heathenism. See 1 Cor. xvii. 2; Acts xx. 7; Rev. i. 10; Comp. Notes on John xx. 26. The propriety of observing that day does not appear to have been a matter of controversy. The only inquiry was, whether it was proper to add to that the observance of the Jewish Sabbaths and days of festivals and feasts. 3. It is expressly said that those who did not regard the day, regarded it as not to God, or to honor God: verse 6. They did it as a matter of respect to him and his institutions; to promote his glory and to advance his kingdom. Was this ever done by those who disregarded the Christian Sabbath? Is their design ever to promote his honor, and to advance in the knowledge of Him by neglecting his holy day? Who knows not that the Christian Sabbath has never been neglected or profaned by any design to glorify the Lord Jesus, or to promote his kingdom? It is for purposes of business, gain, war, amusement, dissipation, visiting, crime. Let the heart be filled with a sincere desire to honor the Lord Jesus, and the Christian Sabbath will be reverenced, and devoted to the purposes of piety. And if any man is disposed to plead this passage as an excuse for violating the Sabbath, and devoting it

to pleasure, or gain, let him understand it just as it is: i. e. let him neglect the Sabbath from a conscientious desire to honor Jesus Christ. Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker.

From Acts xx. 7, we see that the disciples kept the Christian Sabbath, and assembled for religious worship on the Lord's day. This was nearly thirty years after the resurrection. Paul preached to them. He who had, as the objectors say, preached the abolition of the weekly rest!!

In 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2, written about the same time, allusion is made by Paul to the Christian Sabbath, and the custom of the church in assembling together for worship and collections for public charities.

Let us now examine the passage in Col. ii. 16, 17, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect to an holy day, or of the new moons, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." "Here, as some have triumphantly alleged is the repealing act."

:

But it must first be proved that the Apostle had reference to the original institution, instead of the Jewish seventh day Sabbath, or the other Sabbaths which the Jews were commanded to keep-such as the first day of the seventh month, and also the tenth day of the same throughout their generations. Lev. xxiii. 3, a Sabbath of rest is appointed, an holy convocation. These and other ceremonial days were called holy and in them no work was to be done, but they were not the weekly Sabbath. The Apostle, as we apprehend, has no reference to the latter. Meats, drinks, new moons, holy days, and Sabbath days, cannot mean the original day of rest, as has already been proved. If the apostle did mean to include the Jewish seventh day Sabbath, it does not follow that he intended to touch the original institution. That was already changed back to the first day, which Christians were keeping, and Paul among the rest.

Says PRES. DWIGHT, "The Sabbath appears to be regularly distinguished from Sabbaths; and as Sabbaths are regularly joined with new moons and other holidays of the Jews, which the Sabbath never is; it is clear to me that the Sabbath is not alluded to in any of these instances." Perhaps not even the

Jewish seventh day Sabbath. Sabbaths in these passages may refer merely to the ordinary holidays of the Jews.

The same may be said of Gal. iv. 9-11, "How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." Paul is evidently speaking of the ceremonies of the Jews, which were not binding on Christians. Acts xv. has nothing at all to do with this subject. It is on circumcision, and the ceremonial law of Moses. For the same Apostle loved and kept the moral law, and commanded others to keep it.

PRES. HUMPHREY says, "The plural form, Sabbath days, rarely, if ever, occurs in Scripture when the original institution is intended." This is to be understood of the English version.

Hear the opinion of an able foreign writer on this subject. "It is evident, from the context, that the Apostle was speaking of the ordinances of the ceremonial law; for the neglect of which no Christian was to be condemned. 'Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, &c., or of the Sabbath days.'

"In this passage the Apostle was doubtless speaking of burdensome ordinances; of something that was against them, and contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. But can any pious person conceive that the spending one day in seven, in spiritual services, could be ranked by the holy Apostle, among the things which were against Christianity and contrary to it? Was that institution, which the people of God had been commanded to call a delight, the holy of the Lord and honorable; now to be esteemed of so carnal a nature as to be ranked amongst the things which Christ took out of the way, nailing it to the cross? Were those holy persons, who had been accustomed to adopt the language of the Psalmist, 'I was glad when they said unto me, let us go into the house of the Lord,' now taught to esteem a day spent in such service, as a part of that yoke, which neither the Apostles, nor their fathers were able to bear?' Nay, verily. We might just as well say, that Christ abrogated the whole moral law. Then the law of the Sabbath has never been repealed. The law has no lim

NEW TESTAMENT VIEW.

197

ations, and, therefore, can never expire." It is then, still binding on Jews and Gentiles; and always will be on all men to the end of time. It may be considered the great instrument to bring men to Christ, and perpetuate the religion of the cross. With

out it men would sooner be deists than Christians; sooner be gross, filthy, ignorant idolators, than civil, intelligent, and happy citizens.

The truth is, those who are laboring to bring the Sabbath into disrepute, and expunge it from the moral code, are at least grossly ignorant of the Bible, the book of nature, and Providence; and of their own best interests and those of the world. We are more and more inclined to the opinion, that every enemy of the Sabbath, and of its strictly religious observance, is an infidel. It may be that he has not yet discovered precisely where he stands; but be it known to him and the world, that he is an enemy to the Christian and to the Jewish religion, and feels uneasy under the restraints, which both the law and the Gospel impose. Ignorance, and the subtlety of designing men, may, and doubtless do, lead many astray; but if they hate the Sabbath, and the duties which it enjoins; and are unwilling to perform them, they are "in the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity," laboring to destroy all good, here and hereafter, and on their way to an eternal hell. All that men now say and do against this institution, proceeds from enmity to the general cause of truth and holiness, or from criminal ignorance. We look upon them all, as the enemies of Jesus Christ, as the enemies of their species, and as insidious foes to our republican institutions; though many of them are not sensible of the fact.

REV. MR. DOOLITTLE makes the following remarks on the passage, Col. ii. 16. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect to an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days."

"A satisfactory key to the text may be found in the following facts, all capable of conclusive demonstration.

1. So much of the law of Moses as might properly be termed ceremonial, in distinction from the moral law, ceased to be essential after the establishment of the Christian dispensation.

"2. Though the Apostles and others, regarded the ceremonial

law as thus abrogated, yet, inasmuch as many of the Christian Jews were conscientiously attached to its observance, the Apostles and Christian Jews generally, for the sake of harmony among themselves, and perhaps to avoid giving offence needlessly, to the ruling powers, conformed, as to a thing of unessential moment.

"3. In opposition to the claims of certain Judaizing teachers, Paul taught, and laboriously vindicated the position, that the observance of the ceremonial law should not be enjoined on the Gentile converts. The text in question, with its connection, is an argument of this sort.

"4. By the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the rest of one day in seven, enjoined in the moral law, was transferred to the first day of the week, which was known as the Lord's day, and hence, the observance of the seventh day of the week, or the Sabbath, as a Jew in those days would understand the term, was, with propriety, classed with the abrogated ceremonial.

"In the text quoted then the Apostle speaks particularly of holy days, new moons, and Sabbath days, (Sabbaths in the original) as belonging to the handwriting of ordinances, which was taken out of the way by the death of Christ, being 'a shadow of things to come.' The Greek word, έoprn, which is here translated holy day, is nowhere else so translated in the New Testament. The strict signification of the word is, a public festival. I have noted twenty-eight passages in which the word is translated feast, in all of which it manifestly relates to some of the three great public festivals ordained in the law of Moses, but most frequently to the feast of the Passover. I know of no passage in which the word is used in relation to any other feast. When occasional or private feasts are spoken of, some other word is always used. It is then certain that a Jew or the Christian Colossians would distinctly understand the Apostle by the word translated holy day, to speak of the annual public festivals belonging to the Mosaic ceremonial. The new moon was a festival enjoined in the law of Moses, not public, but observed in families, or by private circles of kindred. The Sabbath days.' In the original it is 'Sabbaths.' This use of the plural does not, however, appear to express any thing different from the use of the singular, as,