206 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



No change made in the week : and none in the laio. 



pels him to be extremely sensitive with regard to any modifica- 

 tion of the Decalogue. But, however tenderly he may shift his 

 uneasy seat, the ultimate practical point to be proved by him 

 is that the observance of the Jirst day of the week is required 

 by the fourth commandment. He admits that it is as certain 

 as human knowledge can be, " that Saturdai/ is the Sabbath 

 enjoined on the Jews.'' How then did Sunday ever become 

 obligatory ?* The question can have nothing to do with any 

 change of the iceeh, since, 'Sio/i est,' there has been none; and 

 J. N. B. thinks he has " proved beyond dispute'' that it ^' has 

 nothing to do with any change of the Decalogue.^^ So, upon 

 the whole, it appears not to have much to do ivith cmytliing ! 

 Still, somehow or other, and somewhere or other, J. N. B. is 

 pretty sure that there has been " a change/' " Beyond all 

 dispute,'' says he, '^ the day has been clianged, and the Divine 

 blessing has since rested on the First Day, in every age, onward 

 to our own/' {p. 186.) The Scriptural autlwrlty for this 

 change is the important question before us. 



" What I now propose to show," says J. N. B., " is that 

 there is ample evidence in the Scriptures that Christ, as the 

 sole ' Lord of the Sabbath day, 'f changed the day of its ob- 

 servance in honor of His own Eesurrection." (p. 171.) Ex- 

 cellent ! — " Highly important — if true I" — " Yea, hath God 



* It may perliaps be encouraging to reflect tliat "the 'seventh 

 day' is not, strictly speaking, in the law itself, but in the explanation 

 of the law." So that, by adhering strictlj to "the law itself," and 

 merely anatomizing exuberances (such as the words "seventh" — 

 "Egypt," &c.), we shall still be enabled to retain a very respectable 

 skeleton of the immortal " Decalogue." 



f What Jesus did as "Lord of the Sabbath day," is recorded in 

 Matt. xii. 1—8; Mark ii. 23—28 ; and John v. 17. It wiU be found 

 to be something very different from ^'changing the day of its observance .'" 

 Strangely enough, there is not a hint there afforded my friend of any 

 such "change !" Whence could he have dreamed so " pure a fancy?" 

 Ilis appUcatio» of the title is uameaning and ridiculous. 



