Chapter XII: Conclusion (2)

The foregoing summary is a plain, unvarnished, unmutilated _scriptural account_ of God's rest-day, which HE enjoined on all mankind, for all ages, for all nations, tongues, and kindred. Some persons, nay, the great mass of the Christian world, have been taught, that the Sabbath alluded to is a "_Jewish Sabbath_," and "_has been done away_;" in proof of which position, they adduce the passages in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians--"Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-_days_, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."[11] Col. 2:16, 17. "Who blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Col. 2:14. This, I must remark, proves _too much_; for if it has abrogated the seventh-day Sabbath, it has blotted out the sabbatic law also; unless it be shown, that _it_ is reserved, or that another has been re-enacted, clearly and expressly ordained. If so, let its advocates point to a single requirement, an unequivocal injunction, to observe any other day as the Sabbath, and it will terminate all controversy on the subject. The "hand-writing of ordinances," which was "nailed to the cross," was merely "the ceremonial law," the onerous burdens of the Levitical ritual, not the "moral law of commandments"--the Decalogue! If the opposite view be correct, then the Sabbath, or any "rest-day," is "against us," contrary to our nature and wants, and is not for our good, and ought to be annulled and obliterated forever. Then, also, we are driven to the doctrine of the "Friends," that all days are alike holy under the gospel dispensation. The advocates for the first day of the week can not consistently escape this dilemma. They must accept the Sabbath hallowed by the Lord, or hallow all days alike.

Much as man has attempted to obscure and pervert this holy institution, the Word of Truth is clear, express and emphatic, in regard to the perpetuity of the particular day to be hallowed, as well as it is explicit in the precise time to be sanctified. The Scriptures no where speak of a "_Jewish Sabbath_" or a "_Christian Sabbath_." The Sabbath of the Bible is but one, and has but one name--"_the Sabbath of the Lord thy God_;" which the Scriptures declare is the _seventh day_, instituted more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in the world, and, consequently, could not have been a "Jewish Sabbath." The Sabbath, Christ, who is "Lord of the Sabbath," asserts, "was made for man"--the whole race of man--not for a particular nation or people, but for _mankind at large_.

It is proper here to remark, that this sneering at the "_Jewish Sabbath_," which in times past was, and still is, by weak minds, constantly resorted to, in the absence of legitimate argument, to prejudice the populace against giving this subject a fair and impartial examination, and thereby to lead them to prejudge the case, has, within a few years past, been abandoned by all sensible and consistent advocates for the _sabbatic institution_. They find that it stultifies their own pretensions, and has done much damage to themselves in sustaining the claims of sacredness for any other day; for, while they maintain that the ancient Sabbath was a Jewish institution, they unwittingly prove that there is no longer any Sabbath to be observed, since they fail to show that another has been ordained or established for the Christian Church. If a "Jewish Sabbath," it was done away with by the Jewish dispensation; and if no other Sabbath has been expressly appointed by Divine authority, the Christian Church is certainly left without the Sabbath, or any substitute possessing any of its sacredness--a sacredness which can only be derived from an _express_ and _explicit_ mandate from the Lord of the Sabbath. That puerile quibble, the _nick-name_ "Jewish Sabbath," has, therefore, been abandoned by the most prominent writers of the present day; who generally fall back and found the _institution_ (the origin and grounds for its perpetuity) long anterior to the "Jewish," the Mosaic dispensation--even back to the Sabbath of Paradise. Thus Dr. Barnes, of Philadelphia, in a series of sermons on this subject, delivered and published in the fall of 1845, advocates this position, and contends strenuously for the _ante-Mosaic Sabbath_. The same view was inculcated by the "National Lord's Day Convention," held at Baltimore, November, 1844; and it has been reiterated more distinctly and emphatically by "The Rhode Island Sabbath Union," in an address to the people of that State, in 1846, to which, among others, we find attached the name of Dr. Wayland, the honored President of Brown University. The Committee of the Rhode Island "_Sabbath_ Union," in calling attention to the _claims of the Sabbath_, remark:

"The Lord of the Sabbath has here said, '_The Sabbath was made for man_.' Man is here used, most certainly, as a _generic_ term, and, therefore, presents a universal proposition. The Sabbath was not made for _man_, for man as a genus, as a race, unless it was made for every individual of the race; for the first, and for the last man; for the first generation, and for every other. The Sabbath, then, must have existed from the beginning, and is as old as the human race. Our Lord says, moreover, '_The_ Sabbath was made for man.' He says not, the Jewish Sabbath, or the Christian Sabbath, but _the_ Sabbath, the common, the universal one, which belongs to mankind. Is this not the very language to denote a universal and perpetual institution?

"Let us look at the connection of the Sabbath with the work of creation. 'God blessed the _seventh_ day and sanctified it.' If the Creator had merely _rested_ on the seventh day, it would have been an impressive consecration. But when he proceeds to bless and sanctify it, there is authority, a positive Sabbath, forming a part of the primeval arrangement, when God fixed the order in which the world should go--six days labor and one day rest, over and over forever. The first week of the world, then, was not completed till there had been a Sabbath, as well as a first day or a sixth. Is not this indicative of the universality and perpetuity of the institution?"

Here we might rest the question, with perfect safety, if the mass of mankind would be content with the plain teachings of the Bible; but, having "itching ears," they, unfortunately, are too apt to leave "the law and the testimony," and cleave to "the commandments of men;" which teach them, that "_Christ_ OR _his Apostles_" have transferred the sacredness of the seventh day to the first day of the week. The writer, therefore, feels constrained to bring before his readers the passages on which that notion is predicated, to exhibit the weakness of their untenable position, and thereby establish the Sabbath of the Bible.

What saith the Scriptures to support the claims of the first day of the week to be _holy time_? The first notice we have of the disciples being together on "the first day of the week," on which the assumed "change" is predicated, is found in the Gospel by John:--

"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut _for fear of the Jews_ (mark that!) came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples _glad_ when they saw the Lord." John 20:19, 20.

This passage contains no command, no intimation whatever, to sanctify that day. It does not even claim that they were there for any sacred purpose, much less to celebrate the Sabbath, or institute a new day of worship, but simply for common protection, "for fear of the Jews;" and a design to comfort them in their trepidation is all the legitimate inference we can draw from the circumstance of Christ's appearing unto them. All the Apostles were not together; _Thomas was absent_! If they had met together to _sabbatize_, he, certainly, would have been with them. Not having been present, and not having seen the risen Saviour, while doubting and disputing on the subject of his resurrection, "_eight days afterward_," Christ appeared again, to confound the incredulity of Thomas, and for no other ostensible purpose.

"Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after _eight_ days the disciples _were within_,[12] and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, _the door being shut_, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then said he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." John 20:24-28.

So much, _and that is all_, is the authority adduced by the advocates for the sacredness of the first day for Christ having changed the day of rest, the Sabbath, or having given his sanction to the change. Ought such a vague _inference_ overturn the fiat of the Almighty--change times and laws ordained by Jehovah to endure forever? Is the "being together," save one, of the twelve, "for fear of the Jews," and "being within eight days afterward," any evidence of their being there to celebrate the "Sabbath" or Lord's day? Is there, in these transactions, any re-enactment of the sabbatic law, which some persons maintain was abrogated by the "blotting out of the hand-writing of ordinances?" Is there any injunction issued by them--the apostles--requiring the disciples to honor, hallow, and sanctify the first day of the week, in any of the above proceedings?

The next Scripture assumed for the substitution of the first day of the week in the place of the Sabbath of the Lord, is found in the Acts of the Apostles:--

"And 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. And there were many lights in the upper chamber where they were assembled together. And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him, said, Trouble not yourselves, for his life is in him. When he, therefore, was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, he departed." Acts 20:7-11.

It is necessary to a proper understanding here, to bear in mind--1st. That it was the custom of the disciples, in the days of the apostles, to meet together, and break bread, _every_ day. "They continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." "And they, continuing _daily_ with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." 2d. That in those times a day was counted "the evening and the morning were the first day." "From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths." Lev. 23:32. Thus it appears, by this passage, that they had simply met, as was their uniform, daily custom, to celebrate the breaking of bread on the evening (the commencement of the day), it being the last evening Paul was to be with them; and in all probability the circumstance would not have been noticed so particularly, but to introduce the case of Eutychus, in confirmation of Paul's miraculous powers. The passage does not prove any thing for the sacredness of the first day of the week, but proves much against it; for, if the first day of the week is holy time, Paul, in preaching till midnight, and departing on the morrow, would be a Sabbath-breaker for traveling on that day. He would have kept the evening only. "From _even_ unto _even_ shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths." The same disregard for the sacredness of the first day of the week was manifested by the Redeemer himself, in traveling on the "resurrection day" to Emmaus, a distance of seven and a half miles, while a "Sabbath-day's journey" was restricted to _one mile_: slender evidence, indeed, of the Saviour's having transferred the holiness of the _Sabbath_ to "the first day of the week," or having "sanctioned" it, as is often claimed by its advocates.

The next passage adduced is found in Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians--"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. 16:2. First _day_? Day is not in the original, but is supplied, and is so designated by being italicized. So the true reading is, "In the first of the week." However, if it mean the first day, Sunday, it makes it a commercial day, a day of business, a day of reckoning, not of _rest_, as it requires a man to cast up his accounts, to find what amount he can "lay by."

The last text, and the one most relied upon, is from John's Revelation--"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. 1:10. There is nothing in this passage, or in the context, to indicate that it was the first day of the week. It is a mere _assumption_, without any Scripture to fortify the position. The best biblical critics admit that there is no scriptural evidence to identify the expression with the first day of the week. If we follow the Protestant rule, to prove Scripture by Scripture, and not evade the plain teachings of the Bible, it will be an easy matter to see a much more apt application of the expression. Many of the best commentators suppose that it alludes to the Gospel-day. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see _my day_; he saw it, and was glad." John 8:56. Was not this a day which approximates (if it will not be admitted to be identical) not only in _idea_, but in a _kin-name_--the _day of Christ_--the Gospel-day? Paul speaks of it as something yet to come. "That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense, till the _day of Christ_." "Holding forth the word of life, that I may rejoice in the _day of Christ_, that I have not run in vain, neither labored in vain." "Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Now, we beseech you, brethren, by the _coming_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." "That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Phil. 1:10; 2:16; 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Thess. 2:1, 2, 3; 1 Cor. 5:5. Again, it is maintained by some expounders, that allusion is had to the Judgment Day. "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and all the works therein, shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3:10. Therefore John, in saying, "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day," simply asserts, that in prophetic vision his spirit reached forward to the great day for which all other days were made, and beheld the momentous transactions of that awful crisis, which he was directed to reveal to the churches on earth.

From this brief examination, it appears, that the term "Lord's day," as here used, does not refer to any particular day of the week. But if it refer to any special day of the week, as some suppose, it must refer to the seventh; for that is the sanctified, hallowed _rest-day_ of the Bible, and is the only day which the Lord calls his holy day (Is. 58:13), and therefore must be the Lord's day. If, however, the term "Lord's day," used by John, does not refer to the gospel day, or the day of judgment, nor to the Lord's "holy day," the seventh-day Sabbath, but alludes to a festival day to commemorate the resurrection, as is assumed, where is the command requiring it to be kept holy? And where is the evidence in the Scriptures, that it was kept _as the Sabbath_, or in _place of the Sabbath_?

Even were there any intimations given by the prophets or the apostles, (which we deny,) that the resurrection day should be regarded as the "ceremony-worship-day" under the gospel dispensation, where is the evidence in the Scriptures that the first day of the week is or was the resurrection day? It is assumed, not proved. The Bible and human theories are at conflict on this subject. It is generally assumed, that the Redeemer was crucified on Friday, and rose early on Sunday morning. This makes Christ a liar; for he said, "As Jonas was _three days_ and _three nights_ in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be _three days_ and _three nights_ in the heart of the earth." Matth. 12:40. Crucified on Friday, and rising on Sunday morning, would make but part of three days, and only two nights. Christ said three days _and_ three nights, and he certainly must be right. Therefore, crucified on Friday, he could not have risen on Sunday. The New Testament does not assert that he rose on the first day of the week; it only says, that he was _seen_ on the first of the week, not first _day_. In all the places in which allusion is had to this matter, (Matth. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19), the original says, in the first of the week--_day_ is not once named, but is supplied in our version, as is indicated by being italicised. But even if the term first of the week implies first day, the Scriptures no where assert that he _rose_ on that day. Being _seen_, and _rising_, are two entirely different matters. So is a _part_ of three days and two nights different from three days and three nights. If Jesus had said, "_three days and nights_," it might not involve the present difficulty; but no one questions that Jonas was three whole days and three whole nights in the whale's belly. Then, as the Redeemer makes that the simile of his own confinement in the heart of the earth, the antitype, to be verified and accredited, must be like unto the type. He must have been there the _three days_ and the _three nights_, according to his word. It is vain presumption, arrant blasphemy, to make it any less to gratify a human theory. Let God be true, though it make all men liars.

In the absence of all direct _scriptural evidence_ to sustain the assumption, that the first day of the week is the "_resurrection day_;" and in the absence of all such evidence, that the Lord designed to elevate the first day of the week to the special regard of the Christian Church, and confer upon it the sacredness of the ancient Sabbath; would we not, at least, have some intimation of it in the writings of the prophets, in which all the important circumstances of the Redeemer's life and mission are foreshadowed? Where, reader, will you find any thing in them that predicts any _change_ of the _holy Sabbath_ to the _resurrection day_? If found, let it be adduced. The Sabbath is a standing monument against _Atheism_, for all ages, declaring the workmanship of God; yet some _assume_, that as _redemption_ is a greater work, and a more important work, than the _creation_ of the universe and the living _souls_ which inhabit all the spheres, therefore the _resurrection day_ ought to be honored as the _rest-day_. Has not the _Lord_ the right to determine this matter? If HE deemed it important that the _resurrection day_ be thus distinguished, would HE not have _declared it_, expressly, unto us? Would HE have left us to _infer_ it? Can we, will we, be justified in casting aside the _explicit_ command of the Most High, in this matter, to substitute our _fancied_ day of greater _importance_ than the one the _Almighty_ has _ordained_? "Wherefore kick ye at _my_ sacrifice and at _mine_ offering, which I have commanded?" 1 Sam. 2:29. "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 9:5.

If, then, there is no evidence in the Scriptures, that the _first day of the week_ is the "_resurrection day_," (which, even if satisfactorily established, would not invalidate our position, nor entitle it to supersede the holy Sabbath); and, more particularly, if there is no evidence in the Inspired Volume, that the term "Lord's day" is intended to designate the _first day of the week_; we are reduced, by every principle of reasoning, to regard the _seventh day_--the Heaven-heralded Sabbath--as the only "Lord's day," the only "rest-day," sanctified and hallowed by the Almighty as holy time.

All days, in one sense, are Lord's days; but there has never been but one _Heaven-appointed_ weekly _Sabbath_, and that, most unequivocally, is the _seventh day_. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"--"the _seventh day_ is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:8. If that sacred injunction has been abrogated, we should expect--(for it would be unreasonable to recognize its repeal or transfer, without as explicit and as authoritative a mandate from the Court of Heaven)--at least a _re-enactment_ somewhat thus: "_From the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, ye shall no longer_ SABBATIZE, _but shall give heed to the assembling of yourselves_ ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK; _in it ye shall do no work; and, to avoid the appearance of symbolizing with my ancient people, the Jews_, call it no longer the _Sabbath_, but designate it by the term _Lord's day_!" Is there any intimation of such an _abrogation_, or such a _transfer_ of the _sacredness of the Sabbath_ to _Sunday_, in the _inspired volume_? Not the semblance of it. Even if the early disciples, without any intimation from the _Lord of the Sabbath_, but _of their own accord_, chose to set apart a special day as a _festival day_, as they were wont to do for _martyrs_ and _saints_, it can not, certainly, _supersede_ the _institution of Jehovah_; neither can they confer upon it the sacredness belonging, by the _decree of the Most High_, to _his rest-day_. Indeed, this is so evident, that the erudite and frank NEANDER expressly says, "_Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday_, very early, indeed, into the place of the _Sabbath_ ... Sunday was distinguished as a _day of joy_, by the circumstance that men did not fast upon it, and that they prayed standing up, and not kneeling, as Christ had raised up fallen man to heaven again through his resurrection. The _festival of Sunday_, like all other festivals, _was always only a_ HUMAN ORDINANCE; and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a _divine_ command in this respect--far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to _transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday_. Perhaps at the end of the second century, _a false application of this kind_ had _begun_ to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin."[13]

Such, then, is the scriptural account of the Sabbath, and such the frank admission of one of the most distinguished ecclesiastical historians, who could have no motive in perverting or misrepresenting the facts in the case, but who has always shown himself above all mean subterfuges for any purpose whatever. His testimony might be fortified by many names of high authority among writers of eminence, who do not contend for sabbatizing on the seventh day, yet whose candor and honesty constrain them to make the like admission.

Thus it will be seen, that the observers of the seventh-day Sabbath can look up with full confidence of having a "thus saith the Lord" for their practice; while the observers of the first day of the week must confess, with confusion of face, that they are but following "the commandments of men," and can only plead "the nakedness of the Fathers," as Whitby terms their inconsistencies. Will the Lord admit such a "vain oblation?" Will he suffer such a perversion of his holy institution to go unreproved? Where, reader, can you find in the Bible any authority for appropriating the title of the holy rest-day, the Sabbath, to the first day of the week? If you can not, is it not "robbing God" thus to falsify his Word? Is it not base felony every time any worm of the dust thus perversely uses the term which HE, the Sovereign of the Universe, has attached to his holy day--thereby wantonly "changing times and laws"--overturning the decrees of the Lord God? Is it not wresting the Word to your own destruction? If the Lord charge man with robbery in withholding perishable tithes and offerings, and curse him for that delinquency, how much greater, think ye, must be the condemnation of those who set at naught his prerogative to institute and ordain the service of the sanctuary? He alone has the right to impose religious ordinances; and it is but the reasonable service of his creatures to obey, implicitly, his righteous mandates--the sacred injunction, to hallow and sanctify his holy Sabbath. "Will a man rob God?" asks the Almighty, through his prophet; "yet ye have robbed me, saith the Holy One. Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." Mal. 2:8, 9. Where, then, will you find your excuse for this perversion of the Word of God, when that Word shall come to judge you? for it is the Word, the written Word, (given to be a lamp unto your feet and a light to your path,) which shall judge you at the last day. Of old it was said, "From the days of your fathers ye are gone astray from mine ordinances, and have not kept them." Mal. 3:7. The apostle of the Gentiles speaks of those in his day who corrupted the Word. 2 Cor. 2:17. In another place it is asked, When wilt thou cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Acts 13:10. To which interrogation all are obnoxious who seek out inventions of their own, or follow "the commandments of men," which subvert the testimony of the Lord.

Canst thou, reader, contend with the Almighty? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, when he shall lay judgment to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, and shall _sweep away the refuge of lies_. Isaiah 28:17. The _true principle_, reader, and the only _safe principle_, is, to "_let God be true_, though it _make every man a liar_." Rom. 3:4. "Ye are my friends," says Christ, "if ye do whatsover I command you." John 14:15. "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4. "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Matt. 15:9. "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Deut. 13:32. "Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left." Josh. 1:7. "Add not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Prov. 30:6. "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book." Rev. 22:18, 19. Ponder well this subject, reader, and render unto God the things that are God's, that it may be well with thee, and thou be admitted into the rest reserved for those who "delayed not to keep the commandments"--for those who keep his covenant and walk in the way of the Lord.

[11] The Sabbath was no type of Christ--a _shadow_, of which Christ was to be the _body_. It was instituted before the _transgression_; consequently, the term _Sabbath-days_, here, has no relevancy if applied to the _weekly_ Sabbath; but it evidently alludes to the _festival days_ among the Jews, usually called _Sabbaths_, as all the Israelites had at those periods to _refrain from labor_--"such as the festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles, &c., &c., which are alluded to in Leviticus, 19:3-30. _Keep my Sabbaths._"--CALMET.

[12] _Within_ does not imply that they were assembled at any public place _for worship_, or to celebrate a _holy day_. _Within_ may simply mean, that they were together in the place of their common lodgment--where they abode together.

[13] The History of the Christian Religion and Church during the First Three Centuries. By Dr. Augustus Neander. Translated by Henry John Rose, B. D. New York, 1848, p. 186.

No. 14.

DELAYING OBEDIENCE.

To have the understanding enlightened in regard to duty, and the conscience so thoroughly awake as to make one feel uneasy in the neglect of it, and yet to be surrounded with advisers, wearing the name and title of Christians, who are continually urging farther delay, is about as uncomfortable a position as a person of fervent piety needs to be placed in. To rebuke such advisers in the faithfulness of the gospel, and yet, at the same time, to behave towards them with becoming meekness, is not the easiest thing in the world. Nevertheless, the idea that we may postpone our obedience to God for a little season, notwithstanding our convictions, is not to be tolerated.

Suppose, for example, that a person becomes convinced, that it is his duty to observe the Sabbath of the Bible--the seventh day of the week. Forthwith he is assailed by his associates with the suggestion, that he ought not to be in a hurry--that he ought to take plenty of time for consideration, at least a year. Plausible as such advice is, we offset it with a simple passage of Scripture. "I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies; I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments." Ps. 119:59, 60. Here the Psalmist testifies, that he turned his feet to obedience, so soon as, by thinking on his ways, he found that he was walking astray. He made no delay about it; he did not go about to consult the wise men of the nation; he did not examine the writings of the rabbis and doctors, to see if there was not some way of getting round the duty, he _made haste_ to render obedience. But, now-a-days, as soon as a person's conscience begins to lash him for neglected duty, he is advised to be very careful about running too hastily. Well, we would not wish one to be _too_ hasty; but, on the other hand, it may be well to consider whether there is not such a thing as being _too tardy_. Conviction of duty is not to be trifled with. When any one does violence to his conviction, he feels that he disobeys God; and such disobedience is sure to be followed by disastrous results. The voice of conscience grows more feeble, and (if the disobedience be persisted in) becomes, at length, hushed in silence. It may continue to reprove with regard to other duties, but with regard to that particular one which has been made the object of willful neglect, it reproves no more. As a necessary consequence, the soul suffers the loss of all those blessings which obedience in that one thing would bring.

Nor is this all. Conscience, having yielded to corruption in one instance, becomes ready to yield in another. Its sternness has been overcome, and it no longer guards the soul with that security which it had been wont to do. It is to the soul what the sense of modesty is to the female; and, as the female cannot allow her sense of delicacy to be trifled with without incurring the risk of a total loss of virtue, so the conscience cannot, in a single instance, be abused, without incurring the danger of becoming "seared with a hot iron." We will not undertake to say, that this is, in every case, the result; but we _do_ say, that there is great danger of it. We insist, therefore, that when one understands what is duty, he ought to lose no time in putting it in practice. Let him remember, too, that the wrath of God is revealed against those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Rom. 1:18.

But the possibility that one may be mistaken as to his duty, is often urged as a reason for delay. There may be something in this; at least, it seems plausible. Generally, however, this objection is more specious than solid. At all events, it is so with regard to those things which are the subject of direct and unequivocal command. With regard to the Sabbath, we have no hesitation in saying, that it savors of "the wisdom that is earthly." The object of those who urge it is to induce a deference to the views of those who have acquired great skill in explaining away the divine law. But we hold, that however doubtful may be the teachings of Scripture with regard to such questions as are purely doctrinal, or however obscure the language in which its prophecies foretell coming events, with regard to the common, practical duties of life, the Word of God is so plain that there is no need for a child to be mistaken. Were it otherwise, it would be unsuited to the wants of mankind. For, inasmuch as every one must give account for himself, and not another for him, it is necessary that each one should be able to decide his duty for himself. People of small intellectual capacity must be able to make this decision, as well as those of more expanded powers; and children, as well as those of mature age. Hence duty must be revealed in very simple language. And how simple the language in which our duty to keep holy the Sabbath day is revealed! "_Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy--the seventh day is the Sabbath._" Who can fail to understand it? What untutored peasant cannot comprehend it? What child does not perceive its meaning? The command to refrain from the adoration of images is not more plain. Yet, when a person of ordinary mental powers is convinced by it, and begins to think about rendering obedience, straightway he is admonished that he does not understand it, and that he would do well to consult some learned men, some spiritual rabbis or doctors of divinity, before taking any decided steps!

And what do the learned doctors say, upon being consulted? Why, that it is the duty of men keep holy the first day of the week. But how do they make it appear? Do they produce any precept from the Scripture, plain and unequivocal, like the fourth commandment? Not by any means. They can present nothing which is level to the comprehension of a child. Whatever they say on the subject, is entirely above the understanding of children, and entirely above the understanding of ignorant people. They talk about the magnitude of redemption, as compared with the work of creation; they have something to say about redemption being finished on the first day of the week, by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; they lay a few such theological propositions together, and finally draw out the inference, that the first day of the week is a holy day. But the plain, ordinary mind, does not understand this. The child fails to comprehend it. It is true, he hardly dares to indulge the thought that learned men may be mistaken; nevertheless, he is puzzled, extremely puzzled, to understand it. Is not this conclusive proof, that no such duty is enjoined in the Book of God?

We cannot, therefore, subscribe to the idea, that a person must, in reference to the Sabbath, or in reference to any other plain command of Heaven, wait to consult friends, and learned teachers, and the writings of fallible men, before rendering obedience. If God has spoken, "see that ye refuse not him that speaketh." We do not believe that any one can begin to obey God too soon.

Published by the AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY, No. 9 Spruce-street N. Y.

[No. 15.]

AN APPEAL FOR THE

RESTORATION OF THE BIBLE SABBATH:

IN AN ADDRESS TO THE BAPTISTS,

FROM THE SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST GENERAL CONFERENCE.

NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY, No. 9 Spruce-Street. 1852.

THE ADDRESS.

The Seventh-day Baptist General Conference, to the Members of the Baptist Denomination throughout the United States, holding to the Observance of the First Day of the Week as a Divine Institution:

BELOVED BRETHREN:--

When our Divine Redeemer dwelt on earth, he prayed that all his disciples might be "made perfect in one." As this prayer was in harmony with the sure word of prophecy, which instructs us to look for a time when "the watchmen shall see eye to eye, and sing with united voice," we are sure that it will ultimately be answered. We see nothing, however, to warrant us in looking for such a happy consummation, while we contemplate the multiplied divisions of the Christian world, perpetuated as they are by the selfishness of human nature. Here the prospect is dark indeed. But we have an unshaken confidence in the power of God to bring about his own purposes, notwithstanding all the devices of men. "The hearts of all are in his hands, and he turneth them whithersoever he will." He that made "the multitude of one heart and of one soul," in the first age of the church, can again concentrate his scattered bands, break down every wall of separation, and enlighten every mind by the effusion of his Spirit. Then shall Zion move forth, "clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners."

We rejoice, brethren, that you, as well as ourselves, are looking for this day of glory. Moreover, we have knowledge of your firm persuasion, that this glorious union of the now scattered forces of Israel, can be effected only upon the basis of divine truth. With a single glance you see the fallacy of that reasoning, which calls upon you, for the sake of union, to sacrifice the least particle of God's Word. Taught by the Spirit of God, you have learned that the smallest atom of truth is more precious than fine gold. That meager piety which finds "non-essentials" in the appointments of Jehovah, you cannot abide. Your language is, "We esteem ALL thy precepts concerning ALL things to be right, and we hate EVERY false way."

We know, moreover, that it is the desire of your hearts, that all dissensions between Christians should be for ever ended. For this object you are laboring and praying; and while you are doing so, you have the enlightened conviction, that your labors and prayers will be successful, in proportion to the amount of truth with which your own minds are imbued, and which you can bring to bear upon the minds of others. Laboring as you do to expound to others the way of the Lord more perfectly, we cannot suppose that you are yourselves unwilling to learn. We therefore approach you with confidence, affectionately and earnestly requesting you to take into consideration the subject which is the only ground of difference between you and us. In our estimation, it is a subject of great importance; and though some of you have made it a matter of thought, we are persuaded that the great body of your denomination have dismissed it without any particular investigation. Indeed, we speak not unadvisedly when we say, that on this question the whole church of God have been hushed to sleep. In urging it upon your attention, we think you will not charge us with wishing to raise disturbance in Zion. We indulge the hope that you will impute to us the same disinterestedness of motive by which you yourselves are actuated when you boldly proclaim your denominational sentiments upon every high place, and scatter your publications in every direction. Your course springs not from any wish to foment disturbance, but from the pain which your hearts feel to see the institutions of Christ made void by the traditions of men. Our action in this matter springs from the same principle. We feel in regard to the Sabbath just as you do in regard to baptism. We declare before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, that we are moved by a desire for your good and God's glory.

When we look over your large and influential denomination, we find that, in reference to the subject upon which we now address you, you are divided into about three classes. I. Those who, acknowledging the perpetuity of the Sabbath law, enforce the observance of the Sabbath by the fourth commandment, but change the day of its celebration from the seventh to the first day of the week. II. Those who see the impossibility of proving a change of the day, and therefore regard the commandment as abolished by the death of Christ. But, at the same time, they consider the first day of the week as an institution entirely new, to be regulated as to its observance wholly by the New Testament. III. Those who consider neither the Old nor the New Testament to impose any obligation upon them to observe a day of rest, and advocate one merely on the ground of expediency.

* * * * *

I. To those of you who acknowledge the obligation of a Sabbath, but change the day of its celebration from the _seventh_ to the _first_ day of the week, we would say, that while from the Law only you infer any obligation to sabbatize at all, yet make the particular time of sabbatizing to stand upon New Testament authority, we do not see how you can relieve yourselves from the charge of departing from the great principle contended for by Baptists, viz. That whatever is commanded by an institution, is to be learned from the law of the institution, and not from other sources. On this principle, you reject the logic of Pedobaptists, who, while they find the ordinance of _baptism_ in the New Testament, go back to the law of _circumcision_ to determine the subjects. You tell them, and very justly too, that the _law_ of the institution is the _only rule_ of obedience. But do you not fall into the same error when the argument has respect to the Sabbath? We can see no more fitness in applying the law of the Sabbath to the first day of the week, than in applying the law of circumcision to the subjects of baptism. For the law of circumcision was not more expressly confined to the fleshly seed of Abraham, than was the law of the Sabbath to the seventh day of the week. The true principle is, that every institution is to be explained and regulated by its own law. Therefore, if the first day of the week is an institution binding upon us, the law to regulate its observance should be looked for where we find the institution. Be pleased, brethren, to review this argument, and see if you are not treading on Pedobaptist ground.

In justification of this change of the day, we often hear you plead the example of Christ and his apostles. But where do we find any thing to this effect in their example? Did the apostles _sabbatize_ on the first day of the week? Did the churches which were organized by them do so? Observe, the question between you and us is NOT, Did they _meet together_ and _hold worship_ on that day? BUT, Did they _sabbatize_? that is, Did they REST FROM THEIR LABOR on the first day of the week? Did they observe it AS a Sabbath? This is the true issue. We have often asked this question, but the only answer that we have received has been, _that they assembled for worship_. But this is not a candid way of meeting the point. It is in reality an answer to a very different question from the one we ask. Brethren, act out your own principles. Come up fairly to the question. When you ask a Pedobaptist, Did Christ baptize or authorize the baptism of little children? you expect him to make some other reply than, "_He put his hands on them, and prayed_." When you ask, Did the apostles baptize unconscious babes? you are not well pleased with the reply, _They baptized households_. Your question was with regard to _infants_--the _baptism_ of them. If, therefore, when we ask you, Did the apostles and primitive Christians _sabbatize_ on the first day of the week? you merely reply as above, we do not see but you are guilty of the very same sophistry you are so ready to charge upon your Pedobaptist brethren. Your adroit evasion of the real question seems to place you much in the same predicament as were the Pharisees, when Christ asked them whence was the baptism of John. It appears as if you reasoned with yourselves, and said, "If we shall say they _did_ sabbatize on the first day of the week, the evidence will be called for, and we cannot find it; but if we shall say they did _not_, we fear the day will lose its sacredness in the eyes of the people." We do not by any means wish to charge you with a Pharisaic lack of principle, but we put it to your sober judgment, whether your position is not an awkward one. Brethren, reconsider this point, and see if you are not on Pedobaptist ground.

If the apostles did not sabbatize on the first day of the week, then it follows, as a matter of course, that, whatever notoriety or dignity belonged to that day, they did not regard it as a substitute for the Sabbath. Consequently, unless the Sabbath law was entirely abrogated by the death of Christ, the old Sabbath, as instituted in Paradise, and rehearsed from Sinai, continues yet binding, as "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God."

But more than this. Even if it could be proved, that the apostles and primitive Christians _did_ actually regard the first day of the week _as a Sabbath_, it would not follow that the old Sabbath is no longer in force, unless it could be proved that they considered the new as a SUBSTITUTE for the old; or, that so far as the particular day was concerned, it was of a CEREMONIAL character. But where do we find proof for either of these points? In the whole record of the transactions and teachings of the apostles, where do we find this idea of _substitution_? No where. Where do we find evidence that, so far as the _particular day_ was concerned, it was _ceremonial_, and therefore to cease at the death of Christ? No where. The argument that proves the _Sabbath law_ not to be ceremonial, proves the same of the _day_. Did the _Sabbath law_ originate in Paradise, when man was innocent, and had no need of a Redeemer? So did the _day_. It was then sanctified and blessed. Does the _Sabbath law_ take cognizance of the relation on which all the precepts of the moral law are founded, viz. the relation we sustain to God as _creatures_ to _Creator_? So does the _day_. It is a memorial of this relation, and of the rest entered into by God after he, by his work, had established the relation. It appears, then, that neither the _Sabbath law_, nor the _day_ it enjoins, was of a ceremonial character. True, it is not _moral_, in the strictest sense, but rather _positive_. Nevertheless, by divine appointment it is in the same category with the moral law, and must be considered a part of it. If this reasoning is correct--and if it is not, we hope you will point it out--it would not follow that the old Sabbath is done away, because Christ and his apostles sabbatized on the first day of the week; but only that there are _two_ Sabbaths instead of _one_.

But could Christ or his apostles consistently alter the law of the Sabbath? In all his ministry, Christ acted under the _appointment_ of the Father, and according to such _restrictions_ as were contained in the law and the prophets. By those restrictions, no laws were to be set aside at his coming, except such as were peculiar to the Jewish economy; such as "meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation." Heb. 9:10. To set aside these, the law gave the Messiah an express grant. Heb. 10:9. But the very moment he should attempt to go beyond the limits of that grant, he would destroy all evidence of his being the Messiah promised and appointed. For it was by his exact conformity to the law, that his claims were established. Hence, early in his ministry, he declared that he "came not to _destroy_ the law or the prophets." Matt. 5:17. Most cheerfully do we recognize him as God over all, and blessed forever; yet we are well satisfied that, even in virtue of his divinity, he could not consistently set aside any laws except those which were "a shadow of things to come." Otherwise we should have God _denying_ himself--God _contradicting_ himself! The New Testament records not a single instance of his claiming a right to do so. When he avowed himself Lord of the Sabbath, he only claimed to determine what was the proper method of keeping it--what were breaches of it, and what were not. The Sabbath was made _for_ man, and consequently it was his prerogative to decide what acts and duties answered to the nature and design of the institution. _Therefore_, the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:28.

In regard to the obligation resulting from apostolic example, it appears to us that you have fallen into some errors. We are not convinced that the example of the apostles can be justly pleaded for any thing else than the order and arrangement of the _church_. However proper it may be to imitate them in other respects--in the duties of the moral law, for instance--yet, if it were not known to be proper, independent of their example, we cannot suppose their example would make it so. We must first ascertain, by some settled and infallible rule, whether their practice is worthy of imitation. In regard to the ordering of _church affairs_, there can be no doubt, for they were sent upon this very errand, with the promise of the Holy Spirit to qualify them for the work. But the Sabbath is not a _church ordinance_. It is not an institution for the church _as such_, but for _all mankind_. All reasoning with reference to it, from apostolic example, must therefore be very inconclusive. Even if we should admit that the _church_ is bound by such example to regard the first day of the week, yet this is the utmost extent to which our admissions can go. We cannot see how the institution becomes binding upon the world at large. Consequently, we are compelled to maintain, that an institution which was originally given for all mankind, remains unaltered. We are willing that the example and practice of the apostles should regulate the _church_ as to its ordinances and government, and herein we claim to follow them as strictly as you do; but when they are pleaded for any thing more, we want first to know whether they conform to the express law of God. Otherwise we must consider them as no more binding than an apostle's quarrel with Barnabas. Acts 15:39.