62 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



No contradiction possible. Neither Christ, nor Paul, — Anti-sabbatarian. 



the first principles of all sound interpretation. It is nothing 

 less, in efiect, than attempting to make the Saviour contradict 

 MmseJf. It foUows, that the weeklj Sabbath days are not cer- 

 tainlij ineluded, but only those "peculiar to Judaism, and which 

 the false teachers upheld in opposition to Christ, as '^ the head 

 of all principality and power/^ (verse lOth.) The whole of 

 the context, from verse 6th to verse lOth of this chapter, is 

 the Apostle's protest against these Judaizing teachers. They 

 would have placed the yoke of circumcision, and of tlie icliole 

 Jewish law upon the Gentile believers. Paul resists this un- 

 warrantable imposition, by showing, 1, that Christ, as " Head 

 over all things/' had a right to set it aside ; 2, that he had 

 really conferred on believers all the blessings it vainly prom- 

 ised; 3, that, therefore, Christ was the suhstance, and that 

 ceremonial system but the " shadow '/' from all which, it fol- 

 lows that no man could lawfully condemn them for not ob- 

 serving it, in any part of its burdensome ritual. Even to 

 observe the Sabbath, in a Jewish way (/. e., on the seventh 

 day of the week, and in combination with other Jewish '"'' holy 

 days'^), would, in a Gentile Christian, be wrong; in a Jewish 

 Christian, it must be a matter of indifiference, expediency, and 

 condescension only ; but for either to observe it as a part of 

 an ohligatory ritual, would be a renunciation of the authority 

 of Christ, and, therefore, of the Gospel itself. It is in this con- 

 nection Paul uses this strong language here and elsewhere, 

 which some have mistaken for a repudiation of the Pecalogue, 

 and among them, my friend W. B. T. 



The truth is, such a mistake in him is a logical result of his 

 principles. He starts wrong at the beginning. He does not 

 recognize the moral law in the Pecalogue. His stand-point 

 is not that of Christ, and, therefore, not of Paul. Hence, he 

 allows not to the ardent language of the apostle, in a contest 

 against Judaizing teachers, the necessary limitations that keep 

 it in holy harmony with the doctrine of his Lord. This is the 

 source of that fatal confusion in an intellect naturally bright 



