diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63765-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63765-0.txt | 1332 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1332 deletions
diff --git a/old/63765-0.txt b/old/63765-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1a1ba1c..0000000 --- a/old/63765-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1332 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Divine and Perpetual Obligation of the -Observance of the Sabbath, by John Perowne - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The Divine and Perpetual Obligation of the Observance of the Sabbath - - -Author: John Perowne - - - -Release Date: November 14, 2020 [eBook #63765] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DIVINE AND PERPETUAL -OBLIGATION OF THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH*** - - -Transcribed from the 1853 Wertheim and Macintosh edition by David Price. - - - - - - THE DIVINE AND PERPETUAL OBLIGATION - OF THE - OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH, - - - WITH REFERENCE MORE ESPECIALLY TO A PAMPHLET - LATELY PUBLISHED BY THE - - REV. C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D., - - _Head Master of Harrow School_, - - ENTITLED - “A FEW WORDS ON THE CRYSTAL PALACE QUESTION.” - - * * * * * - - * * * * * - - BY THE - REV. JOHN PEROWNE, M.A., - - _Rector of St. John’s Maddermarket_, _Norwich_. - - * * * * * - - * * * * * - - LONDON: - WERTHEIM AND MACINTOSH, PATERNOSTER ROW; - NORWICH: THOMAS PRIEST, RAMPANT HORSE STREET, - - 1853. - - _Price One Shilling_. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -The following pages are published with considerable reluctance. The -Author read Dr. Vaughan’s pamphlet several weeks since, and was much -pained that some of the sentiments contained in it should proceed from -such a quarter. He hoped and expected that some one with more leisure -than he can command, and more capable of doing justice to the important -points under discussion, would undertake to refute what he felt to be the -very erroneous notions of the learned Doctor. Since, however, no one -else has taken up the subject, he ventures to submit his sentiments to -the Christian public. He has no love for polemics, and very unwillingly -appears in print; but he has reason to know, that the notions to which he -alludes have already, in several instances, encouraged a violation of the -Sabbath, and that they are likely to produce more extensive mischief, -from the circumstance of no attempt having been made to refute them. To -prevent this evil, is one object of the present undertaking. Another is, -to counteract the erroneous sentiments of Dr. Vaughan’s pamphlet; while -the writer’s chief aim is, to set forth what he believes to be the will -of God on the important subject of the Sabbath. He is convinced that the -principles enunciated in the following pages are in conformity with the -teaching of the Bible; and being fully assured that obedience to the will -of our Heavenly Father, is in all things the only way of peace and -safety, he will rejoice if this pamphlet shall become the means of -removing error, or of confirming those who already believe that the -Sabbath is of divine and perpetual obligation. - - - - -THE DIVINE AND PERPETUAL OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. - - -BEFORE entering on the question that we intend more particularly to -discuss, there are some remarks that we deem it necessary to make on the -tone and general character of Dr. Vaughan’s pamphlet. And in the first -place, we were struck with the entire absence of scripture proof in -support of the views propounded. Assertions are made of the most -sweeping character, and inferences are thence drawn, involving matters of -the highest moment; and yet no passage of scripture is adduced in support -of these assertions. Thus we are told “that not only the fourth -commandment, but the whole decalogue has ceased to be, _as such_, the -rule of our life.” But the authority for this declaration is no-where -given. If this doctrine be plainly taught in the New Testament, surely -we should be informed where it is to be found. - -Another thing that we could not help remarking, was the manner in which -the authority of the Old Testament is repudiated. “With reference to the -observance of the Sabbath, and to every point of moral duty, the appeal -now lies primarily to the scriptures of the New Testament, and -secondarily to any other records which we may possess of the practice of -the apostolical age.” How different is the mind of Dr. Vaughan from that -of the Apostle Paul on this important point. The Apostle tells us -(alluding more especially to the writings of the Old Testament), that all -scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for -instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, -thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Dr. Vaughan tells us in -effect, that our rule of practice is the New Testament and tradition! - -Again Dr. V. condemns what he designates “a low and slavish spirit,” in -those who wish “to have an express _law_ to shew for our Christian -Sunday.” But we would ask, whether an express law makes the obedience of -love less sincere, less warm, less free and spontaneous? St. John tells -us, “this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his -commandments are not grievous.” In a matter of such moment we feel bound -to follow the opinion of the inspired Apostle. - -Dr. Vaughan is of opinion, that “if we found even a _human_ institution, -which testified throughout Christendom, by a speaking sign, by an act at -once self-denying and beneficent, our faith in realities unseen and -future; even _this_ would bind us to its observance.” And yet when we -find in the word of God, a plain command to keep holy the Sabbath-day, we -are told that we are not legally bound to observe it, and that a wish to -have a law to that effect, bespeaks “a low and slavish spirit.” If, -however, the express will of God does not lead men to keep the Sabbath, -we cannot conceive of any other motive, by which (on Christian -principles) they will be induced to observe it. In man’s present -condition, liberty without law soon degenerates into licentiousness; and -no law but that of God, can so restrain and regulate men, as to preserve -real religious freedom. Repeal the laws by which life and property are -protected, and try to persuade men to be good and virtuous, from a love -of virtue, or from a sense of gratitude for the kindness and beneficence -of their rulers; and we should soon see the necessity and benefit of our -laws. And so it will be found, that the religious observance of the -Sabbath, will soon give place to a general neglect of God’s house, and to -practical atheism, if once the people are persuaded, that there is no -divine command to keep holy the Sabbath-day. - -But while the authority of the Old Testament is thus repudiated, the Rev. -Doctor “_thinks_” _he_ “_sees_” (what other people may be blind to, and -about which he himself is _not quite certain_—so poor a guide is man’s -intellect in the absence of a plain command from God,) “indications from -the very earliest days, of which the Scriptures contain the record, of -man’s need of a periodical rest, and of God’s purpose to secure it to -him.” He believes “that it is essential to the well-being of his bodily -and mental structure.” He believes that it “is yet more essential to the -well-being of his immortal spirit, to his education for that state in -which earthly life issues.” He believes that this was “foreseen by man’s -Creator, and provided for by the disposer of man’s heart.” And yet he -does not believe that God has adopted the only means of securing this -all-important blessing permanently to his creatures. Once, indeed, for a -few hundred years he made it imperative upon a small portion of the human -race, to keep an appointment so essential to man’s present and eternal -welfare. But when by the mission of his Son, and the publication of the -gospel, he manifested his marvellous love to the whole human race, then, -by an unaccountable and inexplicable mode of procedure, he set aside this -appointment, and left him to the dictates of his own will, or to the -selfishness or caprice of those under whose authority he might happen to -be! All was thenceforth to be left to man’s mental perception and moral -sense! {7} Is this view consistent with God’s goodness? Is it -consistent with his general dealing with men under the present -dispensation? God has provided a Saviour for all men. He has commanded -the gospel to be preached to the whole human race. He has commanded all -men every where to receive the gospel. And yet he has abolished the only -command by which an opportunity can be permanently secured to all men, to -become acquainted with the truths of the gospel, and be made wise unto -salvation! Is this worthy of God? A human parent would not withhold -from his children, explicit instruction on any point that he deemed -essential to their welfare. He would not leave them to conjecture, but -would tell them plainly what was for their good. Is God less wise or -less good than man? - -The Rev. Doctor evidently feels some difficulty in reconciling his views -with the teaching of the Church of England. For after speaking of the -privilege and blessing of Sabbath observance, as if conscious of the -dilemma in which his principles placed him, he proceeds to ask, “And -shall those who look back through long years upon their frequent failures -to improve the blessing, see no reason for the confession which bewails -their past neglect of it, and the prayer which asks help to honour it -(_i.e. the blessing_) hereafter?” Now we confess that we cannot help -feeling, as we think most must feel, that this attempt to escape from the -appearance of inconsistency in using the prayer alluded to, is most -unsatisfactory. The prayer to which allusion is here made, is offered by -the whole congregation immediately on the reading of the fourth -commandment by the Minister. Its language is, “Lord have mercy upon us, -and incline our hearts to keep this law.” And the meaning and intent of -the prayer are thus expressed in the rubric at the head of the -commandments in the Communion Service: “The Priest shall rehearse the ten -commandments; and the people shall, after every commandment, ask God -mercy for their transgression thereof for the time past, and grace to -keep the same for the time to come.” This, then, is the meaning of the -prayer; and in this there is necessarily implied a recognition of the -moral obligation of the commandment, with regret for its violation, as -well as a prayer for pardon, and for help to keep it in future. But is -this the meaning which Dr. Vaughan attaches to the language of this -prayer? No, with his views, it must be something of this sort: “Have -mercy upon us for not improving this blessing in time past, and incline -our hearts to honour this blessing in future.” Surely if the fourth -commandment be no longer in force, to use this prayer is to confess guilt -where no law has been transgressed, to ask pardon where no offence has -been committed, and to seek aid to amend what is not legally wrong. - -Nor is this the only practical difficulty connected with the views in -question. We presume it is the duty of the Masters of our public -schools, as well as of the Clergy generally, to teach their charge the -Church Catechism. But in the Church Catechism are the following -questions and answers:— - - _Question_. You said that your godfathers and godmothers did promise - for you, that you should keep God’s commandments. Tell me how many - there be. - - _Answer_. Ten. - - _Question_. Which be they? - - _Answer_. The same which God spake in the twentieth chapter of - Exodus, &c. - -Here is a plain acknowledgment that the ten commandments are still in -force, and that we are bound by our baptismal vows to keep them. Dr. -Vaughan affirms that they have “ceased to be our rule of life.” How can -these conflicting opinions be reconciled? or how can those persons -consistently use the formularies of our church, who so directly -contradict her teaching? - -Having thus noticed more generally what we consider the unscriptural -opinions set forth in the pamphlet under review, we shall now proceed to -consider more particularly the Sabbath question. This is confessedly one -of the great questions of the day. So momentous, indeed, are its -bearings on the temporal and spiritual well-being of men, and so -intimately is it connected with the worship and honour of God, that its -importance can scarcely be overrated. If God is to be publicly -acknowledged and worshiped in his own world—if men are to be instructed -in the principles of revealed religion, and trained to habits of virtue -and christian love—if personal, domestic, social, and national happiness -is to be promoted—if time is to be so improved, as to make it the passage -to a blessed immortality—the obligation to keep the Sabbath must be -recognised, and its observance must be enforced and regulated according -to the injunctions of God’s holy word. - -It is indeed asserted by some that, under the Christian dispensation, the -observance of a day of rest is a mere matter of expediency—that we are -under no divine obligation to abstain from labour or other worldly -pursuits—that the Sabbath was purely a Jewish institution, and has passed -away with the other “weak and beggarly elements” of Judaism. But on what -grounds are such assertions made? because, as it is alleged, there is no -positive command in the New Testament to keep the Sabbath, “no direction -for its observance, nor any reproof for the neglect of it,” and because -certain expressions are employed by St. Paul, which seem to bespeak -“indifference to its retention, or even rebuke for its revival.” - -With regard to the first objection, viz. the want of a direct command, -this could scarcely be necessary, inasmuch as our Lord not only himself -kept the Sabbath, but in all his remarks in reference to it, spoke in a -manner that necessarily implied his recognition of its divine origin and -perpetual obligation. Besides, as he expressly declared that he came not -to destroy the law or the prophets, (both of which are full of -exhortations to keep the Sabbath), what right have we to deny the -obligation of the fourth commandment, because it is not expressly -repeated in the New Testament? The safer and more just way of reasoning -would surely be this: Under the former dispensation God in the most -solemn manner promulgated a law, connecting with its observance great -temporal and especially great spiritual blessings, and visiting its -violation with the most severe judgments. This law has not been formally -and explicitly abrogated, nor its sanctions withdrawn. The law, -therefore, still remains in force. Shew us that the fourth commandment -has been abrogated in as plain terms as those that were employed in its -promulgation; and then, and not till then, we may with a safe conscience -regard the observance of the Sabbath merely as a matter of Christian -expediency. - -Where, again, was the necessity of “direction” for the observance of the -Sabbath, when the first Christians, (many of whom, as well as the -Apostles, were Jews) had the services of the Jewish synagogue as a model, -and the plain instructions of the law and prophets to guide them, both as -to the proper manner of keeping the Sabbath, and the spirit in which it -should be kept? We might as well deny the Christian obligation to -maintain the public worship of God, because in the New Testament no -directions are given for conducting it. - -Nor would the absence of “reproof for the neglect” of the Sabbath be any -valid argument against the continued obligation of its observance. If -“in the primitive age” there were “churches in which _both_ (the Jewish -and the Christian Sabbaths) were observed,” it is scarcely probable that -any number of Christians would be found who neglected the Sabbath -altogether; and if there was little or no neglect of the observance of -the Sabbath, there would be little or no room for reproof on account of -its neglect. But is there no reproof to be found in the New Testament? -What does St. Paul mean by exhorting the Hebrews not to neglect the -assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some was? {12a} Few -will deny that this passage refers to the public worship of the Christian -church, which we know was held on the Lord’s day. Here, then, we have at -least indirect reproof; and its connection with what follows will perhaps -suggest an additional reason for the absence of more frequent and more -direct reproof. So essential a part of practical Christianity was the -observance of the Sabbath deemed, that scarcely any ventured to neglect -it, and they who did so, were considered in danger of apostasy. {12b} If -the reasons stated be valid arguments against the divine obligation to -keep the Sabbath, what can be urged to prove the duty of females to -partake of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? Here, although the -institution was entirely new, and peculiar to the new dispensation, yet -we find neither direct command, nor reproof for neglect, nor even mention -made of any females having partaken of that Sacrament. And yet who would -venture to pronounce these sufficient reasons for denying the obligation -of women to receive the memorials of their dying Saviour’s love? - -With regard to those passages in which “the language employed is” said to -be “that either of indifference to its retention, or even of rebuke for -its revival,” we apprehend that the intention of the apostle was neither -to condemn the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, nor to intimate that -Christians were under no moral obligation to keep any Sabbath whatever. -If he was speaking exclusively of the Jewish weekly Sabbath (of which -there is no sufficient proof), his object was, either to vindicate -Gentile Christians from the obligation of its observance, or to condemn -the self-righteous spirit in which it was kept. “Let no man judge you in -meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of -the Sabbaths” (or sabbatical appointments.) {13} All these were _Jewish_ -ordinances, from which the council at Jerusalem, guided by the Holy -Ghost, had declared _Gentile_ believers to be free. They were local and -national, and the various sacrifices and offerings connected with them -could be presented only at Jerusalem, and by Jews or proselytes. They -were therefore declared to be of no obligation to the Gentile believer. -On the contrary, these observances became injurious both to Jewish and -Gentile Christians, if they were kept in a self-righteous spirit. “I am -afraid of you (says St. Paul to the Galatians), lest I have bestowed upon -you labour in vain.” “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and -years.” Was the apostle rebuking his brethren for the revival of what -had “died out?” Was he not rather blaming them for observing in an -antichristian spirit, what they were not _bound_ to observe at all? In -his epistle to the Romans, he declares that the observance of these days -is in itself a matter of indifference. “One man esteemeth one day above -another, another esteemeth every day. He that regardeth the day, -regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord -he doth not regard it.” {14} How then could he be rebuking the Galatians -for simply doing what he himself declares might be done with a good -conscience, and acceptably to Christ? Besides if the language of the -Apostle must necessarily be understood as conveying rebuke for observing -the Sabbath, and consequently be a valid proof, that the obligation to -observe it is done away, much more might the same argument be deduced -from the still stronger language employed by God in the book of the -Prophet Isaiah: “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination -unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot -away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and -your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am -weary to bear them.” {15} What would have been thought of a Jewish -teacher who should have affirmed from this passage, that the rites here -enumerated were for ever abolished? And yet such a view would have had -more to support it, than the doctrine attempted to be established by the -statement of the Apostle. In both cases, we apprehend, it was not the -observance that was condemned, nor the obligation that was denied; but -the reproof was levelled at the motives and the state of mind by which -the observance was attended. An antinomian spirit was condemned by the -Prophet—a self-righteous spirit by the Apostle. - -The absence of a formal abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, and the formal -substitution of the Christian Sabbath in its place, is in perfect -accordance with the whole plan of divine providence, for the introduction -and establishment of Christianity in the world. The religion of Moses -was never formally abolished. Our Lord lived and died in it; and his -Apostles and the early Jewish disciples occasionally at least observed -its rites, and still worshiped at the temple and in the synagogue. Both -religions were from God. Both had the same end. The same truths and the -same spirit were essential to both. The shadows of the one gave place to -the substance of the other. But in all that was vital, moral, saving, -the two religions were identical. “He was not a Jew who was one -outwardly, and circumcision was that of the heart, in the spirit, and not -in the letter.” In like manner we conceive, what was purely and -necessarily Jewish in the observance of the Sabbath, passed away with the -mere externals of Judaism; but all that was essential to the spirit of -the command remained in full force. - -But it is asked, if the observance of the Sabbath be of divine and -perpetual obligation, why have Christians changed the day, and why do -they not keep the Sabbath in the manner enjoined in the Old Testament? -We reply, that the lawgiver, the “Lord of the Sabbath,” has by his own -acts, declarations, and example, and by the example of his inspired -Apostles, sanctioned both the change of the day, and the alteration in -the manner of its observance. Christianity was not to be confined to one -country, nor was it necessarily to be a national religion. It was to -overspread the world, and was to be suited to all countries and climes. -It was therefore necessary that whatever was merely local and national in -the observance of the Sabbath, should be relaxed or removed; and this -might be done, and was done, without either touching the moral obligation -of the law, or taking from its observance a particle of what is vital and -essential. {16} Our Lord did not abrogate the seventh commandment when -he declared, that the unchaste look was a breach of it. Neither did he -set aside the fourth commandment, when he worked miracles of mercy on the -Sabbath day; when he defended his disciples who were blamed for plucking -ears of corn on the Sabbath day; when he declared it was “lawful to do -good on the Sabbath day.” And if the seventh day had hitherto been kept -as a sign between God the Creator and his creature man, and as a memorial -of creating goodness; surely there was great propriety in changing the -day, so as to make the Sabbath observance a sign between God the Redeemer -and his redeemed creature man, and a memorial of redeeming love, as well -as an emblem of the eternal Sabbath, {17} which is the hope of the -christian. Nor can we imagine that the most explicit command for the -change of the day, could have come with greater force to the followers of -Christ, than the recorded facts, that the Saviour rose on the first day -of the week, that after his resurrection, he selected that day to meet -his disciples, that his people ever after regularly kept the first day, -and that this day bears in Scripture the honoured appellation of “the -Lord’s day.” In this change, however, nothing is given up that is -essential in the command to keep holy the Sabbath day. One day in seven -is to be set apart to the service of God; in it no unnecessary work is to -be done; but works of necessity and of charity on that day are sanctioned -by our Lord himself. And this is so far from being opposed to what was -required under the former dispensation, that it agrees entirely with the -teaching of the prophet Isaiah, who instructed the Jews, that the proper -and acceptable way of keeping the Sabbath, was, “not to do their own -ways,” nor to “speak their own words,” nor to “find their own pleasure;” -but to “call the Sabbath a delight, holy of the Lord, honourable.” {18} - -Here it will be objected, that this reasoning proceeds on the assumption, -that the Sabbath is of divine and perpetual obligation, and that the -justness of this assumption is altogether denied. Well then, let us -proceed to the proof. It will not be denied, that in the law of the ten -commandments, commonly called the moral law, twice written by the finger -of God, and delivered to the Jews in the most solemn manner by the voice -of Jehovah himself, there is a plain command to “keep holy the Sabbath -day.” It will not be denied, that this appointment was made as “a sign” -or memorial of the relation that subsisted between God and his Church, -and that this sign was to be continued in succeeding generations. It -will not be denied, that this appointment was guarded by sanctions of the -most important kind—great blessings being promised to its observance, and -severe judgments being threatened against those who should disregard it. -In all this we see, that to _the Jews_ the observance of the Sabbath was -of divine obligation, and that that obligation continued so long as the -law itself was unrepealed. In other words, until the same authority by -which the law was promulgated, shall plainly declare it abolished, every -Jew is bound to keep the Sabbath, on pain of incurring the displeasure of -Almighty God. - -But was the Jew the only person that was brought under the sanctions of -this law? Were not all proselytes from the Gentiles bound by the same -obligations, as they were also partakers of the same blessings with the -Jews? And does the obligation stop even here? What is the meaning of -this passage from the prophet Isaiah? “Also the sons of the stranger, -that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of -the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from -polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to -my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer . . . for -mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” {20a} -Surely this language must have reference to the times of the gospel, when -the gentile nations would be admitted into the church of God, and become -partakers of the blessings of the new covenant. In support of this view -it may be mentioned, that St. Paul states expressly that gentile -believers have no separate and independent standing in the economy of -redemption, but are as scions cut out of a wild olive tree and grafted -into the Jewish stock, and so with the natural branches, partake of its -root and fatness. Or, using another figure, he reminds the Ephesians, -that before their conversion they had been “aliens from the commonwealth -of Israel,” but that now they were “fellow citizens with the saints, and -of the household of God.” If this view be correct, and we see not how -its correctness can be disproved, the Sabbath with its responsibilities -and its blessings, is not confined to Jews, or to proselytes to the -Jewish religion. Its observance is binding upon all who profess to -believe the scriptures and to worship the God of the Bible. - -We cannot help regarding as very untenable the opinion of those, who -dissever the fourth commandment from the rest of the decalogue, under the -plea that it is not properly speaking _moral_, {20b} and therefore has -not the same force as the commandments of the second table—as if the -express command of our Maker were not infinitely above every -consideration arising from the nature of the injunction given, or as if -man’s reason or man’s moral sense were competent to make a distinction -where God has made none. What right have we, under any pretence -whatever, to deny the obligation of a law, so plainly, so solemnly, so -awfully promulgated by the God of heaven himself? The very position of -the fourth commandment in the decalogue, might teach men to regard it -with peculiar veneration. It is the link that binds together heaven and -earth—our duty to God and our duty to our neighbour. It is the pillar -that supports the whole moral and religious fabric. To attempt to set -aside the obligation to observe the fourth commandment, is therefore, in -our view, a daring attack on the authority of the Lawgiver. It is a -temerity equalled only by that of the church of Rome in expunging from -the decalogue the second commandment. - -We acknowledge the greater consistency of those who affirm, that the -whole moral law is swept away by the gospel; though we much regret that -any true Christians, and those too, persons who are friendly to a proper -observance of the Lord’s day, should hold notions which appear to us -opposed to Scripture, and calculated to produce among the unthinking -multitude, the most serious consequences. If indeed it were true, that -the whole decalogue is abrogated by Christianity, no supposed immoral -results would deter us from boldly proclaiming the fact. In that case, -we should not shrink from telling men that our church is under a serious -mistake, when she teaches her members to confess their guilt in breaking -each of the ten commandments, to ask for pardon, and to implore grace to -keep them in time to come. But it is because we believe in our heart -that the decalogue is still in force, and that God’s honour and man’s -happiness alike demand its observance, that we are not “bold enough” to -proclaim as “liberty” what we are sure would lead to the greatest -licentiousness. A theory of the kind may not seriously injure men of -real piety and great spirituality of mind; but to others it would be -productive of the most lamentable consequences. - -But if Christianity has freed us from the moral law, an announcement to -that effect must be recorded in the New Testament, and recorded in no -obscure or doubtful terms, such as can by any possibility be -misunderstood, but in language as plain, as perspicuous, and as -authoritative, as that employed in the original promulgation of the law. -For here we are not called upon to give up merely some external -observance, or to change the mode or the time of performing some -appointed duty (for _that_ a less explicit intimation of the divine will -would suffice); but we are told to renounce what in its very nature is -essential to all acceptable obedience, and what above every other part of -revelation bears marks of the divine impress. If the moral law is to be -renounced as part of “the weak and beggarly elements” of the Mosaic -religion, we must have the voice of God as distinctly abrogating the ten -commandments as it was heard in their original promulgation. Nothing -less will satisfy us, and nothing else, we venture to say, ought to -satisfy any man who believes, that at the bar of God he must answer for -the use he has made of the divine revelation contained in the Bible. {22} - -Now, can any man shew, or does any man pretend to shew, a single passage -of scripture in which it is plainly stated, that the decalogue is -abrogated under the Christian dispensation? We are well aware that -obedience to the law forms no part of man’s justification—for “Christ is -the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” We -know too that love is the essence of all obedience—for “love is the -fulfilling of the law.” But we know likewise that “this is the love of -God, that we keep his commandments.” Nor can we conceive how the purest -and most fervent love can be properly manifested, towards God or man, -without some infallible guidance for its expression in the different -relations of life. {23a} This we have briefly and essentially in the -decalogue; while the principles there enunciated, are in the prophets and -in the New Testament more fully developed and expanded. And in the -absence of some plain revelation to justify such a course, we would fain -know on what principle the _comment_ (so to speak) is retained, when the -_text_ itself is rejected. If the law written by the finger of God and -published by his own mouth may thus be ignored, what reason can be urged -for listening to the moral teaching of Prophets and Apostles? But if the -law of the ten commandments has not been annulled, the command to keep -the Sabbath is still in force. For he that said “thou shalt not kill,” -said also, “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” On this ground -then we rest our defence of the divine and perpetual obligation of the -Sabbath. God has not revoked his own solemn decree published with his -own lips on Mount Sinai. Till this is done, the decree with all its -sanctions continues in full force. - -Here we are content to stop; though we feel that the argument might be -carried much further. For we believe that had there been no command in -the law of Moses, enjoining the observance of the Sabbath; still both -Jews and Gentiles would have been bound by the original institution, -{23b} coeval with man’s being, and forming the only positive appointment -of God, imposed on our first parents in a state of innocency. He -“blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” This thought will probably -have little weight with those who are not convinced by our previous -arguments; but it will doubtless lead some to reflect, that if the -Sabbath was needed for man’s welfare even in the garden of Eden, much -more is it required for the good of both body and soul in his present -condition of sin and toil and sorrow; and that if the Father of Goodness -gave his sinless creatures a day of rest from worldly employment, and a -weekly Sabbath for more continued and intimate communion with himself; -the compassion of the same gracious Being would not only lead him to -continue the appointment, now so much more needed in man’s fallen state, -but also to command such an observance of the day, as man’s altered -circumstances rendered necessary. Now, this can only be effected by -making it imperative on all to “keep holy” the sacred day themselves, and -to afford to others facilities to keep it. If it were to be regarded -merely as a privilege, to be enjoyed or neglected at pleasure, it would -not answer the end intended. In man’s present condition, he cannot by -nature appreciate the boon, nor desire the spiritual blessings that the -appointment is especially intended to convey. The observance of the -Sabbath must therefore be laid upon his conscience as a duty, that in -seeking to fulfil that duty, he may be continually brought under the -means of grace, and the influence of Christian principles, until by God’s -grace he is led to feel the blessedness of a well spent Sabbath, and -keeps from a motive of love, what he at first observed from a sense of -duty. - - - - -APPENDIX. - - -SOME persons require a proof that the decalogue is binding on Christians. -They acknowledge that it is still in force towards the Jews. But -assuming that the whole Jewish economy is abrogated with regard to -Christians, they demand evidence from the New Testament that the ten -commandments are a rule of duty to us. Now this is a demand they have no -right to make. It proceeds on an assumption, the correctness of which we -deny. It is therefore, the part of those who maintain that view, to -prove that the moral law has ceased to be in force; not of us, to shew -the contrary. - -While, however, we maintain our vantage ground, and contend that nothing -less than a plain declaration in the New Testament to that effect, can or -ought to satisfy us, that the decalogue is annulled, we do not despair of -being able to satisfy any candid mind, by an appeal to the New Testament, -that we are as much bound by the ten commandments as are the Jews, to -whom they were originally given. - -No one can say, that there is an express declaration in the New -Testament, to the effect, that the decalogue is set aside under the -present dispensation. Those who arrive at the conclusion, must confess, -that it is merely inferential. In this respect, then, both parties stand -on equal ground. Neither our opponents nor ourselves can adduce an -undoubted and positive declaration. But we ask which have the greatest -need of such a declaration—they who assert that the moral law, written -and pronounced by God himself, has been abrogated, or they who affirm -that it is still in force? On which side lies the greater probability, -and with whom rests the greater responsibility? No very serious harm can -result from the error (if such it be) of maintaining the perpetual -authority of the moral law, but the most disastrous consequences may flow -from the rejection of its claims. And surely it is more likely that God -would continue his own law in force without a direct renewal of it, than -that he would abrogate it without a plain announcement to that effect. -In the absence then of positive evidence, the probability lies on the -side of its retention. - -Now, this probability advances a step towards certainty, when it is -remembered, that Judaism is not formally abrogated in the New -Testament—that in fact Christianity is not a new religion, but the -extension and expansion of the moral and spiritual part of the Mosaic -dispensation—believing Jews still remaining on their own stock, and -believing Gentiles being scions grafted into the Jewish olive tree. The -religion of Jesus is in reality the perfection of the religion of Moses. -But where would be its superiority in a moral point of view, if the -authority of the very standard of morality were taken from it? At any -rate, if such were the case, some express intimation to that effect is to -be expected. - -This argument is still further strengthened by the fact, that the spirit -and essential requirements of Judaism and Christianity are identical. It -has indeed been asserted that the morality of the Old Testament was one -of legal enactment; whereas that of the New Testament is one of motives -and principles. But our Lord teaches a very different doctrine. He -tells us that love was the essence and sum of all the requirements of the -Old Testament, even as love is the fulfilling of the law under the -present dispensation. {27} Christianity presents a new and powerful -motive for obedience—namely gratitude for the incarnation and death of -the Son of God; but this neither changes the nature of man’s moral -obligation, nor removes the necessity of a positive enactment to guide -him in his obedience, and enforce conformity to God’s will. If then in -spirit and essence the moral requirements of the law and of the gospel -were the same, what reason should there be for setting aside the -decalogue, and what authority have we to ignore it without an express -command from God? - -The probability that the moral law remains in force under the present -dispensation, is still further strengthened by the use which is made of -it by the inspired writers of the New Testament. St. Paul indeed speaks -of the law as the “ministry of condemnation,” in opposition to the -gospel, which is the “ministry of righteousness,” or justification—the -one dispensation bearing on its front the justice of God, the other, his -mercy. - -He tells us plainly that the law can only condemn, while the gospel alone -has power to justify. He assures us that in this respect—in its -condemning power—it is “done away” to the believer, while the free grace -of the gospel alone “remains.” But when he speaks of the moral -requirements of Christianity, while he tells us that (as in the religion -of Moses) love is the essence and sum of all, he nevertheless sends us to -the commandments of the second table, to learn how love is to be -exhibited, or rather perhaps to shew us, that the moral requirements of -the two dispensations were essentially the same. {28a} What an -extraordinary use to make of the law, if the decalogue be part of “the -weak and beggarly elements” abolished by Christianity. St. John tells us -that to love God is to keep his commandments. But we know not which of -his commandments we are bound to keep, if we reject those which he wrote -with his own finger, and pronounced with his own voice. St. James refers -to the moral law as if recognising its obligation. “Whosoever shall keep -the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he -that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou -commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of -the law.” {28b} It may be objected, that this reference to the law is -merely for the purpose of illustration. But surely if the violation of -one precept involves the guilt of breaking the whole law, the whole law -must still be in force. For if the enactment has been repealed, there is -no law; and if there is no law, there can be no transgression; and if -there is no transgression, there can be no guilt. How strange, too, is -this appeal to the law by the Apostle Paul, if the law has been annulled: -“Children obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. Honour thy -father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise; that it -may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth.” -{28c} We thus approach very near the establishment of our position, that -there is evidence in the New Testament, that the moral law is still -binding on men. - -It may indeed be objected, that in the scriptures quoted or alluded to, -the reference is chiefly, if not exclusively, to the second table of the -decalogue. But we think few will venture to deny, (especially after the -assertion of St. James, that the violation of one precept is the -violation of the whole law) that if the part which regulates our duty to -man is in force, the part which teaches our duty to God must be equally -in force. Besides, if love is the fulfilling of the law, and the love of -God is keeping his commandments, how can we express our love to him, if -we reject that part of the law, which especially guides us in the proper -manner of shewing our love _directly_ to him? - -But there is one passage of the New Testament, which, in the absence of a -positive enunciation to the contrary, to our mind, of itself establishes -the permanent authority of the decalogue, and which, when added to what -has already been said, more than completes the proof that has been -demanded of us. We allude to our Lord’s declaration: “Think not that I -am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but -to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one -jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be -fulfilled.” {29a} There can scarcely be a doubt to what the Redeemer -refers when he speaks of “the law and the prophets.” He could not intend -the ceremonial law, because the breaking of its least commands would not -make a man “least in the kingdom of heaven.” Neither was it true that he -did not come to put an end to its observance. It is the moral law, and -those instructions of the prophets which flow from it—it is “the law and -the prophets” as embraced in the precept, “thou shalt love the Lord thy -God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself,” which our Lord -evidently meant. The entire discourse to which this declaration forms -the introduction, is of a moral character; and whatever meanings may have -been put upon our Lord’s language, we think any unbiased mind, on reading -the whole discourse, will come to the conclusion, that the moral law was -chiefly and prominently in the Saviour’s mind, when he employed the -language above quoted. {29b} But if one jot or tittle cannot pass away -from the law, how should the entire law be abrogated? We conclude, -therefore, that there is satisfactory evidence in the New Testament, that -the decalogue is still in force in the Christian church—not so indeed -that obedience to it forms the ground of the believer’s justification, or -that want of perfect conformity to its requirements brings him under -condemnation (this was not the case under the Jewish dispensation), but -as the standard of right and wrong, as the infallible regulator of -conscience, as that perfect rule of moral obligation, by seeking -conformity to which we honour our Creator and Redeemer, perform the -duties of this present life, and become fitted for the presence of God -and the inheritance of the saints in light. To the believer the moral -law has always been “the law of liberty,” because, it being “written in -his heart,” he has “delighted in it after the inner man,” and kept its -precepts from a principle of love. - - * * * * * - - THE END. - - * * * * * - - NORWICH: - PRINTED BY THOMAS PRIEST, RAMPANT HORSE STREET. - - - - -FOOTNOTES. - - -{7} It is the fashion to extol highly the power of man’s mental and -moral perception of what is right and wrong. But from whom do we hear -most on these subjects? From those who, having lighted their torch at -the lamp of God, affect not only to be independent of divine -illumination, but even to eclipse the light of heaven itself. If they -will fairly test their own principles, let them try them by the condition -of that portion of the human family on whom revelation never cast its -direct rays. Let them seek in the records of the heathen nations of -antiquity, or in the principles and practice of modern heathendom, for -proofs of man’s inherent power to think and act aright. They will then -find that their wisdom is folly, their religion the most degrading -idolatry, and that their moral code allows and even commands actions of -the most revolting kind. The moral sense of the New Zealander made him a -cannibal. In the Hindu it is seen in the worship of the Linga, in the -horrid rites of the Suttee, and in the filthy and unnatural crimes that -form a part of what is considered their most acceptable worship. It is -hardly necessary to refer the classical reader to such works as the -Phædrus and Symposium of the greatest philosopher of the most civilized -nation of antiquity. - -{12a} Heb. x. 25. - -{12b} Vide x. 26, et seq. - -{13} After examining all the places in which the word σάββατον and the -defective plural σάββατα occur, both in the New Testament and in the -Septuagint, we are satisfied that the following extract from Bishop -Horsley’s Third Sermon on the Sabbath, gives the proper exposition of the -passage. “I must not quit this part of my subject without briefly taking -notice of a text in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, which has been -supposed to contradict the whole doctrine which I have asserted, and to -prove that the observation of a Sabbath in the Christian church is no -point of duty, but a matter of mere compliance with ancient custom . . . -From this text no less a man than the venerable Calvin drew the -conclusion, in which he has been rashly followed by other considerable -men, that the sanctification of the seventh day is no indispensable duty -in the Christian church—that it is one of those carnal ordinances of the -Jewish religion which our Lord hath blotted out. The truth however is, -that in the apostolical age, the first day of the week, though it was -observed with great reverence, was not called the Sabbath day, but the -Lord’s day . . . and the name of the Sabbath days was appropriated to the -Saturdays, and certain days in the Jewish church, which were likewise -called Sabbaths in the law. The Sabbath days, therefore, of which St. -Paul speaks, were not the Sundays of Christians, but the Saturdays and -other Sabbaths of the Jewish calendar.” - -{14} Rom. xiv. 5, 6. - -{15} Isaiah i. 13, 14. - -{16} We are reminded of certain expressions in some of the Fathers, from -which it is inferred, that they did not deem it necessary to keep the -Lord’s day so strictly as we contend it ought to be kept; and that -Constantine passed a decree permitting persons in the rural districts, to -get in their crops on Sunday, should the weather be such as to threaten -their destruction or serious injury. Without discussing the propriety of -the particular edict in question, we deem it a sufficient answer, that -the Bible, and not the Fathers or Constantine, is our rule of faith and -practice. Many erroneous notions were held by the Fathers; and no one -will pretend that either Constantine or the church generally in his days, -was so correct in practice, as to present a perfect model for us to -follow. - -We are also reminded, that there were some in the early church—slaves, -for instance—who could not keep the Lord’s day; and these, it is argued, -would rather have died than have desecrated it, had they considered it of -the same obligation as the command to abstain from idolatry. To this it -may be replied, that the question is not what certain individuals -thought, or what was the practice of certain communities, but what the -word of God teaches. There is, however, a marked distinction between the -two cases here supposed, arising from the difference between the two -commandments. Many instances may occur, in which it is physically -impossible to obey the letter of some of the commandments. Thus, -poverty, sickness, or other providential impediment, may incapacitate the -most obedient child from ministering to the wants of his parents. In -like manner, bodily infirmity, imprisonment, or other providential -restraint, may prevent the observance of the fourth commandment in the -letter, while the heart longs to honour God’s holy day, and to enjoy its -blessings. The Christian slave, therefore, whose body (in the providence -of God) was under the power of his master, might be compelled to work on -the Lord’s day without incurring guilt. But he could not worship an -idol, without an open renunciation of Christianity. Surely there is no -need to insist on the difference between the two cases. - -{17} Heb. iv. 9. σαββατισμὸς. - -{18} We cannot see the distinction contended for by some, between the -Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lord’s day; namely, that the former was -“_rest_,” while the latter is “_public worship_.” To us they appear -identical. The Jewish Sabbath was not merely “_rest_,” but _holy_ or -_sanctified_ rest. “God _blessed_ the seventh day, and _sanctified_ it.” -Moses calls it “the rest of the _holy_ Sabbath unto the Lord;” and God -frequently declares that it was appointed as a “sign” between himself and -his people, and commands them to keep it _holy_. Now, how could the -Jewish Sabbath answer the description thus given of it, if mere rest, or -cessation from bodily labour, was all that was required in its -observance? We know that the Sunday, as kept by those who only lay aside -their usual worldly employments, is neither “blessed,” nor “sanctified,” -nor “holy,” nor a “sign” between them and God. On the contrary, it is -made the occasion of the most awful immoralities, and is productive of -the greatest misery. Instead of a blessing, it is converted into a -curse. Besides, did not the instructions of the heads of families, and -the teaching and ministrations of the Levites, in the earlier part of the -Jewish history, and the services at the synagogue in after times, afford -means of instruction very similar to those in the Christian church? By -divine appointment the Levites were to teach the people (Lev. x. 11; -Deut. xxxiii. 10), and the people were to teach their children (Deut. vi. -7); and we cannot conceive how this could have been done, or the Sabbath -have been kept _holy_, according to the commandment, without some stated -instruction and worship on the day of rest, from the first settlement of -the Israelites in Canaan. A whole nation keeping _holy_ every seventh -day, without the aids and restraints of public worship, appears to us an -impossibility. Indeed, why is the Sabbath expressly called “a holy -_convocation_” [מקרא קדש] (Levit. xxiii. 3), if no assemblies of the -people for worship took place on that day? But after all, what do the -advocates of the strictest observance of the Sabbath require, more than -was required of the Jews by God himself? (Isa. lviii. 13.) We therefore -consider the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday, the same in spirit, -in character, and in their general religious requirements. - -{20a} Isaiah, lvi. 6, 7. - -{20b} The fourth commandment is in its nature partly _moral_ and partly -_positive_. Reason teaches the duty of devoting a portion of our time to -the worship of God. Revelation determines the amount by a positive -enactment. Now, it is very remarkable, that while _all_ the other -sabbatical institutions (which are peculiar to the Jews) are omitted in -the moral law and inserted in the ceremonial law, that of the seventh day -alone stands in the decalogue. Is not this a tacit indication of its -moral character? - -{22} See Appendix. - -{23a} How often has the fondest love of parents become destructive to -their offspring, for want of proper regulation in its expression. So, -love to God and man, if mere feeling, without proper intellectual -guidance, might produce results the reverse of its intention. It would -be the propelling power without the regulator. - -{23b} “It is a gross mistake to consider the Sabbath as a mere festival -of the Jewish church, deriving its whole sanctity from the Levitical law. -The contrary appears, as well from the evidence of the fact which sacred -history affords, as from the reason of the thing which the same history -declares. The religious observation of the seventh day hath a place in -the decalogue among the very first duties of natural religion. The -reason assigned for the injunction is general, and hath no relation or -regard to the particular circumstances of the Israelites. The creation -of the world was an event equally interesting to the whole human race; -and the acknowledgment of God as our Creator, is a duty in all ages and -in all countries, equally incumbent upon every individual of mankind.” -From _Bishop Horsley’s Second Sermon on the Sabbath_. - -Professor Blunt has elaborately demonstrated, that the Sabbath was -observed in the _Patriarchal age_. See _Scriptural Coincidences_, pp. -18–24. The hebdomadal division of time by the Pagan nations of the West, -and by the Hindus and other people in the East, seems to indicate a -traditional recognition of the Sabbath, though the observance of the day, -as a day of rest, passed away with the worship of Him, in whose honour it -was originally instituted. - -{27} Matt. xxii. 37–40. - -{28a} Rom. xiii. 8–10. - -{28b} James ii. 10, 11. - -{28c} Ephes. vi. 1–3. - -{29a} Matt. v. 17, 18. - -{29b} Our Lord refers to some of the moral precepts, and to some of the -civil enactments of the law of Moses; because the meaning and application -of both had been perverted or obscured by the glosses of the Scribes and -Pharisees; and his intention evidently was, to remove those false -glosses, and to teach the legitimate application, meaning, and extent of -the divine commandments. Thus, the civil enactment, “An eye for an eye,” -&c. was perverted by the Pharisees, so as to encourage the notion, that -personal revenge was justifiable by the divine law. This perversion was -met by our Lord’s command, “Resist not evil,” &c. Again, God had -commanded the Jews to love their neighbours as themselves. The Scribes, -it would seem, chose to infer that this command necessarily implied the -inculcation of an opposite feeling towards enemies. They therefore -interpreted the precept to mean “Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate -thine enemy.” Our Lord gave the most decided negative to this gloss, by -his injunction, “love your enemies,” &c. Moreover, the Scribes taught -that the mere outward observance of the precept was all that the law -required. Our Lord shewed that God regards the inward feelings and -motives of men—that the unchaste desire was adultery, and that causeless -anger was murder. In this, his object was not to condemn or contradict -the teaching of the law and the prophets, but to free it from human -perversion, to shew its real character, and to point out its moral beauty -and excellency. Hence his solemn assertion, that not one jot or tittle -should pass from the law. - - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DIVINE AND PERPETUAL OBLIGATION -OF THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH*** - - -******* This file should be named 63765-0.txt or 63765-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/3/7/6/63765 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |