panied with a resting from worldly labor, till the time. of Constantine the Great; yea, if but a part of those who are considered experimental Christians, look upon it now as properly a Sabbath, or day of holy rest, while others regard it merely as a day for public worship, and even such as call it a Sabbath conceive, in many instances, that the strict observance formerly required is somewhat modified; we can easily perceive, that it wants that explicit sanction-that high and overpowering authority-which will be likely to awe the public into obedience-which is necessary, indeed, to give Christians themselves a proper sense of its sanctity, and of the evil of its desecration—to induce them "not to do their own ways, nor to find their own pleasure, nor to speak their own words," in it. In vain do its friends procure for it the resolutions of churches and synods, the essays of the learned, and the decrees of the State; if it fails of being expressly supported by the supreme authority of God, to whom all must render a final and strict account, it will lack the main motive to obedience-it will be unattended with that power which, above all others, acts upon the conscience, and makes men feel their obligation. And as such authority does not pertain to a first-day Sabbath, but is limited to the seventh day, it is manifest that no thorough check to Sabbath desecration can be imposed, till men change their views and practice, and place the institution on its original and proper basis.

X. The power of custom, though sustained by ecclesiastical and civil enactments, and with corresponding forfeitures and penalties, ought not to prevent investigation and discourage reform in this important matter. When the claims of the original Sabbath are plainly presented, many seem to be convinced

of their justness; but, at the same time, think that a general return to the observance of the seventh day is impracticable. They alledge that the custom of keeping the first day has been so long and so generally maintained—that it is so intimately wrought into the habits, calculations, and business of life-that it has received such explicit sanction from the civil powers, obedience thereto being required by the authority of the State, and the disobedient being subjected to civil pains and penalties-and that it is so often, ably, and pointedly vindicated by the first ministers, professors, and commentators in the popular churches, that it is in vain to expect a change, and that the cause of Sabbath-keeping is rather retarded than promoted by efforts to change the present custom. And it is highly probable that some, in view of these difficulties, forbear to give the subject a close investigation. But if the same views and modes of reasoning had been adopted in other cases, what would have become of the various reformations which are now established, and even triumphant? What would have become of the whole subject of Protestantism? There is nothing more impracticable in a Sabbath reform than in any other reform. In other cases, difficulties which at first seemed insurmountable, have given way to laborious, prayerful, and united efforts. And there is the same reason to believe that they will give way in this, if a proper zeal is once awakened, and the friends of the Sabbath are resolved to examine the subject, build on the foundation of truth, and persevere in their labors, with union and vigor, relying upon the protecting power and blessing of Israel's God. It is manifest that no earthly consideration should impede our investigation of this matter, that no array of opposition and discouragement should daunt us, and that no motives to sit still or pass along with the current

should be suffered to wilderness of error.

of public opinion, if that be not founded in truth, influence us, and detain us in the The cause of obedience is the cause of God, and we should steadfastly labor to promote it, and trust in him for ultimate victory.

XI. As a consequence of the foregoing principles and facts, we are constrained to regard those who observe the first day of the week, to the neglect of the seventh day, as having sadly deviated from the path of obedience, and we feel ourselves bound to admonish them, and labor respectfully and kindly to reclaim them. We cannot think it immaterial what day of the week is observed as a day of rest, when God has specified the seventh, and no other, as a weekly Sabbath. We cannot think it a small matter to substitute the first day in the room of the seventh, although it be done in honor of the resurrection of our Lord, and because that event appears to demand equal and even greater commemoration than the work of creation, so long as there is no divine warrant therefor. This appears to us to be making the wisdom of man the foundation of duty, and not the wisdom of God. We discover two evils here; first, changing the day without order or permission from God; and, secondly, changing the reason for the institution, when the Lord hath not spoken. And is not this a departure from the rule of duty? And has not the Lord a controversy with Zion for this? If God had seen fit to substitute the first day for the seventh day, on account of the resurrection, (supposing it to have occurred on the first day, which, however, is not certain,) and to assign another reason than the original one for keeping the Sabbath, he would doubtless have given order to that effect. His not having done so, makes it manifest that he did not see fit to do this, and that he considered the

former Sabbath as well adapted to celebrate the work of redemption as it was the work of creation— adapted perfectly to subserve all the purposes of a weekly Sabbath. And we find this to be the case by experience. Here, therefore, we rest satisfied with the divine arrangement, and feel deeply the importance of universal conformity thereto. Consequently, our regard for the honor of God, and for the sabbatic institution, induces us to bring this subject in the present form before the Christian public. We do not think that we are justly chargeable with opposing or retarding the practice of Sabbath-keeping, because we protest against keeping the first day of the week as a divine institution, and faithfully present the claims of the original Sabbath. What better course can we take to secure a proper observance of the Sabbath, than to labor to restore it as God originally made it? It is not just to charge us with Judaizing-with virtually denying that Christ has come in the flesh and introduced the New Testament dispensation. We might as well be charged with this for maintaining that men should not "have any other God before the Lord," or that they should "not kill," nor "steal.” These precepts are in close connection with that requiring the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and stand or fall with it. The truth of the case is, that the law containing the weekly Sabbath is the law both of the Old Testament and of the New. There is no Christian Sabbath distinct from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. If this be a correct view -and we see not how it can be gainsayed-we in this respect perform our duty as subjects of God's moral government only when we exhort men to "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," and when we labor to impress them with the annexed fact, that "the seventh day is the Sabbath."

These are some of our Reasons for introducing the subject of the Sabbath, as originally given, to your consideration. And we seriously ask you, whether they are not sufficient-whether they are not adequate for earnestly and perseveringly inviting investigation and reformation. If there be any blame attached to us in the matter, it is for not having labored more diligently and efficiently in this cause. Are we not clearly bound, by way of promoting inquiry and reform, to bear a more pointed testimony against the evil in question, and to vindicate the claims of the seventh-day Sabbath with more zeal and firmness than ever before? Are we not peculiarly obligated to labor to remove, if possible, the veil which is upon the minds of the great majority of professors of Christianity, correct the false notions received by tradition from the Fathers,' and effectually dispel the delusion so extensively prevailing. We do not claim the right of dictating to the consciences of others. "To their own Master they stand or fall.” The only ground which we would assume is that which was occupied by the Apostle Paul when he said, "It is written, I have believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak." And also by the Saviour, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." And again, And again, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Surely, "the Lord hath spoken, and who can but prophesy ?" How can we bear to see one of his commandments made void by human tradition?-to see the flock of Jesus divided concerning this question, where union is so necessary and desirable ?-to witness the unavoidable interruptions occasioned by the different parties, and the triumph of the adversaries of religion?—to