68 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



Injurious to Chrisfs character. 1 Tim. i. — not fully examined. 



NeverthelesSj I am bound to remind him that this charge 

 against our Lord is a grave ene, and if not sustained (as I 

 tliink on reflection he must feel that it is not), demands on his 

 part profound regret, and public retraction. It is " a word 

 against the Son of Man/' which, though not unpardonable (as 

 He in his mercy assures us), is yet really "false and calum- 

 nious/' injurious to his honor, to his purity, to his piety, to 

 his self-consistency, to his uniform regard for the Sabbath, and 

 for the virtue and happiness of mankind, to say nothing of his 

 self-consuming zeal for their salvation. May the mild majestic 

 eye that once looked on Peter, look on my friend ! 



IV. His FouRTH Proposition, that "the New Testament 

 never encourages Sabbath observance nor condemns Sabbath- 

 breaking/' will detain me but for a moment. It is so vitally 

 involved in what has been discussed that every one will see 

 that the proper observance of the Sabbath, befare Chrisfs re- 

 surrection on the seventh day of the Jewish week, and after 

 that memorable event, upon the Jirsf, is always implied, as 

 well as often exp^^essed. Indeed it is evident that for many 

 years the Apostles observed loth, though for different reasons 

 and only among the Jews. 



My friend treats with lightness the evidence I adduced from 

 1 Tim. i. 9 — 11, of the condemnation of Sabbath-breaking, as 

 o7ie spedes of profaneness. {p. 29.) I do not wonder; since it 

 is quite evident, from the manner in which he quotes it and 

 comments on it, that he looked only at the 9th verse. But I 

 beg him to examine this passage again. The force of the ar- 

 gument it yields lies open before every plain English reader, 

 in the order observed by the Apostle in his specification of sins 

 and sinners. So exact a correspondence with the order of the 

 ten commandments of the Decalogue cannot be the work of 

 chance. It follows, 1. That the Decalogue is recognized as 

 ih& moral standard " according to the glorious Gospel of the 

 blessed God." 2. That Sahhath-hreakers are certainly includ- 

 ed among " the ungodly and profane," and as such condemn- 



