3. If this doctrine be true, and the law of the new Sabbath bind "all men," as you say it does, it must bind _the heathen_, who are a part of "all men." But if there is a new Sabbath instituted, it can only be made known through the written word of God, of which the heathen _can know nothing_. This new Sabbath has never been made known to them, nor to any of their ancestors. Nevertheless, you say that they are bound to observe it, _according to the written word_, and that they shall be punished to all eternity for breaking it; which is contrary to the teaching of the Apostle, (Rom. 2:12,) that the heathen shall be judged and condemned, not by the written word, but by _the law of nature_, which you know can reveal no Sabbath but that of the seventh day; for Adam, who understood the law of nature better than any other mere man, never thought of keeping holy any other day. And, moreover, the heathen have, on your principle, only nine commandments to obey or disobey; for they are under the law of nature, which says, "Keep holy the seventh day:" but you say that God does not _now_ require this: therefore they are released from the obligation. And, what is stranger still, the heathen have no means of knowing that to keep the seventh day _is a work of supererogation_. These are _a few_ of the consequences of your doctrine of a change of Sabbath. What must be the character of that tree which yields such fruits! Let us now attend for a moment to your objections. Do you say, Those who believe in Christ are redeemed, not only from the curse of the Sabbath law, but also from the obligation to obey it in future? If so, who can tell but we are redeemed from _every other_ moral obligation? Or, do you alledge, that Christ makes a new contract with the sinner, saying, If you keep holy the first day, I will release you from the obligation to sanctify the seventh? "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law," Rom. 3:31. But perhaps you say, To change the Sabbath from one day to another is not to make void the law; it is only to vary its application. I reply, It _is_ to make void, to _annul_, to _annihilate_, one tenth part of that law that God wrote on Adam's heart; for, as has been shown already, that law required him to keep no day holy but the seventh. Or, do you plead that, as God _has_ substituted the Lord Jesus Christ for the sinner, without violating the moral law, so he _may_ have substituted some other day for the seventh? I reply, The cases are not parallel; for-- 1. The substitution of Christ does not render a change of any part of the law necessary; but the other does. Christ "came not to destroy" the law, but to fulfill it; and in fulfilling it, he honored the seventh day: but the substitution of some other day for the seventh, had it taken place before Christ came, would have released him, as well as us, from the obligation to obey a part of the law of the covenant of works.