1

How these passages could ever be supposed to be meant to abolish the moral and essential law of the Sabbath, (or THE LORD'S DAY, which was the name it assumed immediately upon the Resurrection's drawing it to the first day of the week,) it is difficult to conceive. No doubt, if the anticipated history be received, and if the assertion of the merely ceremonial nature of the Sabbath be admitted, this or any other consequence may be shown to follow. But having now a right to take for granted the actual institution of the day of rest in Paradise-its actual moral character and obligation, from its incorporation into the decalogue-its essential dignity and importance even when surrounded with the appendages of the intervening economy of Moses--its inherent authority as urged in the most evangelical of the prophecies--and its entire simplicity and force when purified from the corruptions of the Pharisees. by our Savior; having a right to take all this for granted, the passages just cited strongly confirm our general argument, by showing that nothing but the ceremonies and shadows connected with it are dispersed; the substance of course still remaining.

In fact, what took place with regard to the fourth commandment, happened, as we have already observed, to all the others. The moral law assumed, as it entered the Mosaic dispensation, her robes of emblematic and civil ceremony. Each commandment was adorned with appendages. When that dispensation ceased, she put off her robes, and re-assumed her original simplicity of attire. And now the Queen of days approaches us with that native majesty and authority which was veiled, but not lost, during the figurative age;-a majesty and authority, which was derived from her first coronation in Paradise, which was augmented by the public proclamation of her rights on Mount Sinai, and which she retains with increased privileges and prerogatives under the New Testament.

IV. For this is the last point which establishes the dignity and glory of the weekly day of religious rest under the Christian dispensation, THAT THE DISTINGUISHING PROMISE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS FOR ITS OBJECT TO RENDER THE DUTIES OF THE SABBATH MORE DELIGHTFUL, AND THUS INCREASES TENFOLD THEIR OBLIGA

TION.

For what is the distinguishing promise of the New Testament? What is the characteristic of the gospel? Is it not the larger grace of the Holy Spirit? Is it not that it is "the ministration of the Spirit?"And what is the most important office of the divine Spirit? Is it not to write this very law, these very ten commandments, and none other, this very decalogue which was effaced from the heart of man by the fall, and which was republished with so much solemnity on Mount Sinai, and written on tables of stone with the finger of God, and deposited in the ark--is it not TO WRITE THIS LAW UPON THE HEART OF MAN? And would our Lord have promised the Holy Spirit for this purpose, if he had himself relaxed any part of this law? And does not this promised aid increase the obligations of this law upon man, and exhibit its importance with a tenfold force?

Read the apostle's comment in the 8th chapter of his epistle to the Hebrews, where he describes the new covenant, and contrasts it with the old; "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant, which I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my laws (the very decalogue of which we speak) into their mind, and write them in their hearts."*

And accordingly is not the first commandment, to worship one God, thus written upon the heart? Is not the second, to worship him not with graven images? Is not the third, not to take his awful name in vain? And so of all the others? And is the fourth then omitted? Is there a gap, a failure in the divine code? Was the fourth precept inserted in the decalogue by a mistake? ten commandments in the law, and only nine written on the heart? Is the institution of the Sabbath engraven and exhibited in the very order of the first creation, and not engraven in the order of the new creation? Is the soul of

* Heb. viii. 8-10.

Are there

"If any man be in Christ he is a new creature;" or, NEW CREATION. --2 Cor. v. 17.

man formed to this heavenly temper in all other respects, and has he no taste for devoting the seventh portion of his time for the immediate service of his God? No, my brethren, we have no abrogation of the immutable law of God under the New Testament. On the contrary, the office of the Holy Spirit is to infix it deeply in all its parts on the inmost soul of man. This confirms and clenches all our preceding arguments; and especially that from the conduct and doctrine of our Lord, by whom the Spirit was sent for the comfort and guidance of the church.

The apostle yet more distinctly teaches us this, when he says, that the Christian is an epistle of Christ, and refers to the two tables of the law as transcribed on the human heart, and to the Holy Spirit as the divine Author of the transcription. Mark, I entreat you, his language: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not IN TABLES OF STONE, but IN FLESHLY TABLES OF THE HEART."* Here then are the two tables of the law--the first and second--the one containing the precepts of the love of God; the other, those of the love of man. Here is a precise transfer of this law, a removal from mere tablets of stone, to the fleshly tablets of the heart. In this transfer, do any of the commandments fall away? In the Christian's heart, the two tablets are re-impressed, the two tablets as they came from the hand of God. And has the fourth commandment disappeared in the passage through which all the rest have found their way from the tablets of a literal inscription, to those of the Christian's heart? No, my brethren, if "there were a window in the Christian's bosom, you would see the fourth commandment filling as large a space of that epistle which is written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, as it does in the decalogue of Moses." You will find the Christian saying, "I delight" in this, as well as every other part of "the law of God, after the inner man;"‡ you will find him acknowledging with St. John, "His commandments are not grievous;" you will find him saying

with the Psalmist, "Therefore hold I straight ALL thy commandments, and all false ways I utterly abhor."*

Now just in proportion as the Holy Spirit is the grand peculiarity of the Christian dispensation, is the obligation of all the commandments, and therefore of the fourth, increased. We stated in a former place, that the new motives which the advancing privileges and light of the church continually afforded, were so many additional claims of the day of rest upon man. But how much more are these claims strengthened by the aid now vouchsafed by the Holy Spirit this aid being the distinguishing object of all his operations-producing a transfer of the law of the Sabbath from stony to fleshly tables; and thus ending in a far lighter burden as to external service, and a far weightier obligation in respect of love and gratitude?

But it is time to close the discussion, which has been necessarily long. A case has been made out which commends itself, I trust, to every attentive hearer, and which strengthens the proofs of our preceding discourses, and carries on the argument to a moral demonstration. I have dwelt at length on the conduct and doctrine of our Lord, because it is the only point where any reasonable doubt can be entertained. The first blush of the other objections condemns them. But the objection raised from this has its plausibility; it demanded and has rewarded our examination. I feel confident that in the main the view now presented is the true one. If any doubt is suffered to rest on the question, whether our Savior violated the ceremonial law of the Sabbath, it is a subordinate point. Supposing he did violate the letter of this law, it was as "the Lord of the Sabbath," in the discharge of the highest of all commissions-that of the Savior of mankind. The topics which would remain would still be conclusive-that our Lord honored and reverenced the institution itself-based his defence of what he did and said with regard to it on the Old Testament, and the admitted usages of the Mosaic dispensation-only opposed the false commandments of the traditionary doctors-and left the moral and substantial duty untouched. These points would be admitted. Add then, to these, the express recognition of the ten commandments

* Psalms cxix. 128.

by Christ and his apostles-the conduct of the apostles in honoring the Sabbath after his example--and the special office of the Holy Ghost under the gospel, augmenting the obligation, whilst it facilitates the discharge of its duties-and we have an accumulation of evidence which requires no aid from the question of our Lord's exact conformity to the ceremonial law.

Let any one apply the argument as thus deduced from the reasonings and conduct Christ concerning the moral law of the Sabbath, to any statute of human legislation which had been loaded with unauthorized usages, and let him ask himself, what would be the necessary effect of such reasoning and such conduct upon the authority of the original provisions of the statute; and he would instantly say, the establishment of that authority in its real and paramount force.

I conceive that the duty of dedicating one day in seven to the worship of Almighty God, was so wrought into the consciences of all his true servants in every age, after its repromulgation in the moral law had revived the memory of its glory as infixed in the order of creation-and that the observance of it was so reasonable in itself, so necessary to man, as man, and so delightful also to the devout mind -that the thought would never have occurred to any creature, that our Lord abrogated the fourth commandment. The Jews accused him of breaking it, but never of denying its obligation or sapping its claims. The Jews at the time of Christ were indignant even at the violation of their oral precepts concerning the Sabbath, and they carried their prejudices with them into the Christian church. The Gentile converts had all been accustomed to religious festivals and days of repose--the corruptions and faint vestiges of the original Sabbath. All therefore were prepared for keeping the fourth, as well as every other of THE COMMANDMENTS. There was no one to deny its divine authority; and when the gracious interpretation of its true import by our Lord, and the change of the day to the commemoration of his Resurrection (as we shall see in the next discourse) were acquiesced in, the ends of the institution were fulfilled in the celebration of the divine praises in creation, in redemption, in grace, and in the anticipations of the heavenly repose.