is written upon our hearts. viii: 10. This is the same ten commandments; then instead of being taken away or abolished they are still nearer to us. See also 3d v of 2d Cor: iii. If Paul was laboring here to show the abolition of the ten commandments in A. D. 60, (look at the top of your bible for the date) pray tell me if you can what he meant by writing to the Romans the very same year and telling them that "the _law was holy, and the commandments holy, just and good_." That he meant no other than the _Law_ and _Commandments_ in the decalogue, see xiii: 8, 9. About four years after this he is exhorting the Ephesians to the keeping the 5th commandment. He says it is the "first commandment with promise." vi: 2. The same year that he writes the Romans he dates his 1st Epistle to the Cor. in ch. vii: 19, and says circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, (what _is_, Paul?) but the _keeping the commandments of God_. Now all this was certainly more than twenty-five years after the crucifixion. Is not the proof then positive and forever established that Paul's preaching is right to the point in establishing the commandments of God instead of abolishing them? If I have not made it plain here, I would just say once more, that the Apostle's argument where he refers to the abolition of the law in Rom., Cor., Gall., see v: 14, Eph. and Heb. he always means the carnal commandments and laws of Moses, and not the commandments of God, as he has shown. See Acts xxi: 20, 21. Here is circumcision, and the customs, the _law_ of Moses, and not one breath about the Sabbath. But if you will trace back to the xviii: 4, 11, you will see that instead of abolishing THE Sabbath, Paul had just come from Corinth, where he had been preaching for 78 Sabbaths in succession. O Lord help thy people [20]to see THESE truths and keep thy law! Still, there are many other texts relating to the law, presented by the opposite view, to show that the law respecting the Sabbath is abolished. Let us look at some of them. But it will be necessary in the first place, to make a clear distinction between what is commonly called the MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAW. Bro. S. S. Snow, in writing on this subject about one year ago, in the Jubilee Standard, asks "by what authority this distinction is made." He says, "neither our Lord or his apostles made any such distinction. When speaking of the law they never used the terms moral or ceremonial, but always spake of it as a _whole_, calling it _the_ law," and further says, "we must have a 'thus saith the Lord' to satisfy us." So I say. I have no doubt but thousands have stopped here; indeed, it has been to me the most difficult point to settle in this whole question. Now let us come to it fairly, and we shall see that the old and new testament writers have ever kept up the distinction, although it may in some parts seem to be one code of laws.