Earlier text: Duties and Trials of our PositionThe Seventh-day Sabbath Not Abolished.
The article by Joseph Marsh, editor of the "Harbinger and Advocate," entitled "Seventh-day Sabbath Abolished," The First Day of the Week.
If the Sabbath has been transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week by divine authority, the Scriptures should contain the account of it. And as the precept requiring the observance of the seventh day is plain and positive, nothing less than as positive testimony should satisfy any person in regard to the claims of the first day. "Then why keep the first day? Because Christ rose on that day, and the apostolic church have set the example, that we should assemble on that day to commemorate his resurrection, by breaking of bread, and other duties belonging to the worship of God. Acts xx, 7." Luke here records the fact [Acts xx, 7.] that St. Paul once preached all night of the first day of the week at Troas, and past midnight broke bread with the disciples. This is the only text in the New Testament in which the first day of the week is mentioned in connection with public worship, and from this one simple circumstance the readers of the "Harbinger" are taught that "the apostolic church have set the example, that we should assemble on that day to commemorate his [Christ's] resurrection, by breaking of bread!" Here we shall do well to observe the following facts: 1. There is no intimation given in Acts xx, 7, or elsewhere in the New Testament, that the disciples regarded the first day of the week as a day of rest. 2. There is no evidence that the "apostolic church" met regularly on that night of the week that Paul preached at Troas. For aught we know it was an occasional meeting, appointed merely because Paul was to "depart on the morrow." 3. If the church are to follow the "example" of the disciples, in holding a certain meeting all night at Troas, then they should hold their preaching meetings in the night, and after midnight break bread. There is no scripture proof that the disciples ever met for worship in the day time of the first day of the week. M. no doubt, would object to holding his preaching meetings in the night, and continuing his speech "even till break of day." Then why talk of the "example" of "the apostolic church" at Troas? 4. According to the first division of time [Gen. i.] the day closed at 6 o'clock P. M., and if that meeting at Troas was held the night following the day time of the first day of the week, then the entire meeting was on the second day instead of the first. And according to the Roman division of time, the day closed at midnight, therefore Paul broke bread and "talked a long while, even till break of day," on the second day of the week, if that meeting was in the night following the day time of the first day of the week. Accordingly, those who talk of apostolic example for observing the first day of the week, should, to be consistent with their position, keep the second day. But that meeting was evidently in the night following the Sabbath of the Lord. The Apostle, "as his manner was," [Acts xvii, 2.] preached to them on the Sabbath; then the disciples, the evening following, met together expressly "to break bread." Such a meeting must have been very desirable to the disciples at Troas, especially as Paul was "ready to depart on the morrow." "Morrow" here should be understood as we use it, referring to the daylight that followed, and not to the next twenty-four-hour day. For in that case Paul would have to tarry at Troas till the next evening, and then travel to Assos and Mitylene in the night. In the morning of the first day of the week, Paul left Troas, and walked to Assos, and from Assos he sailed with his brethren at Mitylene. See Acts xx, 7-14. A singular "apostolic example," truly, for sunday-keepers! With these facts before us it seems perfectly preposterous to talk of the "example" of the "apostolic church" for observing the first day of the week. 5. We have yet to learn that the communion of the body and blood of Christ commemorates the resurrection, as taught by M. Says the Apostle, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come." Cor. xi, 26. The Lord's supper was instituted the night before the crucifixion, and the disciples at Troas broke bread the night following the Sabbath. And there is nothing in the New Testament that confines it to any day of the week; yet it seems most proper in the evening following the Sabbath. After enjoying the blessings of the Holy Sabbath, the true disciple is best prepared to receive the emblems of the body and blood of Christ. If the communion was designed to be strictly confined to one day of the week, the sixth day is the only proper one; for on that day, the crucifixion, the event which it commemorates occurred. And if attending to the communion on a day makes it a Sabbath, as is inferred from Acts xx, 7, then the sixth day of the week should be observed as the, so called, "Christian Sabbath." The great Apostle to the GENTILES preached on the Sabbath, and had no other regular preaching day. We have no record of his meeting with the disciples on the first day of the week but once, [Acts xx, 7.] and that was in the evening, or first part of the day, [Gen. i, 5.] to break bread. Mark this; Paul pursued his journey on foot to Assos, and sailed with his brethren to Mitylene, the same day that he broke bread at Troas. Let those who talk of apostolic example for sunday-keeping, look at these facts. We say apostolic example is all in favor of the seventh day. "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Acts xvii, 2. The Apostle preached to the "Greeks" as well as the Jews at Corinth, "every Sabbath," for the space of one year and six months. See Acts xviii, 4-11. It is said that the only reason why Paul preached on the Sabbath, was because the Jews were assembled in their synagogues on that day. But this is not true; for we find the Apostle and his companions preaching elsewhere, besides in the synagogues, on the Sabbath. "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a RIVER SIDE, WHERE PRAYER WAS WONT TO BE MADE; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts xvi, 13. If that meeting by the "river side" had been on the first day of the week, then the advocates of the first day might, with some degree of propriety, talk of Apostolic example for observing that day. But, as we have shown, there is no record of a public meeting of the apostles, in the day-time, on the first day of the week, in the New Testament, therefore none should talk of apostolic example for sunday-keeping. At Antioch, Paul preached on the Sabbath, at the request of the GENTILES. "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the GENTILES besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts xiii, 42, 44. Here are some things worthy of special notice. It was the Gentiles, not the Jews, that invited Paul to preach to them the next Sabbath. If Paul taught the people that the Sabbath was a mere Jewish institution, as M. teaches, it seems really unaccountable how these Gentiles, who were entirely disconnected with the Jewish religion, should request him to preach to them on the Sabbath. It is evident that the reason why the Gentiles invited Paul to preach to them on the Sabbath, was because he regarded the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, and the proper day for religious worship. If that request of the Gentiles had been made to a modern preacher, he would have replied, "You need not wait till another Jewish Sabbath; to-morrow is the Lord's day, we will preach to you to-morrow." That was certainly a good opportunity for the great Apostle to the Gentiles to show the Gentile portion of that community that the Sabbath was abolished, if it had been, as our opponents assert. And if, as some teach, it was the design of Heaven that the observance of the first day of the week should rest upon "apostolic example," how convenient it would have been for the Apostle to have set the example in the city of Antioch, when the people were anxious to hear, and were in a good state of mind to receive right impressions. But instead of setting an example favoring the first day of the week, the Apostle entirely overlooked it, and the poor Gentiles, so anxious to hear the word of God, had to wait until, what is falsely called, the Jewish Sabbath arrived! The Jews never accused Paul with violating the Sabbath law. And it is evident that his most bitter enemies, the Jews, would have charged him with Sabbath-breaking if he had disregarded the fourth commandment, and taught its abolition, and sought to introduce another day instead of the Sabbath. "Men and brethren," says he, "though I have committed nothing against the people, or CUSTOMS OF OUR FATHERS, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans." Acts xxviii, 17. This testimony would have been denied by those Jews who heard it, and the Apostle would have been silenced at once, if he taught the abolition of the seventh-day Sabbath, and observed the first day of the week in its stead. But Paul "dwelt two whole years in his own hired house," "preaching the kingdom of God," with all confidence, no man forbidding him." See Acts xxviii, 30, 31. John says he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, (Rev. i, 10;) the first day of the week, the day of Christ's resurrection, which was observed as a day of worship by the early Christians. It is first assumed that "Lord's day" is the first day of the week, and then because St. John was in the Spirit on that day, it is supposed to be what is called the "Christian Sabbath." We object to this view, because it is entirely destitute of support from the Holy Scriptures. Others may refer to the "Fathers;" but we appeal to the word of God. The Bible nowhere calls the first day of the week the "Lord's day." Only one of the seven days of the week is called the Lord's day, and that is the seventh. God has never hallowed, sanctified and blessed but one day, and that he called after his own holy name. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Here we are not at a loss to determine which is the "Lord's day." But the testimony is full more to the point in Isa. lviii, 13, where God styles the Sabbath, "My Holy Day," and "The Holy of the Lord." Jesus declared himself "Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark ii, 28. Here are three testimonies, two from the Old Testament, and one from the New, that prove the seventh day of the week to be the "Lord's day." Two testimonies from the Eternal Father, and one from his Son Jesus Christ, are worth more to us than ten thousand from the so called "Christian Fathers," however near the apostolic age they might have lived. Then, according to the word of God, and that shall decide this question, St. John recognized the "Lord's day," the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord, as existing, A. D. 96, sixty-five years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. The testimony of Ignatius, Theophilus, Irenius, Dionysius, Clement and Tertullian, quoted by M., will not satisfy those who honestly seek for truth from the word of God. It really seems very unfortunate for M. that he cannot give us the inspired testimony of Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude for the change of the weekly Rest, from the seventh to the first day. But as he cannot, he leaves the "sure word" and gives the UNINSPIRED testimony of those who wrote after the death of the apostles, in the time that Paul referred to when he said, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts xx, 29, 30. With a consistent Christian, the testimony and practice of what is called the "Christian Fathers," has not sufficient authority to direct him either in devotion or duty, especially when their testimony has to be relied on in the absence of divine authority. Christians should follow Christ. Jehovah said of Jesus, "This is my beloved Son; hear him." If Jesus has taught that a new Sabbath was designed for his followers, then Christians should observe it. But how unfortunate for the first day theory that Jesus, the Great Head and Example of the church, did not teach a change of the day of weekly rest. There is no record that he ever met with his disciples in the day-time of the first day of the week after the resurrection. But on the very day of the resurrection, "Jesus himself drew near," and went with the two disciples who were traveling to the village of Emmaus, seven and a half miles from Jerusalem. There is no evidence that they went to Emmaus to attend a religious meeting. Did Jesus rebuke them for traveling on that day, and tell them it was the "Christian Sabbath?" Far from it; he even went with them. And as "they drew nigh unto the village" they constrained him, saying, "Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent." Jesus went in and "sat at meat with them," and then the two disciples returned to Jerusalem that night, "and found the eleven gathered together." And while they were relating the interesting events of that day's journey, "Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said unto them, peace be unto you." If the first day had then become the "Christian Sabbath," that was a favorable opportunity for Jesus, the Head and Example of the church, to enforce it. But instead of this, he never hinted a word to them about a new Sabbath, and could say to those sunday-breakers who had walked fifteen miles on that day, "PEACE BE UNTO YOU." There is no intimation that the disciples had been together for worship during that day. On the contrary, the absence of Thomas, and the fact that most of them were not satisfied that Jesus had risen, shows the impropriety of representing this meeting as proof of a regard for the first day on account of the resurrection. The only other meeting of Christ with his disciples which is said to be on the first day of the week, is mentioned in John xx, 26-"And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them." Now had this interview been on the following first day, it could afford no proof that they religiously regarded that day, since it is not noticed as a meeting designed for worship. But the expression "after eight days" by no means shows that it was just a week. Who can say that it was not on the ninth day after his first appearance? It was certainly full eight days after, which would bring it to Monday night.4 The following important history is to the point. It shows that the early church did observe the seventh-day Sabbath; and that they observed the first day only as a religious festival. "Athanasius, A. D. 340, says-'We assemble on Saturday, not that we are infected with Judaism, but only to worship Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.'" Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, A. D. 412, says-'Touching the communion there are sundry observations and customs, for almost all the churches throughout the whole world do celebrate and receive the holy mysteries every Sabbath; yet the Egyptians adjoining Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebes, of a tradition, do celebrate the communion on Sunday.' 'When the festival meeting throughout every week was come, I mean the Saturday and the Sunday, upon which the Christians are wont to meet solemnly in the church.' Eusebius, A. D. 325, as quoted by Dr. Chambers, states that in his time "the Sabbath was observed no less than Sunday." Gregory expostulates thus-'With what eyes can you behold the Lord's day, when you despise the Sabbath? Do you not perceive that they are sisters, and that in slighting one you affront the other?' Sozomen says-'Most of the churches carefully observed the Sabbath.' Grotius observes-'The Christians kept the holy Sabbath, and had their assemblies on that day, in which the law was read to them, which custom remained to the time of the council of Laodicea, about A. D. 355.' M. de la Roque, a French Protestant-'It evidently appears, that before any change was introduced, the church religiously observed the Sabbath for many ages; we of consequence are obliged to keep it.' Edward Brerewood, Professor of Gresham College, London, in a treatise on the Sabbath, 1630, says: "They know little that do not know the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed by the eastern churches three hundred years and more after our Saviour's passion.-Brer. on the Sabbath, p. 77." A Brief Account of the Sabbath Meetings in Boston Nov. 1st and 8th.
By Annie R. Smith
Nov. 1st. Over thirty in number were present. Deep solemnity pervaded the meeting. Two precious youths, (who were convicted at the late conference held in Medford,) requested our prayers for their salvation, since which time they have found peace in believing, and in keeping the commandments of God. We bless the Lord for what he is doing for the children. The good seed sown at the conference is springing up, and bearing much fruit, we believe, to the glory of God. The brethren were strong in the Lord, pursuing with new energy and courage the way towards the heavenly kingdom, and are evidently increasing in strength and power, as they are seeking for the unity of the faith and spirit. The beneficial effects of the great work accomplished at the conference were manifest, and we hope its salutary influence will continue to be felt. Nov. 8th. This meeting was also well attended. Some brethren in the vicinity, not usually with us, were present, also Bro. Chamberlain from Connecticut. Their labors were much blest. Evident tokens of the presence of the Lord were seen by the immediate and special answers to the fervent prayers offered in behalf of some of our number, and the Spirit and power rested in such a manner that they could but shout and praise God, for his wonderful dealings with the children of men. The all-important truths connected with the third angel's message were presented in a clear, convincing and impressive manner, and awakened an interest in the minds of some who have not taken a decided stand in their defence, which we earnestly hope and pray will result in their full reception of the truth, and their entire consecration to God, "that they may be accounted worthy to escape all that is coming upon the earth and stand before the son of man." I feel more and more the importance of constant watchfulness and prayer in view of the solemn scenes before us, and more and more convinced that our position is based upon a sure foundation; the word of God. And as I examine the evidences of our hope, light is continually breaking in upon my mind from the Sacred Volume, which is indeed a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Every thing tends to strengthen and confirm us in our belief, and I can see no other position taken which so perfectly harmonizes with the Bible, accords with past experience, and sheds so much light upon the events of the future. Upon God's Holy Word I can cast my all, feeling assured that he will, in his own time and way, vindicate his cause. I trust that I have forsaken all to follow the Lamb whithersoever he leads the way. Earth has entirely lost its attractions. My hopes, joys, affections, are now all centered in things above and divine. I want no other place than to sit53 at the feet of Jesus, and learn of him—no other occupation, than to be in the service of my Heavenly Father—no other delight, than the peace of God which passeth all understanding. O, praise his name for what he has done for me, I feel a sweet foretaste of the glories of that better world—an earnest of that inheritance—and I am determined by his grace to overcome every obstacle, endure the cross, despising the shame, so that an entrance may be administered abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Saratoga Springs, Nov. 21st, 1851. The readers of the Review and Herald will doubtless expect us to give some account of our recent tour, and of the conferences held at Medford, Washington, East Bethel and Johnson. And it is with pleasure that we give a sketch of what we have witnessed of the goodness of God, and of his glorious work among his dear people at these meetings. Thursday, Oct. 23d, we left Saratoga, and arrived in Boston in the evening, where we found our dear Bro. Holt waiting at the depot for us. He guided us to 67 Warren Place, where we found those of like precious faith that we had not seen for some time. Here we found peace and rest. Friday we went to the place of meeting, at Bro. Folsom's in West Medford. Here we found seven of our old tried friends from Maine, strong in the faith, who had come about 150 miles to attend the conference. There were also eight from Fairhaven and Dartmouth, and a good attendance of the friends of present truth in the vicinity of Boston. We were much grieved to learn that some discord had been created among the brethren, by the presentation of fanciful views of unfulfilled prophecies. Such things are extremely painful to those who labor to unite the precious flock of Christ upon the great truths connected with the message of Rev. xiv, 9-12. The evil result of leaving the important truths of the present message, or connecting with them fanciful views of unfulfilled prophecy, were pointed out, and with the special blessing of Heaven, the brethren all felt deeply the importance of being “perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment,” and of united action in the great work before us. It was truly a meeting of great profit. The tender, weeping spirit of Jesus prevailed, and all present seemed to feel the importance of a thorough preparation for the day of the Lord. There were some present who had not embraced the Sabbath. They came to the meeting honestly supposing that we were in error, and from false reports, and the injudicious course of some who have formerly taught the Sabbath with a rash censorious spirit, they supposed that we as a people, possessed a cold, denunciatory spirit. But when they learned our views of gospel order, union, &c., and witnessed the spirit of the meeting, and felt its melting power, they were ready to confess that God was indeed with us. And when the evidences of our position were presented, they yielded to the force of truth, and could rejoice in its freedom. Those who have formerly been in error confessed their faults in tears, and we never witnessed a more perfect union, or a more healthy interest, than existed when we left Monday morning. Bro. Holt remained and preached twice that day, very much to the comfort and instruction of those present. The brethren say that it was a season of great rejoicing. Oct. 31st, we arrived at the place of meeting in Washington, (N. H.), and found a large collection of the scattered brethren. This was a meeting of deep interest, of trial and of joy. Here the brethren felt called upon to withdraw fellowship from one who had fallen into, and taught dangerous errors relative to setting up the kingdom, the Son of man on the white cloud, Rev. xiv, 14, and the Eden state, &c. We are perfectly satisfied that the direct tendency of the views referred to, is to lead souls down to certain ruin, still we view the individual as possessing a good share of honesty, but deceived by satan. After one has fallen a victim to the bewitching power of spiritualism, it seems almost impossible to get free from its blinding influence. But while we withdraw the hand of fellowship from him, who once was a fellow-laborer, we would “exhort him as a brother,” to renounce his errors, to come out of the fog into which he has so unfortunately run, and come along with those who are walking in the plain path of truth. Though this was a meeting of labor, we think it was one of great profit. The brethren appeared to be firmly established upon the great truths so important at the present time, and joyful in the hope of soon seeing Jesus. A committee of seven was chosen (see Acts vi.) to attend to the wants of the poor, and we have reason to believe that it will be a great pleasure for them to do so. Our beloved Bro. Wheeler, who has been doing what he could in the cause, in his embarrassing circumstances, has resolved to give himself more fully to the work of preaching the word of life to perishing souls. We have been with him in a number of meetings, and are satisfied that he, with God’s blessing, will exert a good influence, and accomplish much in bringing out the hidden jewels of the Lord. While our dear brother goes out in search of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the brethren should not be backward to inquire after his temporal wants, and the situation of his family at home. The Lord has done a great work for the children of the brethren in Washington. The past summer, about twelve have been hopefully converted, and give good evidence of their acceptance with God. May the Lord keep them from the many dangers to which the young are exposed in this corrupt age of the world. The conference appointed to be held in the vicinity of East Bethel was at the house of Bro. W. Morse in Royalton. We anticipated many trials at this meeting, but were happily disappointed. The Lord worked gloriously for his people. Bro. Holt and Wheeler were present. Here also the importance of union was dwelt upon, and the Holy Spirit seemed to break down all opposing influences, and the honest children of God were made one. We might mention the names of some in that vicinity whom we highly esteem for their faithfulness and zeal in the cause of truth, who are very poor in this world’s good, but we forbear. We hope that those who have the good things of this life will not shut up their bowels of compassion, while they see them making every exertion to save souls from ruin. If the rich could only see and feel the importance of this hour, as some of the poor do, how easily they would be to advance this cause with the means God has given them; but the cares of this world, and the DECEITFULNESS OF RICHES choke the word in many. In the vicinity of Royalton there is quite a number of faithful friends of the cause, and many others are becoming interested in the truth. The conference at Johnson commenced Nov. 7th. Here we found a large gathering of the brethren and sisters, quite a number of whom we there met with for the first time. Bro. Holt, Wheeler, Baker, Ingraham, and other preaching brethren were present. The meeting was most manifestly led by the Holy Spirit. Everything like fanaticism, and opposing spirits was rebuked and held in check by the melting power of the Spirit of God which rested down upon the meeting quite to its close. It seemed wonderful that a meeting of such intense interest, where the brethren had such deep feeling, should be so free from unpleasant excitement. Though every heart felt deeply, yet the sweet, gentle spirit of Jesus reigned, and the God of peace and order was glorified. We have stated in relation to other meetings of the kind that they were the best we ever attended, but we do not hesitate to say that this meeting far exceeded all others we ever witnessed. Bro. Holt gave one lecture upon the commandments and law of God, with his usual clearness and energy. Others spoke upon the 2300 days, Sanctuary, angels of Rev. xiv, &c. The word had free course. Gospel order, and perfect union among the brethren, especially those who preach the Word, were also dwelt upon, and all seemed to feel the importance of following our perfect guide, the Bible, on these subjects, as well as all others. We have not space to give a full account of this meeting, and must close by saying that it was one of deep interest from the commencement to its close. The preaching brethren were united as the heart of one man. And when the time came to part, and each go out into the wide field to seek out and feed the scattered flock of slaughter, tears of joy, mingled with sadness, flowed freely. We intended to return directly home from Johnson, in order to issue this Number one week earlier; but duty seemed very plain to spend another week in Vermont, and visit the friends in the vicinity of Vergennes. By reason of stormy weather but few attended the meeting. In that vicinity rather a gloomy state of things existed, in consequence of the erroneous views, and blighting influence of one (a professed teacher) from whom we had to withdraw our fellowship. Many in that region are becoming interested in the present message, who would, doubtless, come out fully upon the truth were it not for the errors and inconsistencies of a very few of its professed friends. May God save his bleeding cause there, and bless his honest children. We had a very profitable and interesting interview with Bro. Everts and his family, Bro. and Sr. Bragg and Bro. Sperry, who are tried friends of the cause. Others in that vicinity are highly esteemed, and consistent believers in the present truth. While they see the errors of some on the one hand, may the Lord save them from the spirit of the world on the other. Nov. 18th, we reached home in usual health, and found many letters received in our absence, and much to do. We never felt so good courage to toil on in this cause as now. God blesses every effort his children make to advance this cause, and certainly we should be encouraged. We witnessed ten fold more good accomplished on this tour than we anticipated. It is God’s marvellous work and he shall have all the praise. Paul, in chap. vii, is treating upon the law which is holy, just and good, and not the law of carnal ordinances. Some have an idea that his treatment of this subject releases us from the obligation of the law here referred to. We will now enter upon an examination of the subject, and by the aid of the Divine Spirit, we may be enabled to give his true meaning. He commences the chapter by saying, "Know ye not brethren (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?" He is here speaking of the law that has dominion over a man as long as he liveth in sin. This will be seen by reading chap. vi, 11. "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Verse 2. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? He uses the marriage covenant as a figure to illustrate this point. "The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth." So the man, as long as he liveth in sin, is bound by the law, which he hath transgressed, ("for sin is the transgression of the law.") "But if the husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband." So when the natural man is dead, he is loosed from the law that bound him while living in transgression of it. "But if her husband be dead, she is free from the law of her husband." So the man that is dead to sin is free from the bondage of the law. In verse 4th we are shown by what means we are delivered from the bondage of the law. "Wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ." Not that the law is dead, but that Paul's brethren are dead to the law; therefore the law has no longer dominion over them. They are now at liberty to be married to another, even Christ. But while they were in the flesh, serving sin, the law had dominion over them, so that they could not be united to Christ; for no person living in sin, (which is a violation of the law,) can be united to Christ. The man that transgresses the laws of his country is held in bondage by that law until he suffers its penalty, unless pardoned by the law-giver, through the intercession of friends. Thus those who transgress the holy law of God are held in bondage, to suffer its penalty, until liberated by the Great Law-giver, through the intercession of Jesus Christ. Verse 6. "But now we are delivered from the law, [margin] being dead to that wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." That is, we should keep the spirit of the law, under the new covenant, when it is "written on the fleshly tables of the heart by the Spirit of the living God." 2 Cor. iii, 3. A mere observance of the letter of the law will not be sufficient. But will the keeping of the law in the Spirit release us from the observance of the letter? We answer it will not; for how can we keep the spirit of the law and live in violation of the letter? It is impossible. The law says, thou shalt not kill. Can we keep the spirit of this law while our hands are imbued with the blood of our neighbor? The same law says, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Is it possible to keep the spirit of the Sabbatical law while our acts are in violation of it? We are now to keep the law under the new covenant, not under the old. Verse 7. "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law." That is, by the law we are convinced of sin; take away the law and we have no knowledge of sin. "For I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." "For I was alive without the law once;" that is, Paul lived in sin without the spiritual understanding of the law once, although he strictly observed the letter. "But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." That is, when the commandment came in the Spirit, it convinced him of sin, and he no longer violated the letter or spirit of that law. He died to sin. Verse 10. "And the commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death." That is, the commandment was designed to give life when obeyed in the Spirit, but in this case it proved Paul's death to sin. Sin took an occasion to deceive, and by the commandment slew him. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good." Was then that holy, just and good law "made death to me? God forbid. But sin that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Not the law, but sin, which is the transgression of the law, worked death, because the penalty of that law is death. Therefore, sin against that holy law, or just and good commandment, was exceeding sinful. Verse 14. "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I [not the law] am carnal, sold under sin." Paul here has a view of the spirituality of the law of God. He also sees that it is not possible to keep it with the carnal mind. This may be seen by the following verses. "I delight in the law of God, after the inward man; but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Though Paul delighted in the law of God, yet he was unable to fulfill its requirements, for the flesh was continually warring against the Spirit, and he exclaimed, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death." [Margin.] Verse 25. "I thank God who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord." [Macknight.] Our attention is now turned to the Great Author of that holy, just and good law; so holy, so just, and so good, that not one jot or tittle could be suffered to fail, to save a perishing world. Yet, he so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life. "Who became sin for us and died, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." Chap. viii. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made us free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, &c." The law when broken could not liberate the offender, therefore was not able to give life; but the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath "abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." If God could have given a law which, when transgressed, would have given life, would he not have done it in preference to giving his own Son to die? This confirms the truth that the law was not abolished, but that the precept [Whiting] of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." If God had designed to abolish this law to give life, there would have been no necessity for the sufferings and death of his Son. Verse 5. "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." The things of the flesh are "adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry," &c. Gal. v, 19—21. "The fruit [things] of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, against such there is no law." Verses 22, 23. Verses 6, 7. "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." If we follow the Spirit it will lead us to strict obedience of God's holy law, the ten immutable commandments. As God has not abolished his law to free the transgressor of it from its dominion or bondage; but has freely given his Son to die to redeem us, the only possible way of being released from the bondage of the law, which we have transgressed, is by repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. God, in his infinite goodness, has now delivered the sinner from the dominion of the law, through the gift of his Son, and has imparted sufficient grace to enable him to keep it holy. Shall he now sin [transgress the law] that grace may abound? God forbid, says Paul, for if he should, he would at once be brought under the bondage of the law again. It would have dominion over him. Then if he would remain a free man in Christ Jesus, he must obey the commandments of God the Father, and have faith in his Son Jesus Christ. Such will have right to the tree of life, and enter in through the gates into the City. Boston, Oct., 1851.