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.
From the twentieth chapter of Exodus, where the law of the Sabbath was
re-enacted, and onward, we find two distinct codes of laws. The first
was written on two tables of stone with the _finger_ of God; the
_second_ was taken down from his mouth and recorded by the hand of Moses
in a book. Paul calls the latter carnal commandments and ordinances,
(rites or _ceremonies_) which come under two heads, religious and
political, and are Moses's. The first code is God's. For proof see Exo.
xvi: 28, 30. "How long refuse ye to keep _my_ commandments and _my_
laws: see for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath; and so the
people rested on the Sabbath day." Also in the book of Leviticus, where
the law of ceremonies is given to the levites or priests, Moses closes
with these words: "_These_ are the commandments which the Lord commanded
Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai;" in Heb. vii: 16, 18,
called carnal commandments.
Again, "the Lord said unto Moses, come up to me into the Mount, and be
there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments
which I have written." Exo. xxiv: 12. Further he calls them the ten
[17]commandments--xxxiv: 28. And Moses puts them "into the ark"--xl:
20. _Now for the second code of laws._ See Deut. xxxi: 9, 10; and xxiv:
26. "And when Moses had finished writing the law, he commanded them to
put _this book_ of the LAW (of ceremonies) in the side of the ark of the
covenant, to be read at the end of every seven years." This is not the
song of deliverance by Moses in the forty-fourth verse of the
thirty-second chapter. For, eight hundred and sixty-seven years after
this, in the reign of Josiah, king of Israel, the high priest found this
book in "the Temple," (2 Chron. xxxiv: 14, 15) which moved all Israel.
One hundred and seventy-nine years further onward, Ezra was from morning
till noon reading out of this book. Neh. viii: 3; Heb. ix: 19. Paul's
comments.
Bro. Snow says in regard to the commandments, "The principles of moral
conduct embraced in the law, was binding before the law was given,
(meaning that one of course at Mt. Sinai) and is binding _now_; it is
immutable and eternal! It is comprehended in one word, LOVE." If he
meant, as we believe he did, to comprehend what Jesus did in the xix.
and xxii. chap. Matt. 37-40, and Paul, and James, and John after him,
then we ask how it is possible for him to reject from that code of laws,
the only one, _the seventh day rest_, that was promulgated at the
_beginning_, while at the same time the other nine, that were not
written until about three thousand years afterwards, were eternally
binding; without doubt, the whole ten commandments are co-eval and
co-extensive with sin. Again, he says, "We readily admit, that if what
is called the decalogue or ten commandments be binding on us, _we ought_
to observe the seventh day, for that was appointed by the Lord as the
Sabbath day." Let us see if Jesus and his apostles do not make it
binding. _First then, the distinction of the two codes by Jesus._
The Pharisees ask the Saviour why his disciples transgress the tradition
of the elders? His answer is, "Why do ye transgress the commandment of
God?" and he immediately cites them to the fifth commandment, Matt. xv:
25. Again, "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time
the kingdom of God is preached," &c. Luke xvi: 16. Jesus was three years
after this introducing the gospel of the kingdom, unwaveringly holding
his meetings on the Sabbath days, (which our opponents say were now
about to be _abolished_; others say changed,) and never uttering a
syllable to show to the contrary, but that this was [18]and always
would be the holy day for worship. Mark says when the Sabbath (the
Seventh day, for there was no other,) was come, he began to teach in the
Synagogue, vi: 2. Luke says, "as his _custom_ was, he went into the
Synagogue and taught on the Sabbath day." iv: 16, 31. Will it be said of
him as it is of Paul on like occasions, some thirty years afterwards,
that he uniformly held his meetings on the Sabbath because he had no
where else to preach, or that this day was the only one in the week in
which the people would come out to hear him? Every bible reader knows
better; witness the five thousand and the seven thousand, and the
multitudes that thronged him in the streets, in the citys and towns
where they listened to him; besides, he was now establishing a new
dispensation, while theirs was passing away. Then he did not follow any
of their customs or rites or ceremonies which he had come to abolish.
I have already quoted Matt. v: 17, 18, where Jesus said he had come to
fulfil the law, and immediately begins by showing them that they are not
to violate one of the least of the commandments, and cites them to
some--see vi: 19, 21, 27, 33. Again, he is tauntingly asked "which is
the great commandment in the law: Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind. This is the _first_ and great commandment. And the second is
like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets." xxii: 36, 40. Here
Jesus has divided the ten commandments into two parts, or as it is
written on two tables of stone. The first four on the first table treat
of those duties which we owe to God--the other six refers to those which
we owe to man, requiring perfect obedience.
Once more, "One came and said unto him, good master what good thing
shall I do that I may have eternal life? He said, If thou wilt enter
into life keep the commandments. Then he asked him which? He cited him
to the last part of what he called the second, loving his neighbor as
himself." If he had cited him to the first table, as in the xxii, quoted
above, he could not have replied "_all_ these have I kept from my youth
up." Why? Because he would have already been perfect, for Jesus in reply
to his question, what he should do to inherit eternal life, said he must
"keep the commandments." Matt. xix: 16-20. Is not the Sabbath included
in these commandments? Surely [19]it is! Then how absurd to believe
that Jesus, just at the close of his ministry, should teach that the
way, the only way, to enter into life, was to keep the commandments, one
of which was to be abolished in a few months from that time, without the
least intimation from him or his Father that it was to take place. I say
again, if the Sabbath is abolished, we ask those who teach it to cite us
to the chapter and verse, not to the law of rites and ceremonies which
are abolished, for we have already shown that the Sabbath was instituted
more than twenty-five hundred years before Moses wrote the carnal
ordinances or ceremonies. God said, "Abraham kept _my_ charge, _my_
commandments, _my_ statutes, and _my_ laws." Gen. xxvi: 5. This must
include the Sabbath, for the Sabbath was the first law given, therefore
if Abraham did not keep the Sabbath, I cannot understand what
commandments, statutes and laws mean in this chapter. Jesus says, "As I
have kept my Father's commandments," John xv: 10. Did he keep the
commandments? Yes. Mark and Luke, before quoted--(but more of this in
another place.)
In John vii: 19, Jesus speaks of "Moses law," "_your law_." x: 34.
Again, "_their law_." xv: 25. Here then we show that Jesus kept up a
clear distinction between what God calls _my_ law and commandments and
Moses law, "_their_ law," "_your_ law." Let us now look at the argument
of the Apostles. Paul preaching at Antioc taught the Brethren that by
Jesus Christ all who believed in him "are justified from all things,
from which ye could not be justified by the _Law of Moses_." Acts xiii:
39.
The Pharisees said "that it was needful to circumcise them and commend
them to keep the _Law of Moses_." xv: 5.
Again, when Paul had come to Jerusalem the second time, (fourteen years
from the time he met the Apostles in conference where they established
the decrees for the churches. See Acts xx: 19; Gal. ii: 1,) the Apostles
shewed him how many thousands of Jews there were which believed and were
zealous of the _law_: "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest
_all_ the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake _Moses_ and the
_customs_." xxi: 20, 21. Any person who will carefully read the eight
chapters here included, must be thoroughly convinced that the Apostle's
troubles were about the law of ceremonies written and given by Moses,
and nothing to do with the ten commandments. For you see a little before
he comes to Jerusalem, he had been preaching at Corinth every
[20]Sabbath for eighteen months. xxiii: 4, 11. And this, be it
remembered, was more than twenty years after the Jewish Sabbaths and
ceremonies were nailed to the cross.--And you see that Paul was the man
above all the Apostles to be persecuted on account of the abolition of
the Jews' law of ceremonies, for he was the "_great_ Apostle to the
Gentiles:" and if the "Sabbath of the Lord our God" was to have been
abolished when the Saviour died, Paul was the very man selected for that
purpose. It is clear, therefore, that he did not abolish the seventh day
Sabbath among the Gentiles. This same Apostle tells the Romans "that
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth." x: 4. Again, that "sin shall not have dominion over you, for
ye are not under the _law_ but under grace." vi: 14. Once more: He says
the Gentiles having not the _law_, are a _law_ unto themselves. Why?
Because, he says in the next verse, it shows the _law_ written on their
hearts. The law of ceremonies? No; that which was on tables of stone.
ii: 14-16. We might quote much more which looks like embracing the whole
law. Let us now look at a few texts in the same letter, which will draw
a distinguishing line between the two codes of laws. Paul, in the vii
ch. 9-13v. brings to view the carnal commandment, and the one unto life,
and sums up his argument in these words: "Wherefore the _law_ is holy,
and the commandment holy and just and good." In the 7v he quotes from
the decalogue. Again, he that loveth another hath fulfilled the _law_.
How? Why thou shalt not steal, nor commit adultery, nor bear false
witness, nor covet, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Therefore
_love_ is the fulfilling of the law. Rom. xiii: 8, 10.--This then is
what the Saviour taught the young man to do to secure "eternal life."
Matt. Once more, in concluding a long argument on the law in Rom. iii:
31, he closes with this language: "Do we then make void the law through
faith? God forbid ye, _we establish_ the _law_."--What _law_ is here
established? not the law of rites and ceremonies. What then, for Paul
means some _law_. It can be no other than what he calls the law of
"life," of "love," the ten commandments. How could even that be
established twenty-nine years after the crucifixion, if one of the
_greatest_ commandments had been abolished out of the code, that is the
Sabbath.
Paul's letter to the Corinthians teaches that "circumcision is nothing,
and uncircumcision is nothing but the _keeping_ [21]of the commandments
of God." vii: 19. Again, in his epistle to the Galatians, his
phraseology is somewhat changed, but the argument is to the same point,
although some passages read as though every vestage of _law_ was swept
by the board when Jesus hung upon the cross. For instance, such as the
following: "But that no man is justified by the _law_ in the sight of
God it is evident, for the just shall live by faith, and the LAW is not
of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live by them." "Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the _law_, being made a curse for us."
"But before faith came we were kept under the _law_, shut up unto the
faith which should afterwards be revealed." "Wherefore the law was our
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by
faith, but after that faith has come we are no longer under a
schoolmaster." Gal. iii: 11-13, 23-25. Again: "For as many as are of the
works of the _law_ are under the curse." 10v. Now are we to understand
from these texts that whosoever continueth in the _law_ is cursed, and
that the law, _the whole law_, was abolished when Christ came as our
schoolmaster, he being the "end of the law?" Rom. x: 4. If so, how is it
possible for any man, even Paul himself, to be saved. But we do not
believe that Paul taught these brethren any different doctrine than what
has already been shown in the Acts, Romans, and Corinthians, and also
the Eph., Phil., Col., and Heb. If he did not mean the law written by
the hand of Moses, distinguishing it from the _law_ of the ten
commandments, written by the finger of God on tables of stone, then pray
tell me if you can, what he means (in the closing of this argument,) by
saying, "For _all_ the LAW is FULFILLED in one word, even this: Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." v: 14. Surely he is quoting the
Saviour's words in Matt. xxii: 39, relative to the commandment of the
Lord our God. To his son Timothy he says: "Now the end of the
commandment is charity," (love) meaning of course the _last_ part of the
ten commandments. In vi: 2, he says: "Bear ye one anothers burdens and
so fulfil the _law_ of Christ." Does this differ from the _law_ God?
Yes, a little, for it is the new commandment, (some say the eleventh.)
See John xiii: 34. "A new commandment I give unto you, (what is it,
Lord?) that ye love one another." And also xx: 12. The other is to love
our neighbor as ourself. John says: "And this commandment have we from
him (Christ,) that he who loveth God loveth his brother [22]also." John
iv: 21, and ii: 8-11. In his letter to the Ephesians he says: "Having
abolished in his flesh the _enmity_ even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances." ii: 15. See the reverse. vi: 2. To the
Colossians he asks, "Why as though living in the world, are ye subject
to ordinances where all are to perish with their using?" And says:
"Touch not, taste not, handle not." (Does Paul here teach us to forsake
the ordinances of God, instituted by the Saviour--Baptism and the Lord's
Supper? Yes, just as clearly as he does to forsake the whole law.)
When writing to the Hebrews more than thirty years after the
crucifixion, he calls these ordinances _carnal_, imposed on them (the
Jews) until Christ our High Priest should come. ix: 10, 11. He also
calls the law of commandments _carnal_, too, and says: "For there is
verily a disannulling of the commandments going before, for the law made
nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." vii: 16,
18-19. "For when Moses had spoken _every precept_ to all the people
according to the _law_ he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the BOOK and all
the people." ix: 19. Now we see clearly that the book of the law of
Moses from which Paul has been quoting through the whole before
mentioned epistles, is as distinctly separate from the tables of stone
(or fleshly table of the heart,) as they were when deposited in the Ark
thirty-three hundred years ago. Therefore we think that here is clear
proof that he has kept up the distinction between the "handwriting of
ordinances" (meaning Moses' own handwriting in his book,) and the "ten
commandments written by the finger of God."
Let us now turn to the Epistle of James, said to be written more than
twenty-five years after the law of ceremonies were nailed to the cross,
and see if he does not teach us distinctly, that we are bound to keep
the commandments given on tables of stone. He says, "the man that shall
be a DOER of the _perfect law_ of liberty shall be blessed in his deed."
i: 25. "If ye fulfill the royal _law_ according to the scripture, thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well." Why? Because the
Saviour in quoting from the commandments, in answer to the Ruler, what
he should do to inherit eternal life, taught the same doctrine. Matt.
xix: 19. Further: "For whosoever shall keep the whole _law_ and yet
offend in one point, shall be guilty of _all_." In the next verse he
quotes from the [23]ten commandments again, namely, Adultery and
Murder, (what the Saviour in the fifth chapter of Matt. calls the least,
that is the smallest commandment,) and says if we commit them we become
transgressors of the _law_. Of what _law_? Next verse says the _law_ of
_liberty_ by which we are to be "judged." ii: 8, 11.
Now will it not be admitted by every reasonable person that James has
included the whole of the ten commandments, by calling them the perfect
law of liberty. 2d, "The royal _law_ according to the scripture," and
3d, "the _law of liberty_ by which we are to be judged." (Royal relates
to imperial and kingly.) Perfect means COMPLETE, _entire_, the WHOLE.
Then I understand James thus: This _law_ emanated from the king, the
Supreme Ruler of the universe, and to be perfect must be just what it
was when it came from his hand, and that no _change_ had, or could take
place, (and remember now, this is more than twenty-five years since the
ceremonies with the Jewish Sabbaths were nailed to the cross,) for the
very best of reasons, until the judgment, because he shows that we are
to be judged by _that law_. Then I ask by what parity of reasoning any
one can make the law of the ten commandments perfect, while they at the
same time assert that the fourth one is abolished? and that on no better
evidence than calling it the JEWISH Sabbath. Now let us look at the
Apostle John's testimony.
"And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments. He
that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments is a LIAR, and
the truth is not in him." Now no man, more especially one who professes
to abide by the whole truth, feels entirely easy if he is called a
_liar_. Now John please explain yourself. Hear him: "Brethren, I write
no new commandment unto you but an _old_ commandment which ye had from
the beginning. The old commandment is the _word_ which ye have heard
from the BEGINNING." What do you mean by _beginning_? Turn to my Gospel,
1st ch. "In the _beginning_ was the word,"--"the same was in the
_beginning_ with God." 1, 2. See Gen. i ch.: "In the _beginning_ God
created the heavens and the earth." Then you are pointing us to the
seventh day of creation, in which God instituted the seventh day Sabbath
of rest, for the _old_ commandment in the _beginning_. ii: 3. Certainly
there is no other place to point to. Does not Jesus point us to the same
place for the _beginning_ when marriage was first instituted. Matt. xix:
4. [24]In my second letter to the church, I have taught the same
doctrine: viz. "This is the commandment that as ye have heard from the
_beginning ye should walk in it_." (practice it.) ii: 5, 6. "A _new_
commandment I write unto you." 7th v. This is the one that Jesus gave us
on that memorable night in which he was betrayed, after he had
instituted the sacrament and washed our feet. He said "By this shall all
men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another." xiii:
34, 35. The first then teaches us, Love to God, 2d, to Love our neighbor
as ourself; "on these two commandments (says Jesus) hang all the law and
the prophets." Then we understand this is the essence of the ten
commandments, and if we do not keep the Sabbath we do not love God.
Jesus says, "If ye love me ye will keep my commandments." We are
repeatedly told that the Sabbath was changed or forever abolished, at
the crucifiction of our Lord, and it is stated by the most competent
authorities that John wrote this epistle about sixty years afterwards,
and that about six years after this our blessed Lord revealed to him the
state of the Church down to the judgment of the great day. In the xiv
ch. Rev. 6-11, he saw three angels following each other in succession:
first one preaching the everlasting gospel (second advent doctrine); 2d,
announcing the fall of Babylon; 3d, calling God's people out of her by
showing the awful destruction that awaited all such as did not obey. He
sees the separation and cries out, "Here is the patients of the Saints,
here are they that keep the _commandments_ of God and the faith of
Jesus." And this picture was so deeply impressed on his mind, that when
the Saviour said to him "Behold I come quickly and my reward is with
me," he seemed to understand this, saying--"Blessed are they that _do_
his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, and may
enter in through the gates into the city." xxii: 14. Now it seems to me
that the seventh day Sabbath is more clearly included in these
commandments, than thou shalt not steal, nor kill, nor commit adultery,
for it is the only one that was written at the creation or in the
_beginning_. He allows no stopping place this side of the gates of the
city. Then, if we do not keep that day, John has made out his case, that
we are all _liars_. We say in every other case the type must be
continued until it is superseded by the antitype, as in the case of the
passover, until our Lord was crucified. So then, as Paul tells us,
"there remaineth a keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God," and
that we believe will be in the Milenium, [25]the seven thousandth year,
so that the seventh day Sabbath and no other will answer for the type,
and those who keep the first or the eighth day Sabbath cannot
consistently look for the antitype of rest or the great Sabbath, short
of one thousand years in the future.
Again: Isaiah says: "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." viii:
20. Now if the Gentiles are under no law, as 'is asserted,' pray tell me
what right, as Gentiles, have we to appeal to the law and testimony, or
to this text.
In the xxiv. of Matt. our Saviour says to his disciples, in answer to
their questions, When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign
of thy coming, and the end of the world? "When ye therefore shall see
the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in
the holy place," &c. 15v. "Pray ye that your flight be not in the
winter, neither on the Sabbath day." 20v. The first question is, at what
age of the world is this, where our Lord recognizes the Sabbath? 1st. It
is agreed on all hands that this time to which he here refers, never
transpired until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, about forty
years after his crucifiction. 2d. Some others say, down to the second
Advent! The first mentioned is safe ground and sufficient for our
purpose; nor need we stop to inquire why our Lord gave these directions,
it is forever settled that he directed the minds of his followers to
THE, not _a_ Sabbath. Keep it in remembrance, that he told the Pharisees
that he was Lord, not of _a_, but of THE Sabbath, meaning that one which
of course had already been established. The 2d question is, did our Lord
ever trifle with, or mislead his disciples? The response is No! Then it
is clear that if he taught them to pray at all, it must be in faith, and
he of course would hear them and mediate with the Father to change the
day of their flight. I ask what kind of a prayer and with what kind of
faith would his disciples have asked to have this day changed, if as we
are told, it was abolished some forty years before, and they had,
contrary to the will of God, persisted in keeping up this seventh day
Sabbath. Any one who has confidence in God's word, knows that such a
prayer never would be answered. What if you do say the Jews always kept
that Sabbath, and it was the same seventh day Sabbath which they kept
when he was teaching them in their synagogues? I, say so too! (and that
fact will be presented by and by, in its place.) This does not touch the
point. Jesus was here giving instructions to his [26]followers, both
Jew and Gentile, respecting _the_ Sabbath which they would have to do
with. It is immaterial what kind of sophistry is presented to overthrow
the point, nothing can touch it short of proving it a mistranslation.
Jesus did here recognize the perpetuity of the _seventh day Sabbath_.
And John will continue to make all men liars that say they know him and
refuse the light presented and disregard this commandment. If God
instituted the Sabbath in Paradise and has not abolished it here, then
must it be _perpetual_? If Paul's argument in iii. Rom. that the law is
established through faith, is correct then is it _perpetual_. If James'
royal _perfect law_ of liberty, which we are to be doers of, and judged
by, means the commandments, then is the Sabbath _perpetual_. If the
Apostle John has made out a clear case, by citing us back to the
_beginning_ of creation, and by _walking_ in and doing these
commandments, we shall have right to the tree of life and enter in by
the gates into the city; then it _must be perpetual_. If the earthly
Sabbath is typical of the heavenly, then must it be _perpetual_. If not
one jot or one tittle can ever pass from the law, then must it be
_perpetual_. If the Saviour, in answer to the young man who asked him
what he should do to inherit _eternal life_, gave a safe direction for
Gentiles to follow, viz: "If thou wilt enter into _life_ keep the
commandments (and these included those commandments which his Father had
given), then, without _contradiction_ the Sabbath is _perpetual_, and
all the arguments which ever can be presented against the fourth
commandment being observed before God wrote it on tables of stone to
prove that it is not binding on Gentiles, falls powerless before this
one sentence: _If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments._ I
say the proof is positive that the Sabbath was a constituent part of the
commandments, and Jesus says the Sabbath 'was made for man.' The Jews
were only a _fragment of creation_.
"The principle is settled in all governments that there are but two ways
in which any law can cease to be binding upon the people. It may expire
by its own limitations, or it may be repealed by the same authority
which enacted it; and in the latter case the repealing act must be as
explicit as that by which the obligation was originally imposed." Now we
have it in proof that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, the
_first_ of all laws without any limitation, and no enactment by God to
abolish it, unless what we have already referred to can be considered
proof. One more passage which I have not alluded to will show that it
was not [27]abolished at the crucifiction, for his disciples kept the
Sabbath while he was resting in his tomb. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. Let us
now pass to another part of the subject. The third question:
WAS THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH EVER CHANGED? IF SO, WHEN, AND FOR WHAT
REASON?
Here we come to a question which has more or less engaged the attention
of the whole christian world, and the greater portion of those who
believe in a crucified Saviour say that this change took place, and is
dated from his resurrection. Some say subsequently, while a minority
insist upon it that there is no proof for the change. Now to obtain the
truth and nothing but the truth on this important subject, I propose to
present, or quote from standard authors on both sides of the question,
and try the whole by the standard of divine truth. 1st. Buck's
Theological Dictionary, to which no doubt thousands of ministers and
laymen appeal to sustain their argument for the change, says: "Under the
christian dispensation the Sabbath is _altered_ from the _seventh_ to
the _first day_ of the week." The arguments for the change, are these:
1st. "The _seventh_ day was observed by the Jewish church in memory of
the rest of God; so the _first_ day of the week has always been observed
by the christian church in memory of _Christ's resurrection_. 2d. Christ
made repeated visits to his disciples on that day. 3d. It is called the
Lord's day. Rev. i: 10. 4th. On this day the Apostles were assembled,
when the Holy Ghost came down so visibly upon them to qualify them for
the conversion of the world. 5th. On this day we find Paul at Troas when
the disciples came together to break bread. 6th. The directions the
Apostles gave to Christians plainly alludes to their assembling on that
day. 7th. Pliny bears witness of the first day of the week being kept as
a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ."
"Numerous have been the days appointed by man for religious services,
but these are not binding because of _human_ institution. Not so the
Sabbath. It is of _divine_ institution, so it is to be kept holy unto
the Lord."
Doct. Dodridge, whose ability and piety has seldom or rarely been
disputed, comments on some of the above articles thus: (Commentary p.
606.) "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in
store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I
come." 1 Cor. xvi: 2. "Show that it was to be put into a [28]common
stock. The argument drawn from hence for the religious observance of the
first day of the week in these primitive churches of Corinth and Galacia
is too _obvious_ to need any further illustration, and yet too important
to be passed by in entire silence." Again, p. 904, "I was in the spirit
on the Lord's day," &c. Rev. i: 10. "It is so very unnatural and
contrary to the use of the word in all other authors to interpret this
of the Jewish Sabbath, as Mr. Baxter justly argues at large, that I
cannot but conclude with him and the generality of Christian writers on
this subject, that this text _strongly_ infers the extraordinary regard
paid to the first day of the week in the Apostle's time as a day
solemnly consecrated to Christ in memory of his resurrection from the
dead." There is much more, but these are his strong arguments. I shall
quote some more from the Commentaries by and by. I wish to place by the
side of these arguments one from the British Quarterly Theological
Review and Ecclesiastical Recorder, of Jan. 1830, which I extract from
'the _Institution of the Sabbath day_,' by Wm. Logan Fisher, of
Philadelphia, a book in which there is much valuable information on this
subject, though I disagree with the writer, because his whole labor is
to abolish the Sabbath; yet he gives much light on this subject, from
which I take the liberty to make some quotations.
But to the Quarterly Review of 1830: "It is said that the observance of
the seventh day Sabbath is transferred in the Christian church to the
first day of the week. We ask by what authority, and are very much
mistaken if an examination of all the texts of the New Testament, in
which the first day of the week or Lord's day is mentioned, does not
prove that there is no divine or Apostolic precept enjoining its
observance, nor any certain evidence from scripture that it was, in
fact, so observed in the times of the Apostles. Accordingly we search
the scriptures in vain, either for an Apostolic precept, appointing the
first day of the week to be observed in the place of the Jewish Sabbath,
or for any unequivocal proof that the first christians so observed
it--there are only three or, at most four places of scripture, in which
the first day of the week is mentioned. The next passage is in Acts xx:
7. 'Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to
break bread, Paul preached unto them.' All that St. Luke here tells us
plainly is, that on a particular occasion the christians of Troas met
together on the first day of the week to celebrate the Eucharist and to
hear Paul preach. This is the only place in [29]scripture, in which the
first day of the week is in any way connected with any acts of public
worship, and he who would certainly infer from this _solitary instance_
that the first day of every week was consecrated by the Apostles to
religious purposes, must be far gone in the art of drawing universal
conclusion from particular premises."
On page 178, Mr. Fisher says, "I have examined several different
translations of the scriptures, both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
with notes and anotations more extensive than the texts; have traced as
far as my leisure would permit, various ecclesiastical histories, some
of them voluminous and of ancient date; have paid considerable attention
to the writings of the earliest authors in the christian era, and to
rare works, old and of difficult access, which treat upon this subject;
I have read with care many of the publications of sectarians to sustain
the institution; I have omitted nothing within my reach, and I have
found not one shred of argument, or authority of any kind, that may not
be deemed of partial and sectarian character, to support the institution
of the first day of the week as a day of peculiar holiness. But, in the
place of argument, I have found opinions without number--volumes filled
with idle words that have no truth in them. In the want of texts of
scripture, I have found perversions; in the want of truth, false
statements. I have seen it stated that Justin Marter in his apology,
speaks of Sunday as a holy day; that Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who
lived in the fourth century, establishes the fact of the transfer of the
_seventh_ to the first day, by Christ himself. These things are _not
true_. These authors say no such thing. I have seen other early authors
referred to as establishing the same point, but they are equally false."
Here then is the testimony of four authors, two for the change and two
against it, from the old and new world. No truth seeking, unbiased mind
can hesitate for a moment on which side to decide, after comparing them
with the inspired word.
Doctor JENKS of Boston, author of the Comprehensive Commentary,
(purporting to comprehend _all_ other commentators on the bible,) after
quoting author after author, on this subject, ventures forth with _his_
unsupported opinion in these words: "Here is a Christian Sabbath
observed by the disciples and _owned_ by _our Lord_. The visit Christ
made to his disciples was on the first day of the week, and the first
day of the week is the only day of the week or month or year ever
mentioned by numbers in all the New [30]Testament, and that is several
times spoken of as a day _religiously_ observed." Where? Echo answers,
where!
HEMAN HUMPHREY, President of Amherst College, from whose book I have
already made some quotations, after devoting some thirty-four pages to
the establishment and perpetuation of the seventh day Sabbath, comes to
his fourth question, viz. 'Has the day been changed?' Singular as this
question may appear by the side of what he had already written to
establish and perpetuate the seventh day Sabbath from the seventh day of
creation down to the resurrection of the just, but as every man feels
that it his privilege to justify and explain, when precept and practice
does not agree--so is it with President Humphrey, he can now shape the
scriptures to suit every one that has followed in the wake of Pope
Gregory for 1225 years. He says, "The fourth commandment is so expressed
as to admit of a change in the day,"--thus striking vitally every
argument he had before presented. Hear him--he says the seventh day is
the Sabbath; "it was so at that time, (in the beginning) and for many
ages after, but it is not said, that it always _shall be_--it is the
_Sabbath_ day which we are to remember; and so at the close, it is the
_Sabbath_ which was hallowed and blessed and not the _seventh_ day. The
Sabbath then, the holy rest itself, is one thing. The day on which we
are to rest is another." I ask, in the name of common sense, how we
should know how or when to keep the Sabbath if it did not matter which
day. If the President could not see the sanctification of the seventh
day in the decalogue what did he mean by quoting Gen. ii: 3, so often,
where it says "_God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it._"
Again, he says "Redemption is a greater work than creation, hence the
change." Fifthly, God early consecrated the Christian Sabbath by a most
remarkable outpouring of his spirit at the day of Pentecost. And that
Jesus has left us his own example by not saying a syllable after his
resurrection about keeping the _Jewish Sabbath_. He also quotes the four
passages about Jesus and his disciples keeping the first day of the
week. Here, he says, the inference to our minds is _irresistible_--for
keeping the first day of the week instead of the _seventh_. And further
says, "it might be proved by innumerable quotations from the writings of
the Apostolic Fathers," &c. All this may be very true in itself, but it
all falls to the ground for the want of one single precept from the
bible. If Redemption, because it was greater than Creation, and the
remarkable display of God's power at the [31]Pentecost, and Christ
never saying any thing about the _Jewish Sabbath_ after his resurrection
are such _strong_ proofs that the perpetual seventh day Sabbath was
changed to the first day at that time, and must be believed because
learned men say so, what shall we do with the sixth day, on which our
blessed Saviour expired on the cross; darkness for three hours had
covered the earth, and the vail of the Temple was rent from top to the
bottom, and there was such an earthquake throughout vast creation that
we have only to open our eyes and look at the rent rocks for a clear and
perfect demonstration that this whole globe was shaken from centre to
circumference, and the graves of the dead were opened. Matt. xxvii: 50,
53. You may answer me that Popery has honored that day by calling it
good Friday, and the next first day following Easter Sunday, &c., but
after all, nothing short of bible argument will satisfy the earnest
inquirer after truth. The President had already shown that the _Jewish_
Sabbath was abolished at Christ's death. What reason then had he to
believe that the Saviour would speak of it afterwards. So also the
Pentecost had been a type from the giving the law at Sinai to be kept
annually for about 1500 years, consequently it would be solemnized on
every day of the week, at each revolving year, as is the case with the
4th of July: three years ago it was on the fourth day and now it comes
on the seventh day of the week. Further, see Peter standing amidst the
amazed multitude, giving the scripture reason for this miraculous
display of God's power. He does not give the most distant hint that this
was, or was to be, the day of the week for worship, or the true Sabbath,
neither do any of the Apostles then, or afterwards, for when they kept
this day the next year, it must have been the second day of the week. We
must have better evidence than what has been adduced, to believe this
was the Sabbath, for according to the type, seven Sabbaths were to be
complete, (and there was no other way given them to come to the right
day,) from the day they kept the first, or from the resurrection. Here
then is proof positive that the Sabbath in this year was the day before
the Pentecost. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. If President H. is right, then
was there two Sabbaths to be kept in succession in one week. Where is
the precept? No where! Well, says the inquirer, I want to see the bible
proof for this '_Christian Sabbath observed by the disciples, and owned
by our Lord_.' W. Jenks. Here it will be necessary for us to understand,
first how God has computed time. In Gen. i. we read, "And [32]God said
let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day
from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days
and years." 14 v. 16 v. says, "the greater light to rule the day,"--from
sunrise to sunset. Now there are many modes invented for computing time.
We say our day begins at 12 o'clock at night; seamen begin theirs twelve
hours sooner, at noon; the Jews commence their days at 6 o'clock in the
evening, between the two extremes. Are we _all_ right? No! Who shall
settle this question? God! Very well: He called the light day, and the
darkness he called night, and the evening and the morning were the first
day. Gen. i: 5. Then the twenty-four hour day commenced at 6 o'clock in
the evening. How is that, says one? Because you cannot regulate the day
and night to have what the Saviour calls twelve hours in the day,
without establishing the time from the centre of the earth, the equator,
where, at the beginning of the sacred year, the sun rises and sets at 6
o'clock. At _this_ time, while the sun is at the summer solstice, the
inhabitants of the north pole have no night, while at this same time at
the south it is about all night, therefore the inhabitants of the earth
have no other right time to commence their twenty-four hour day, than
beginning at 6 o'clock in the evening. God said to Moses '_from even,
unto even, shall you celebrate your Sabbath_.' Then of course the next
day must begin where the Sabbath ended. History shows that the Jews
obeyed and commenced their days at 6 o'clock in the evening. Now then we
will try to investigate the main argument by which these authors, and
thousands of others say the Sabbath was changed. The first is in John
xx: 19, "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week
when the doors where shut where the disciples were assembled _for fear
of the Jews_ (mark it) came Jesus and stood in their midst, and said
peace be unto you." Here we understand this to be the same day of the
resurrection. On that same day he travelled with the two disciples to
Emans, sixty furlongs (7-1/2 miles), and they constrained him to abide
with them, for it was toward evening and the _day was far spent_. Luke
xxiv: 29. After this the disciples travelled the 7-1/2 miles back to
Jerusalem and soon after they found the disciples, the Saviour, as above
stated, was in their midst. Now it cannot be disputed but what this was
the evening after the resurrection, for Jesus rose in the morning, some
ten or eleven hours after the first day had commenced. Then the evening
of the first day was passing away, and therefore the evening brought to
view in [33]the text was the close of the first day or the commencing
of the second. McKnight's translation says, "in the evening of that
day." Purver's translation says, "the evening of that day on the first
after the Sabbath." Further, wherever the phrase first day of the week,
occurs in the New Testament, the word day is in _italics_, showing that
it is not the original; but supplied by translators. Again, it is
asserted that Jesus met with his disciples the next first day. See 26v:
"And _after_ eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with
them, then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and
said peace be unto you." Dr. Adam Clark in referring to this 26v, says:
"It seems likely that this was precisely on that day se'night on which
Christ had appeared to them before; and from this we may learn that this
was the weekly meeting of the Apostles." Now it appears to me that a
little child, with the simple rules of addition and subtraction, could
have refuted this man. I feel astonished that men who profess to be
ambassadors for God do not expose such downright perversion of
scripture, but it may look clear to those who want to have it so. Not
many months since, in conversation with the Second Advent lecturer in
New Bedford, I brought up this subject. He told me I did not understand
it. See here, says he. I can make it plain, counting his fingers thus:
Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday,
Sunday--does'nt that make eight days after? and because I would not
concede, he parted from me as one that was obstinate and self-willed.
Afterwards musing on the subject, I said, this must be the way then to
understand it: _Count Sunday Twice._ If any of them were to be paid for
eight days labor, they would detect the error in a moment if their
employer should attempt to put the first and last days together, and
offer them pay but for seven. Eight days _after_ the evening of the
first day would stand thus: The second day of the week would certainly
be the first of the eight. Then to count eight days of twenty-four hours
_after_, we must begin at the close of the evening of the first, and
count to the close of the evening of the second day; to where the Jews
(by God's command) commenced their third day. But suppose we calculate
it by our mode of keeping time. Our Lord appears to his disciples the
first time at the close of Sunday evening. Now count eight days _after_,
(with your fingers or anything else,) and it will bring you to Monday
evening. Now I ask if this looks like Sunday, the first day of the week?
[34]Father Miller also gives his reasons for the change, in his lecture
on the great Sabbath: "One is Christ's resurrection and his often
meeting with his disciples _afterwards_ on that day. This, with the
example of the Apostles, is strong evidence that the proper creation
Sabbath to man, came on the first day of the week." His proof is this:
"Adam must have rested on the first day of his life, and thus you will
see that to Adam it was the first day of the week, for it would not be
reasonable to suppose that Adam began to reckon time before he was
created." He certainly could not be able to work six days before the
first Sabbath. And thus with the second Adam; the first day of the week
he arose and lived. And we find by the _bible_ and by history, that the
first day of the week "_was ever afterwards observed as a day of
worship_." Now I say there is no more truth in these assertions, than
there is in those I have already quoted. There is not one passage in the
bible to show that Christ met with his disciples on the first day of the
week after the day of his resurrection, nor that the first day of the
week was _ever afterwards_ observed as a day of worship; save only in
one instance, and that shall be noticed in its place. And it seems to me
if Adam could not reckon time only from his creation then by the same
rule no other man could reckon time before his birth, and by this
showing Christ could not reckon his time until after his resurrection.
It is painful to me to expose the errors of one whom I have so long
venerated, and still love for the flood of light he has given the world
in respect to the Second Advent of our Saviour; but God's word must be
vindicated if we have to cut off a right arm, "there is nothing true but
truth!" I pray God to forgive him in joining the great multitude of
Advent believers, to sound the retreat back beyond the _tarrying_ time,
just when the virgins had gained a glorious victory over the world, the
flesh, and the devil! Go back from this to the slumbering quarters now;
nothing but treachery to our Master's cause ever dictated such a course!
I never can be made to believe that our glorious Commander designed that
we should leave our sacrifices smoking on the altar of God, in the midst
of the enemies' land, but rather that we should be pushing onward from
victory to victory, until we are established in the Capital of _His_
kingdom. Would it have been expedient or a mark of courage in General
Taylor, after he had conquered the Mexican army on the 9th May last, to
have retreated back to the capital of the U. States, to place himself
and army on the _broad platform_ of liberty, and [35]commence to travel
the ground over again for the purpose of pursuing and overcoming his
vanquished foe? No! Every person of common sense knows that such a
course would have overwhelmed him and all his followers with unutterable
disgrace, no matter how unrighteous the contest. Not so with this, for
our cause is one of the most glorious, tho' it be the most trying that
ever the sun shone upon since God placed it in the heavens. Onward and
victory, then, are our watchwords, and no retreating back to, or beyond
the cry at _Midnight_! But to the subject. Did our Saviour ever meet
with his disciples on the first day of the week after the evening of the
day of his resurrection? The xxi. ch. John says "they went a fishing,
and while there Jesus appeared unto them." In the 14th v. he says, "This
is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples after
that he was risen from the dead." Now turn to 1 Cor. xv: 4-7: Paul's
testimony is, 'that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, after
that of above five hundred brethren at once, and then of James, then of
all the Apostles.' These are all that are specified, up to his going
into heaven. Now pray tell me if you can, where these men got their
information respecting the frequent meetings on the first day of the
week. The bible says no such thing. But let us pursue the subject and
look at the third text, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of
you lay by him in _store_, as God has prospered him, that there be no
gatherings when I come." Now please turn back to Dr. Dodridge's
authority, he says the argument is too obvious to need any illustration,
that the money was put into common stock, and that this was the
religious observance of the first day of the week. Now whoever will read
the first six verses of this chapter, and compare them with Rom. xv:
26-33, will see that Paul's design was to collect some money for the
poor saints at Jerusalem, and their laying it by them in store until he
came that way; for it plainly implies that they were at home, for no one
could understand that you had money lying by you in store, if it was in
common stock or in other hands. Again, see Acts xviii: 4, 11. Paul
preaching every Sabbath day, at this very time, for eighteen months, to
these very same Corinthians, bids them farewell, to go up to the feast
at Jerusalem, 21 v. By reading to xxi. ch. 17 v. you have his history
until he arrives there. Now I ask, if Dr. Dodridge's clear illustration
can or will be relied on, when Luke clearly teaches that Paul's _manner_
was, and that he did always preach to them on the Sabbath, which, of
course, [36]was the Seventh day, and not the first day of the week.
Fourth text, John says: I was in the spirit on the Lord's day. Here Dr.
D. concludes with the generality of christian writers on this subject
that this strongly infers the extraordinary regard paid to the first day
of the week, as solemnly consecrated to Christ, &c. If the scripture any
where called this the Lord's day, there might be some reason to believe
their statements, but the seventh day Sabbath is called the Lord's day.
See Exod. xx: 10.
Mr. Fisher, in speaking of the late Harrisburg convention of 1844-45,
says, "The most spirited debate that occurred at the assembly was to fix
a proper name for the first day of the week, whether it should be called
_Sabbath_, the _Christian_ Sabbath or _Lord's_ day. The reason for this
dispute was, that there was no authority for calling the first day of
the week by either one of these names. To pretend that that command was
fixed and unchangeable, and yet to alter it to please the fancy of man,
is in itself ridiculous. It is hardly possible in the nature of man,
that a class of society should be receiving pay for their services and
not be influenced thereby:--in the nature of things they will avoid such
doctrines as are repugnant to them that give them bread."
Now we come to the fifth and last, and only one spoken of in all the New
Testament, for a meeting on the first day of the week. Luke says, "Upon
the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break
bread, Paul preached unto them, _ready to depart on the morrow_: and
continued his speech until midnight." Acts xx: 7. Now by following the
scripture mode of computing time, from 6 o'clock in the evening to 6
o'clock in the morning, as has been shown, Paul to commence on the
beginning of the first day would begin on what we call Saturday evening
at 6 o'clock, and preach till midnight. After that he restores to life
the young man, then breaks bread and talked till the break of day, which
would be Sunday morning. Then he commenced his journey for Jerusalem and
travelled and sailed all day Sunday, the first day of the week, and two
other days in succession. xx: 11-15. Now it seems to me, if Paul did
teach or keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath or a holy day,
he violated the sanctity of it to all intents and purposes, without
giving one single reason for it; all the proof presented here is a night
meeting. Please see the quotation from the British Quarterly Review. But
let us look at it the way in which _we_ compute time: I think it will be
fair to premise, that about midnight was the middle of [37]Paul's
meeting; at any rate there is but one midnight to a twenty-four hour
day. We say that Sunday, the first day of the week, does not commence
until 12 o'clock Saturday night. Then it is very clear, if he is
preaching on the first day till midnight, according to our reckoning it
must be on Sunday night, and his celebrating the Lord's supper after
midnight would make it that he broke bread on _Monday, the second day_,
and that the day time on Sunday is not included, unless he had continued
his speech through the day till midnight. Now the text says that on the
first day of the week they came together to break bread. To _prove that
they did break bread on that day_, we must take the mode in which the
Jews computed time, and allow the first day of the week to begin at 6
o'clock on Saturday evening, and to follow Paul's example, pay no regard
to the first day, after daylight, but to travel, &c. If _our_ mode of
time is taken, they broke bread on the second day, and that would
destroy the meaning of the text. Here then, in this text, is the _only_
argument that can be adduced in the scriptures of divine truth, for a
_change of the perpetual seventh day_ Sabbath of the Lord our God to the
first day of the week.
Now I'll venture the assertion, that there is no law or commandment
recorded in the bible, that God has held so sacred among men, as the
keeping of His Sabbath. Where then, I ask, is the living man that dare
stand before God and declare that here is the change for the church of
God to keep the first instead of the seventh day of the week for the
Sabbath. If it could be proved that Paul preached here all of the first
day, the only inference that could be drawn, would be, to break bread on
that day!
There is one more point worthy of our attention, that is, the teaching
and example of Jesus. I have been told by one that is looked up to as a
strong believer in the second coming of the Lord this fall, that Jesus
broke the Sabbath. Jesus says, I have kept my Father's commandments. It
is said that he 'broke the Sabbath,' because he allowed his disciples to
pluck the corn and eat it on that day, and the Pharisees condemned them.
He says, "If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the _guiltless_." Then they were
not _guilty_. See Deut. xxiii: 25. He immediately cites them to David
and his men, shewing that it was lawful and right when hungry, even to
eat the shoe bread that belonged only to the priests, and told them that
he was Lord of the Sabbath day. Here he shows too, that he was with his
[38]disciples passing to the synagogue to teach; they ask him if it was
lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. He asks them if they had a sheep fall
into the ditch on the Sabbath, if they would not haul him out? How much
better then is a man than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on
the Sabbath days; and immediately healed the man with a withered hand.
Matt. xii: 1-13. On another Sabbath day, while he was teaching, he
healed a woman that had been bound of satan eighteen years, and when the
ruler of the synagogue began to find fault, he called him a hypocrite,
and said "doth not each one of you on the Sabbath day loose his ox or
his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering; and all his
adversaries were _ashamed_." Luke xiii: 10-17. The xiv. chapter of Luke
is quoted to prove that he broke the Sabbath because he went into the
Pharisees house with many others on the Sabbath day to eat bread. Here
he saw a man with the dropsy and he asked them if it was lawful to heal
on the Sabbath day. 'And they held their peace and he took him and
healed him,' and asked them 'which of them having an ox or an ass fall
into the pit, would not straitway pull him out on the Sabbath day; and
they could not answer him again.' 1-6 v. And 'he continued to teach
them, by showing them when they made a feast to call the poor, the
maimed, the lame, the blind, and then they should be blessed.' Read the
chapter, and you will readily see that he took this occasion, as the
most befitting, to teach them by parables, what their duty was at
weddings and feasts, in the same manner as he taught them in their
synagogues.
There is still another passage, and I believe the only one, to which
reference has been made, (except where he opened the eyes of a man that
was born blind,) for proof that he broke the Sabbath. It is recorded in
John v: 5-17. Here Jesus found a man that had been sick thirty-eight
years, by the pool of Bethesda, 'he saith unto him rise, take up thy bed
and walk,--therefore did they persecute Jesus and sought to slay him,
because he had done these things on the Sabbath day.' 16 v. 'But Jesus
answered them, my Father worketh hitherto and I work.' If they did not
work every hour and moment of time, it would be impossible for man to
exist: Here undoubtedly he had reference to these and other acts of
necessity and mercy; but the great sin for which professors in this
enlightened age charge the Saviour with in this transaction, is, in
directing the man to take up his bed, contrary to law. It is clear the
people [39]were forbidden to carry burthens on the Sabbath day, as in
Jer. xvii: 21, 22, but by reading the 24th v. in connection with Neh.
xiii: 15-22, we learn that this prohibition related to what was lawful
for them to do on the other six days of the week, viz. merchandise and
trading. See proof, Neh. x: 31: also unlawful, as in Amos viii: 5. We
need not, nor we cannot misunderstand the fourth commandment, taken in
connection with the other nine, they were simple and pure written by the
finger of God; but in the days of our Saviour it had become heavily
laden with Jewish traditions, hence when Jesus appeals to them whether
it is lawful to do good and to heal on the Sabbath days, their mouths
are closed because they cannot contradict him from the law nor the
prophets. The Saviour no where interferes with them in their most rigid
observance of the day; but when they find fault with him for performing
his miracles of mercy on that day, he tells them they have broken the
law; and in another place, "If a man on the Sabbath day receive
circumcision without breaking the law of Moses, are ye angry at me
because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?" He then
says, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment." vii: 23, 24. Did he break the Sabbath? Now the law requires
that the beasts shall rest; but what is the practice of many of those
who are the most strict in keeping Sunday for the Sabbath. Sick, or
well, ministers or laymen, do they not ride back and forth to meeting?
Again, is it right and lawful to carry forth our dead on the Sabbath? or
carry the communion service back and forth. The Apostle says, 'believe
and be baptized.' Suppose this should be on the Sabbath and we were some
distance from the water, would any one interfere with us if we carried
our change of apparel with us and back again, or have we in so doing
transgressed the law; if we have, it is high time we made a full stop.
Jesus undoubtedly had good reasons for directing the sick man to take up
his bed and walk, but I cannot learn that he justified any one else in
carrying their bed on the Sabbath, unless in a case of necessity and
mercy, such as he cited them to, as watering their cattle, and pulling
them out of the ditch, and eating when hungry, and being healed when
sick. Be it also remembered that when the Sanhedrim tried him they did
not condemn him, as in the other cases cited; so in this, they failed
for want of scripture testimony. He was the Lord of the Sabbath, and the
law of ceremonies were now about [40]to cease forever, the ten
commandments with the keeping of the Sabbath therefore were to be
stripped of these ceremonies and all of their traditions, and left as
pure to be written on the hearts of the Gentiles as when first written
on tables of stone, therefore Jesus taught that it was right to do good
on the Sabbath day, and whoever follows his example and teaching will
keep the seventh day Sabbath holy and acceptable to God. They will also
judge righteous judgement, and not according to appearance.
There is but one Christian Sabbath named, or established in the bible,
and that individual, whoever he is, that undertakes to abolish or change
it, is the _real Sabbath breaker_. Remember that the keeping the
commandments is the only safe guide through the gates into the city.
My friends and neighbors, and especially my family, know that I have for
more than twenty years, strictly endeavored to keep the first day of the
week for the Sabbath, and I can say that I did it in all good conscience
before God, on the ocean, and in foreign countries as well as my own,
until about sixteen months since I read an article published in the Hope
of Israel, by a worthy brother, T. M. Preble, of Nashua, which when I
read and compared with the bible, convinced me that there never had been
any change. Therefore the seventh day was the Sabbath, and God required
me as well as him to keep it holy. Many things now troubled my mind as
to how I could make this great change, family, friends, and brethren
and, but this one passage of Scripture was, and always will be as clear
as a sunbeam. "_What is that to thee: follow thou me._" In a few days my
mind was made up to begin to keep the fourth commandment, and I bless
God for the clear light he has shed upon my mind in answer to prayer and
a thorough examination of the scriptures on this great subject. Contrary
views did, after a little, shake my position some, but I feel now that
there is no argument nor sophistry that can becloud my mind again this
side of the gates of the Holy City. Brother Marsh, who no doubt thinks,
and perhaps thousands besides, that his paper is what it purports to be,
THE VOICE OF TRUTH, takes the ground with the infidel that there is no
Sabbath. Brother S. S. Snow, of New York, late editor of the Jubilee
Standard, publishes to the world that he is the Elijah, preceding the
advent of our Saviour, restoring all things: (the seventh day Sabbath
must be one of the all things,) and yet he takes the same ground with
Br. Marsh, that the Sabbath [41]is forever abolished. As the seventh
day Sabbath is a real prophecy, a picture (and not a shadow like the
Jewish Sabbaths,) of the thing typified which is to come, I cannot see
how those who believe in the change or abolition of the type, can have
any confidence to look to God for the great antetype, the Sabbath of
rest, to come to them.
Brother J. B. Cook has written a short piece in his excellent paper, the
ADVENT TESTIMONY. It was pointed and good, but too short; and as brother
Preble's Tract now before me, did not embrace the arguments which have
been presented since he published it, it appeared to me that something
was called for in this time of falling back from this great subject. I
therefore present this book, hoping at least, that it will help to
strengthen and save all honest souls seeking after truth.
A WORD RESPECTING THE HISTORY. At the close of the first century a
controversy arose, whether both days should be kept or only one, which
continued until the reign of Constantine the Great. By his laws, made in
A. D. 321, it was decreed for the future that Sunday should be kept a
day of rest in all the cities and towns; but he allowed the country
people to follow husbandry. History further informs us that Constantine
murdered his two sisters husbands and son, and his own familiar friend,
that same year, and the year before boiled his wife in a cauldron of
oil.--The controversy still continued down to A. D. 603, when Pope
Gregory passed a law abolishing the seventh day Sabbath, and
establishing the first day of the week. See Baronius Councils, 603.
Barnfield's Eng. page 116, states that the Parliament of England met on
Sundays till the time of Richard II. The first law of England made for
keeping of Sunday, was in the time of Edward IV. about 1470. As these
two books are not within my reach, I have extracted from T. M. Preble's
tract on the Sabbath. Mr. Fisher says, it was Dr. Bound one of the rigid
puritans, who applied the name _Sabbath_ to the first day of the week,
about the year 1795. "The word Sunday is not found in the bible," it
derived its name from the heathen nations of the North, because the day
was dedicated to the sun. Neither is the Sabbath applied to the first
day any more than it is to the sixth day of the week. While Daniel
beheld the little horn, (popery) he said, among other things, he would
_think_ to change times and laws. Now this could not mean of men,
because it ever has been the prerogative of absolute rulers like
himself, to change [42]manmade laws. Then to make the prophecy
harmonize with the scripture, he must have meant times and laws
established by God, because he might think and pass decrees as he has
done, but he, nor all the universe could ever change God's times and
laws. Jesus says that "times and seasons were in the power of the
father." The Sabbath is the most important law which God ever
instituted. "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments, and my laws,
see for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath." Exod. xvi: 28, 29.
Then it's clear from the history, that this is in part what Daniel
meant. Now the second advent believers have professed all confidence in
his visions: why then doubt this. Whoever feels disposed to defend and
sustain the decrees of that "blasphemous" power, and especially Pope
Gregory and the great Constantine, the murderer, shown to be the _moral_
reformer in this work of changing the Sabbath, are welcome to their
principles and feelings. I detest these acts, in common with all others
which have emanated from these ten and one horned powers. The
Revelations show us clearly that they were originated by the devil. If
you say this history is not true then you are bound to refute it. If you
cannot, you are as much in duty bound to believe it as any other
history, even, that George Washington died in 1799! If the bible
argument, and testimony from history are to be relied on as evidence,
then it is as clear as a sunbeam that the seventh day Sabbath is a
perpetual sign, and is as binding upon man as it ever was. But we are
told we must keep the first day of the week for the Sabbath as an
ordinance to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. I for one had rather
believe Paul. See Rom. vi: 3-5; Gal. iii: 27; Col. ii: 12.
A word more respecting time. See 31st page. Here I have shown that the
sun in the centre, regulates all time for the earth--fifty-two weeks to
the year, one hundred and sixty-eight hours to the week, the seventh of
which is twenty-four hours. Jesus says there are but twelve hours in the
day, (from sunrise to sunset.) Then twelve hours night to make a
twenty-four hour day, you see, must always begin at a certain period of
time. No matter then whether the sun sets with us at eight in summer or
4 o'clk in winter. Now by this, and this is the scripture rule, days and
weeks can, and most probably are, kept at the North and South polar
regions. What an absurdity to believe that God does exonerate our
fathers and brothers from [43]keeping his Sabbath while they are in
these polar regions, fishing for seals and whales, should it be with
them either all day or all night. If they have lost their reckoning of
days and weeks, because there was, or was not any sun six months of the
time, how could they learn what day of the week it was when they see the
sun setting at 6 o'clock on the equator, if bound home from the South?
By referring to Luke, xxiii ch. 55, 56, and xxiv: 1, we see that the
people in Palestine had kept the days and weeks right from the creation;
since which time, astronomers teach us that not even fifteen minutes
have been lost. God does not require us to be any more exact in keeping
time, than what we may or have learned from the above rules, but I am
told there is a difference in time of twenty-four hours to the mariner
that circumnavigates the globe. That, being true, is known to them, but
it alters no time on the earth or sea.
But, says one, I should like to keep the Sabbath in _time_, just as
Jesus did. Then you must live in Palestine, where their day begins seven
hours earlier than ours; and yet it is at 6 o'clock in the evening the
same period, though not the same by the sun, in which we begin our day.
Let me illustrate: our earth, something in the form of an orange, is
whirling over every twenty-four hours. It measures three hundred and
sixty degrees, or about twenty-one thousand six hundred miles round, in
the manner you would pass a string round an orange. Now divide this
three hundred and sixty degrees by the twenty-four hour day, and the
result is fifteen degrees, or nine hundred miles. Then every fifteen
degrees we travel or sail eastward, the sun rises and sets one hour
earlier in the period of the twenty-four hours: therefore those who live
in Palestine, one hundred and seven degrees east of us, begins and
closes the day seven hours earlier, so in proportion all the way round
the globe, the sun always stationary! Then the Sabbath begins precisely
at 6 o'clock on Friday evening, every where on this globe, and ends at
the same period on what we call Saturday evening. God says 'every thing
on its day,' 'from even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath;' 'the
evening and the morning was the first day.' He is an exact time keeper!
I say then, in the name of all that is holy, heavenly and true, and as
immortality is above all price, let us see to it that we are found
fearing God and keeping his COMMANDMENTS, for this, we are taught, 'is
the whole duty of man.' The proof is positive that the seventh day
Sabbath is included in the commandments.
[44]Bro. Marsh says, "Keeping the Sabbath is embraced in this covenant.
Deut. v: 1-6, made with the children of Israel at Horeb. It was not made
with their Fathers (the Patriarchs) but with us, even us, who are all of
US HERE ALIVE THIS DAY. v. 3. This testimony first _negative_, he made
it not with our Fathers, and then _positive_ with _us_, is conclusive.
Not a single proof can be presented from either the old or new
testament, that it was instituted for any other people or nation." Now
it is clear and positive that if the Sabbath is not binding on any other
people than the Jews, by the same rule not one of the commandments is
binding on any other people, who dare take such infidel ground? Was not
the second covenant written on the hearts of the Gentile, even the law
of Commandments? which Paul says 'is Holy, just and good.' Thirty years
after the crucifixion he directs the Ephesians to the keeping the fifth
commandment, that they may live long on the _earth_ not the land of
Canaan. vi: 2, 3. Did not God say that Abraham kept his commandments,
statutes, and laws? This embraced the Sabbath for circumcision, and the
Sabbath were then the only laws, or statutes, or commandments written.
The fourth commandment was given two thousand years before Abraham was
born! Is not the stranger and all within their gates included in the
covenant to keep the Sabbath? See Exod. xx: 10. And did not God require
them to keep THE Sabbath before he made this covenant with them in
Horeb? See Exod. xvi: 27-30. Does not Isaiah say that God will bless the
_man_, and the _son_ of _man_, and the _sons_ of the _stranger_, that
keep THE Sabbath? These certainly mean the Gentiles. lvi: 2-3, 6-7.
Also, in the lviii. ch. 13, 14, the promise is to all that keep the
Sabbath. To what people did _the_ Sabbath belong at the destruction of
Jerusalem, nearly forty years after the crucifixion? Matt. xxiv: 20. The
Gentiles certainly were embraced in the covenant by this time! Why was
it Paul's manner always to preach on the seventh day Sabbath to Jews and
Gentiles?
By what authority do you call the seventh day Sabbath, the Jewish
Sabbath? The bible says it is the Sabbath of the _Lord our God_! And
Jesus said that he was the 'Lord of the Sabbath day.' He moreover told
the Jews that the Sabbath was made for MAN! Where do you draw the
distinguishing line, to show which is and which is not MAN between the
_natural seed of Abraham_ and the Gentiles? "Is he the God of the Jews
only? Is he not also of the [45]Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also!"
Then Paul says 'there is no difference,' and that 'there is no respect
of persons with God.' Is it not clear, then, that the Sabbath was made
for Adam and his posterity, the whole family of _man_? How very fearful
you are that God's people should keep the bible Sabbath! You say, 'let
us be cautious, lest we disinherit ourselves by seeking the inheritance
under the wrong covenant.' Your meaning is, not to seek to keep the
Sabbath covenant, but the one made to Abraham. If you can tell us what
precept there is in the Abrahamic covenant that we must now keep to be
_saved_, that is not embraced in the one given at Mount Sinai, then we
will endeavor to keep that too, with the Sabbath of the Lord our God. If
the Sabbath, as you say, is abolished, why do you, JOSEPH MARSH,
continue to call the first day of the week the Sabbath. See V. T., 15th
July. If you profess to utter the VOICE OF TRUTH from the bible, do be
consistent, and also willing that _other papers_, besides yours and the
Advent Herald, should give the present truth to the flock of God. I say
let it go with lightning speed, every way, as does the political news by
the electric telegraph. If the whole law and the prophets hang on the
commandments, and by keeping them we enter into life, how will you, or
I, enter in if we do not 'keep the commandments.' See Exod. xvi: 28-30.
Jesus says, "therefore whosoever shall break one of these least
commandments and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the
kingdom," &c. "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole
duty of man." Amen!
In the xxxi. ch. of Exod., God says, "Wherefore the children of ISRAEL
shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their
generations for a _perpetual_ covenant; it is a _sign_ between me and
the children of ISRAEL _forever_." 16, 17 v. _Who are the true
Israelites?_ Answer, God's people. Hear Paul: "Is he the God of the Jews
only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; from
uncircumcision through _faith_." Rom. iii: 29, 30. God gave his
re-enacted commandment or covenant to the natural Jew in B. C. 1491.
They broke this covenant, as he told Moses they would, for which God
partially destroyed and dispersed them; God then brought in a new
covenant which continued the sign of the Sabbath, which was confirmed by
Jesus and his Apostle about 1525 years from the first. See Heb. viii: 8,
10, 13; Rom. ii: 13. Their breaking the first covenant never could
[46]destroy the commandments of God. Therefore this new, or second
covenant, made with the house of ISRAEL, Heb. viii: 10 v. (not the
natural Jew only,) is indelibly written upon the heart. Now every child
takes the name of his parents. Let us see what the angel Gabriel says to
Mary concerning her son: "The Lord God will give him the throne of David
_his_ Father, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever." Luke
i: 31, 33.
Now the prophecy: "There shall come a star out of _Jacob_ and a sceptre
shall rise out of _Israel_." Num. Now 1735 years before Jesus was born,
God changed Jacob's name to _Israel_, because he prevailed with him.
This then is the family name for all who overcome, or prevail. God gave
this name to his spiritual child, namely, _Israel_. Then Jesus will
'reign over the house of _Israel_ forever.' This must include all that
are saved in the everlasting kingdom. Further, Joseph was the natural
son of Jacob or _Israel_. In his prophetic view and dying testimony to
his children, he says, Joseph is a fruitful bough, from _thence is the
shepherd_ the stone of _Israel_. Gen. xlix: 22-34. Then this Shepherd
(Jesus) is a descendant, and is of the house of _Israel_. Does he not
say that he is the Shepherd of the Sheep,--what, of the Jews only? No,
but also of the Gentile, 'for the promise is not through the law (of
ceremonies) but thro' the righteousness of _faith_.' Rom. iv: 13. Micah
says, 'They shall smite the Judge of _Israel_, that IS to BE the RULER
in ISRAEL. v: 1, 2. Now Jesus never was a _Judge_ nor _Ruler_ in
_Israel_. This, then, is a prophecy in the future, that he will judge,
and be the Ruler over the whole house of _Israel_. All the family, both
natural Jew and Gentile, will assume the family name, the _whole Israel_
of God. The angel Gabriel's message, then, is clear; David is the Father
of Jesus, according to the flesh, and Jacob, or rather Israel his
Father, and Jesus reigns over the house of Israel forever. Paul says,
'He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he is a Jew which is one
inwardly.' Rom. ii. 'There is no difference between the Jew and the
Greek, (or Gentile) for they are not all _Israel_ which are of _Israel_,
neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children.'
Why? Because the children of the promise, of Isaac (is the true seed.)
ix. and x. ch. To the Gallatinns he says, 'Now to Abraham (the
Grandfather of Israel) and his seed were the promises made; not to many,
but as of one and to thy seed, which is CHRIST--then says, there is
neither Jew nor Greek--but one in Christ Jesus, and if [47]ye be Christ
then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.' iii.
'And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and
mercy, and upon the ISRAEL of God.' vi. This, then, is the name of the
whole family in heaven; Christ is God's only Son and lawful heir; none
but the true seed can be joint heirs with Christ in the covenant made
with Abraham. Ezekiel's prophecy in xxxvii. chapter, God says 'he will
bring up out of their _graves_ the WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAEL,' 'and I'll put
my spirit in you and ye shall _live_.' 12-14. If God here means any
other than the spiritual _Israel_, then Universalism is true--for the
_whole_ house of natural Israel did not die in faith; if the wicked Jews
are to be raised and live before God, then will _all_ the wicked! For
God is no respecter of persons: 'And the heathen shall know that I the
Lord do sanctify _Israel_ when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of
them forever more.' 28 v. Here, then, we prove, that the dead and living
saints are the whole _Israel_ of God, and the Covenant and Sign is
binding on them into the gates of the holy city. Rev. xx: 14.
[48]RECAPITULATION
Page 3. _When was the Sabbath instituted?_ Here we have endeavored to
show when, and how it continued until its re-enactment on Mount Sinai.
Page 9. _Has the Sabbath been abolished since the seventh day of
creation? If so, when, and where is the proof?_ Here we believe we have
adduced incontestible proof from the scriptures; from the two separate
codes of laws given, viz: the first on tables of stone, called by God
prophets, Jesus, and his Apostle. 3. The commandments of God. 2d code,
the Book of Moses, as written from the mouth of God, the book of
ceremonies, combining ecclesiastical and civil law, which Paul shows was
nailed to the cross with all _their Sabbaths_ as _carnal commandments_,
because their feasts commenced and ended with a Sabbath. See Lev. xxiii.
Please read from 16th page onward, how Jesus and the Apostle make the
distinction.
Page 27. _Was the seventh day Sabbath ever changed? If so, when, and for
what reason?_ Here we find, by examining the proofs set forth by those
who favor and insist upon the change, that there is not one passage of
scripture in the bible to sustain it, but to the contrary, that Jesus
kept it and gave directions about it at the destruction of Jerusalem.
Paul also, and other Apostles taught how we were to keep the
commandments.
Page 42. 4th, The History which is uncontroverted.
5th, The time when the Sabbath commences.
6th, Who are true Israel.