THE language of Christ, that “the Sabbath was made for man,” (standing in direct contradiction of your inferences to prove that it was made for the Hebrews only,) you attempt to get over by saying that Christ’s testimony does not bear against your view, “unless it can first be proved that the Israelites were not men.” Mark the contrast. Christ says “the Sabbath was made for man.” You point to a fraction of the human family, and say that it was made for that fraction only, and that Christ’s words do not show the contrary, unless I can prove that that fraction is not composed of men! How weak and unreasonable is such an assertion! How reasonable the statement, that it was made for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, unless it can be proved that the Gentiles are not men. If you have any proof to offer that they are not men, it will help your case: if you have not, you stand in array against the statement of the Lord Jesus Christ.RRCS 47.1

That the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, simply shows that it designated them as the worshipers of the true God in distinction from the nations around them who worshiped “the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth.” Jeremiah 10:10-12; Ezekiel 20:20.RRCS 47.2

The great stress laid on the language of the fourth commandment to prove that the Jews alone should keep it, shows how difficult a case you have undertaken. It is very true that the words, “thou,” “thy,” and “thine,” do often occur; but had you taken the trouble to read the other commandments, you would have found precisely the same words often used. Notice in particular the fifth and tenth commandments. If the words “thy” and “thine,” restrict the duty enjoined in the fourth commandment to the Jews only, then they also restrict to them the duties enjoined in the other precepts. And as the term “thy God” occurs five times in the Decalogue, it goes as far to prove that the God of the Bible is a Jewish God, as it does to prove that the Sabbath of the Lord is a Jewish Sabbath.RRCS 47.3

But what is quite as remarkable, the two commandments, which you are pleased to admit as binding on all men in all ages, were given to the Jews as really as were the ten. And these use the same “Jewish” pronoun quite as freely as that hard-to-be-got-rid-of fourth commandment. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”RRCS 47.4

You deem the language referred to as the most explicit, and unanswerable proof that the fourth commandment belonged to the Jews only, and that whosoever should teach differently, exposes himself to the penalty of adding to the law of God. Now don’t be to strong. Whosoever, on this reasoning, shall teach that either of the two great principles, or any of the ten precepts that grow out of these principles, are binding on any other besides the Jews, exposes himself to the penalty of adding to the law. And inasmuch as God is said to be “thy God” he must be “the God of the Jews only, and not of the Gentiles also!”RRCS 48.1

But to determine who the “thee” and “thou” are, to whom the law speaks, I inquire, To how many does the law speak? To the Jews only, or to all the family of fallen man? Paul answers:RRCS 48.2

“Now we know that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Romans 3:19.RRCS 48.3

Our views of the two commandments, and the ten, are in harmony with the words of Christ, of Paul, and of James. Matthew 22:35-40; Romans 13:9; James 2:8-12. Your statement that we contradict the words of Christ in Matthew 22:40, is false. We regard these two great precepts, and the ten which grow out of them, as the Royal Law of God. Your remark that “the Decalogue is inapplicable as a universal and perpetual law,” and that it has given way to “the unencumbered moral law,” was not intended, we presume, with reference to the statutes that forbid idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false-witness and covetousness. O no. But the precept embodying the Sabbath that was made for man at Creation, was Jewish, and had obtained a place in that “holy, spiritual, just and good law,” to get rid of which, it was all abolished.RRCS 48.4

The Gentiles were amenable to the law of God, or they were not. If they were not amenable to the law of God, then they must be regarded as moral beings, but accountable only to the gods of their own creating. But if they were amenable to the law of God, they were amenable to its fourth precept, the holy Sabbath.RRCS 48.5

To your remark respecting the existence of the Sabbath in the New Earth, and your query whether wearisome labor will then exist, I answer that inasmuch as the prophet Isaiah, in speaking of the New Earth, says that all flesh shall assemble from Sabbath to Sabbath to worship before Jehovah, we are decidedly of the opinion that it will exist in that holy state. Nor does this imply that wearisome labor will then exist, any more than the statement of Exodus 31:17, that the great Creator rested on the seventh day and was refreshed, implies that he was wearied with his work of Creation. - Review and Herald, Vol.III, No.2. page 12.RRCS 48.6