Chapter IX: Section V: Manner of Observing the Sabbath (4)

For a long time before the Reformation the popular branches of the Christian church were literally without a Sabbath. Until after that period, it is not known that a single passage of Scripture was ever cited as authority for the celebration of the first day, even as a festival; the notion that the apostles observed it as a memorial of the resurrection, being of comparatively modern origin. When, however, the Reformers threw off the yoke of the Romish church, and protested against her corruptions, some of them could no longer be satisfied to let the observance of the first day rest upon her authority. They saw that they must either give it up as a human invention, or find some Scripture to support it. Hence the numerous theories which have been invented to justify its observance--theories which necessarily conflict with each other, as well as with Scripture, and are altogether unsatisfactory to inquiring minds.

The history of this matter shows us, that neither the adoption of the first day, nor the abandonment of the seventh, took place until the corruptions of the Catholic church in other respects had become so numerous and flagrant, as to drive from her communion many of her most conscientious and apostolic members, who still retained the observance of the Sabbath. The case of those sects in different ages of the church who have kept the Sabbath in connection with the first day, and practiced other things peculiar to the Romish church, furnishes additional evidence that the observance of the first day was adopted while the Sabbath was retained, and consequently that the first day was not adopted as a substitute for the Sabbath, which it ultimately displaced. The permitting of labor on the first day in the earlier ages of the church, and the canons of Councils and Synods and the edicts of Princes to bring about a general conformity in this respect, together with the slow progress made, even in Catholic countries, evince in the strongest manner that it was viewed in no other light, even by its warmest advocates, than that of a human institution, and one that could be enforced by human authority only. As such it was looked upon by enlightened and conscientious Christians in every age, who would not make void a commandment of God through a tradition of men.

In the light of these facts, we are led to the conclusion of Dr. Neander, set forth in his Church History, that "the festival of Sunday 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." As a "_human ordinance_," the observance of Sunday has long been and is now considered by many. While they consider it in this light, it is not to be expected that they will render it that sacred regard which the Sabbath claims, and must have in order to our safety and its usefulness.

What, then, shall be done? Shall we allow an institution of so much importance to rest upon mere human authority? To such a proposition every friend of the institution ought to say, No. To set it adrift, or to attempt to enforce it upon such authority, would be to withdraw from it the high sanction which it once had, and expose it to certain contempt and neglect. There is but one course dictated by wisdom and prudence. If we would save the Sabbath from threatened destruction, we must come back to the law as it was originally given, place the institution under the care of the Lawgiver, and enforce its claims by his authority. We must join the commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," with the explanation of it, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," and united they shall stand. Let this be done, and we need not fear. The Lord of the Sabbath is pledged for its safety; and he will cause those who "call the Sabbath a delight, holy of the Lord, honorable," to rejoice in Him, and ride upon the high places of the earth.

No. 5.

A CHRISTIAN CAVEAT

TO THE OLD AND NEW SABBATARIANS.

BY EDWARD FISHER, ESQ.

The following article is taken from the fifth edition of a work with the above title, printed in London, 1653. The book was written in defence of the "orthodoxal doctrine of the Church of England," respecting festivals, against the "Sabbatarian novelties," as they were called, of the Puritans. While it demolishes the claims set up on behalf or _Sunday_ or _Lord's Day_, it fully establishes the claims of the _Sabbath_ or _Seventh Day_. And it is worthy of note here, that it is not possible to refute any of the erroneous views in regard to the Sabbath and Lord's Day, without taking positions which necessarily lead to the observation of _the Seventh Day_. How much easier it would be to fasten the claims of the Sabbatic institution upon the consciences of men, if we were satisfied to take the fourth commandment _as it reads_, and enforce it by "_Thus saith the Lord_."

"The third opinion is, of the new Sabbatarians, who dream of a middle way betwixt a Jew and a Christian; and this they usually lay down in two propositions. The first is, _That the Lord's Day, or first day of the week, namely_ Sunday, _may be called_ the Sabbath: the next is, _That the observation of the Lord's Day is a moral duty, enjoined by God himself, and declared both by the doctrine and practice of Christ and his apostles_. The first appearance of this kind of teachers was in the year of our Lord 1595, near the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth: and because they are neither able to produce direct Scripture, nor solid reason for what they say, they labor to support their conceits by fallacies, falsities and wrestings of God's holy word, as upon scanning their proofs will be manifest to the meanest capacity.

"For their first proposition, they alledge two reasons why the _Lord's Day_ may be called _the Sabbath_. One is because the Sabbath signifies _a rest_; and therefore the Lord's Day being a _rest_, may be called the Sabbath. But to this we answer, it is false that _the Sabbath_ signifies _a rest_; for when by custom of speech a common name is restrained to a particular place, thing, or person, it then becomes a proper name, and so losing its community, does signify that only particular, unto which by custom of speech it is applied; as for instance, _the temple_ is a common name, signifying _the Church_; yet in London, where by custom of speech this name, _The Temple_, is restrained to an Inns of Court, it is false and absurd to say you were at _the Temple_, and mean _the Church of St. Giles_. In like manner _the Sabbath_ is a common name, signifying _the rest_; yet in the Christian Church, where by custom of speech, according to God's holy phrase throughout the Old and New Testament, this name, _the Sabbath_, is restrained to the Jewish weekly festival, it is false and absurd to speak of _the Sabbath_, and mean _the Lord's Day_. Their other reason why the Lord's Day may be called _the Sabbath_, is, because the Lord's Day succeeded in the room of the Sabbath. But if this argument be good, then may _baptism_ be called _circumcision_, the _Lord's Supper_ the _Passover_, and King _James_ Queen _Elizabeth_.

"As for the second proposition, wherein they assert the _morality and divine institution of the Lord's Day_, we shall here notice only three of their reasons. The first is, because Adam, according to God's command, kept the Sabbath in the state of innocency.... But what is the sanctification of the Sabbath spoken of by Moses in the second chapter of Genesis, to our observing the Lord's Day? That was appointed to be kept on _the seventh_ and _last_ day of the week; this is kept on _the first_ day of the week: that was the day in which God _rested_ from his work of creation; this is the day in which God _began_ to create the heavens and the earth: that was our _Saturday_; this is our _Sunday_. Their second proof for the morality of the Lord's Day, is from the fourth commandment, where they seek to corrupt the very text, and would persuade us that for _the_ seventh day, we must read _a_ seventh day; as if God did not there set apart a certain day of the week, but left it to man to keep which of the seven he pleased. Unto which we answer, that this conceit is not only against the letter of all our translations, but even repugnant to the sense of the commandment; for the words are express that God blessed and hallowed the Sabbath day; that Sabbath day was _the seventh_ day; that seventh day was _the day in which God rested from his six days' work of creation_. Nay, grant it were true (as these men would have) that this special precept does exactly oblige us, and that no particular day of the seven was by God appointed to be kept holy, then may we set apart Monday, or Tuesday, or any other day to God's service, as well as Sunday; and so, by their own argument, the Lord's Day is no more moral than any other day of the week. Their third proof is from the title or name, _Lord's Day_, which (say they) cannot be for any other reason, but because it is of the Lord's institution. We answer, this is false; for the Lord's Day was not so called because it was _instituted by the Lord_, but because it was _dedicated to the Lord_; as we commonly say, Saint Mary's Church, or Saint Peter's Church; which no man did ever imagine were built or founded by Saint Mary or Saint Peter."

Near the close of his book, after having examined each of the positions here referred to, he comes directly to his design, and says:--

"In vain, therefore, it is, and most absurd, for you our opponents to charge us with _befooling and misleading the people_. Your own _practice_, your own _doctrines_, shall bear witness betwixt us.

"You who say one while, that God did not appoint _the_ seventh day, the day on which he rested, to be kept holy, but _a_ seventh day, and so one day in seven be observed, no matter which of them; another while, that by this commandment God enjoins us to keep holy _the first day of the week_ on which he _began_ his work of creation--Do you not _befool and mislead the people_?

"You who (forgetting your own doctrine of the fourth commandment) do teach, that the keeping holy the first day of the week, or Lord's Day, was appointed and practised by Christ and his apostles, yet cannot produce so much as one _example_ for it, much less a _precept_--Do you not _befool and mislead the people_?

"You who infer, because St. Paul, and the disciples at Troas, spent the whole night of the first day of the week in praying, preaching, and heavenly conference, in regard he was to leave them and depart on the morrow; _therefore_, St. Paul and the disciples at Troas met _that night_ to keep holy _the day past_; _therefore_ the disciples at Troas met _every first day of the week_, to keep that day holy; _therefore_ the Church at _Philippi_, the Church in _Cilicia_, and _all_ Christian Churches, did then keep holy the first day of the week; _therefore all the apostles_ did constantly keep holy that day; _therefore_ Christ and his apostles _appointed the first day of the week_ to be for ever celebrated, instead of the Sabbath--Is not this pitiful logic? Do you not _befool and mislead the people_?

"You who tell stories of an _old_ Sabbath and a _new_ Sabbath, a _Jewish_ Sabbath and a _Christian_ Sabbath, a Sabbath of the _seventh_ day and a Sabbath of the _first_ day of the week; that so you may slily fix the name _Sabbath_ on _the Lord's Day_, and then persuade the simple and ignorant that all those texts of Scripture wherein mention is made of _the Sabbath day_, are intended of _the Lord's Day_; when indeed to call the Lord's Day _the Sabbath_, is as senseless as to call Sunday _Saturday_, or the _first_ day _the last day_ of the week, when throughout the Old and New Testament we have not the least intimation of any other weekly Sabbath, save the old, Jewish, seventh day Sabbath; when you yourselves confess, that the name Lord's Day, is more proper and particular, and less obvious to exception, than the name Sabbath; and that the name Sabbath is in dignity inferior to both Lord's Day and Sunday--Do you not _befool and mislead the people_?

"You that condemn the yearly observance of Christ's birth-day as heathenish, yet acknowledge this feast to be a constitution of the ancient primitive Church--Do you not _befool and mislead the people_?

"Take ye heed; these are not small matters; consider well with yourselves what it is to stand guilty before God of belying Christ and his apostles, and wilfully wresting the Holy Scriptures. Be advised; take time while time is to repent of those notorious slanders wherewith you have aspersed the ancient approved ways of God's worship; and let the sincerity of your repentance appear by the speedy abandoning of your unchristian practices and principles; lest the heavy judgment of seducers, _to wax worse and worse_, fall upon you, and God in the end _deliver you up_ to such _strong delusions_, that you _should believe your own lies_."

Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society, No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.

No. 6.

TWENTY REASONS FOR KEEPING HOLY IN EACH WEEK,

THE SEVENTH DAY INSTEAD OF THE FIRST DAY.

1. Because the Seventh Day was blessed and sanctified for a Sabbath, by God, immediately after the creation of the world, as a perpetual memorial of that wonderful work, and of His own resting from it; and because there is now as much need for man to remember God's creative work, and to enjoy a weekly rest, as ever there was.

2. Because there is evidence that the Seventh Day was observed from Adam to Moses, by Noah, Jacob, Joseph, and Job. (See Gen. vii. 4, 10; viii. 10, 12; xxix. 27, 28; l. 10; Job. ii. 3.)

3. Because the Seventh Day is a necessary part of the fourth commandment, given at Mount Sinai, graven on stone by the finger of God, and incorporated with the other nine precepts of the Decalogue, which are admitted to be moral in their nature, and perpetually binding. "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy." "The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the _Seventh Day_; _wherefore_ the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day and hallowed it."

4. Because the Old Testament abounds with declarations of God's blessing upon those who keep holy the Seventh Day, and of his vengeance upon those who profane it.

5. Because our Lord Jesus Christ enforced the claims of the law to the fullest extent, saying in regard to the code to which the Seventh Day belonged, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;" and because He always kept holy the Seventh Day, in this doubtless "leaving us an example that we should follow in His steps."

6. Because the holy women who had attended Jesus Christ at his death and burial, are expressly said to have "rested the SABBATH DAY _according to the commandment_," (Luke xxiii. 56;) and because, though the narrative proceeds immediately to record the appearance of Jesus Christ, on the morning of the _first day of the week_, neither there nor elsewhere is one word said about a change of the Sabbath, or about the sabbatic observance of the First Day of the Week.

7. Because the Apostles of our Lord constantly kept the Seventh Day, of which there is abundant evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, and it is declared of Paul, that, "_as his manner was_," he went into the synagogue frequently on the Sabbath Day. (Compare Luke iv. 16 with Acts xvii. 2; see also Acts xiii. 14, 42, 44, and xvi. 13.)

8. Because Jesus Christ, foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem, warned his disciples to pray that their flight might not happen "on the Sabbath Day;" and as that event was to take place almost forty years after the resurrection of our Lord, it appears that the same Sabbath was to be then observed by his disciples.

9. Because there is no other day of the week called by the name of "Sabbath," in all the Holy Scriptures, but the Seventh Day alone; and because, when "the First Day of the Week" is mentioned in the New Testament, it is always clearly distinguished from "the Sabbath."

10. Because not one of those passages which speak of the "First Day of the Week," records an event or transaction peculiar to the Sabbath.

11. Because when God had so carefully committed his Law to writing, had repeated his precepts throughout the prophetic books, and had left so many testimonies and examples of the Seventh Day Sabbath on His sacred records, it is most unreasonable to suppose that He would have repealed or changed one single article thereof, without recording it among the words of our Lord Jesus or His Apostles, in the writings of the New Testament.

12. Because the observance of the Moral Law, (without any exception from it,) is constantly enjoined, in the writings of the Apostles; and one of them says that "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all," quoting at the same time the sixth and seventh commandments. (See Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; Eph. vi. 2, 3; and James ii. 8-11.)

13. Because the religious observance of the _Seventh Day_ of the Week _as the Sabbath_, was constantly practised by the primitive Christians, for three or four hundred years at least; and because, though it gradually fell into disuse, the neglect of the Sabbath was caused only by those corruptions of Christianity, which at length grew up into the grossest idolatry; so that the second commandment was in fact, and the fourth was in effect, abolished by an ignorant, superstitious, and tyrannical priesthood.

14. Because it was only through the superstitious observance of the anniversaries of saints and martyrs, and a multitude of other fasts and feasts, with which the simplicity of revealed religion was encumbered and overwhelmed, that the sabbatic observance of the Seventh Day went out of use; and not (in fact) by any real or pretended command of Christ or His apostles, nor at first by the express authority of any Pope or Council: for it was kept _as a strict fast_, for ages after it lost every other token of a holy day.

15. Because the leaders of the Reformation never claimed for the First Day the name of the Sabbath, and never enforced the observance of that day by any other authority than that of the Church.

16. Because it is obviously absurd--(_and it is an objection often made by irreligious people_)--that the observance of the First Day of the Week as the Sabbath, should be grounded on a divine precept which commands the observance, not of the _First_, but of the _Seventh_ Day.

17. Because, if the fundamental principle of Protestantism be right and true, that "the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants," then the Seventh Day must be the true and only _Sabbath of Protestants_; for, unless that day of the week be kept, they have no _scriptural_ Sabbath at all.

18. Because the pertinacious observance of the First Day of the Week, in the stead of the Seventh, has actually given occasion of great scandal to the Protestant faith; it has caused the Papists to declare that Protestants admit the _authority of human tradition_ in matters of religion; and it has led to intolerance and persecution.

19. Because the observance of the First Day, and neglect of the Seventh, having been adopted partly in contempt of the Jews, has always laid a burden upon them, and presented an obstacle to their receiving Christianity, which ought to be removed.

20. Because the observance of the Seventh Day obeys God, honors the Protestant Principle, rebukes Papacy, removes stumbling-blocks, and secures for us the presence and blessing of "the Lord of the Sabbath."

Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society, No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.

No. 7.

PLAIN QUESTIONS.

Reader! be pleased to give a plain answer to each of these plain questions, without equivocation or mental reservation.

1. Did God, after he had finished the work of creation, "bless and sanctify" THE _seventh day of the week_; or simply the _seventh part of time_, without reference to any _particular day_ of the seven?

2. Did He not sanctify THE _very day in which he rested_ from his work? Was not that _the last day_ of the seven? Did He sanctify any other?

3. WHY did He "bless and sanctify" _the_ seventh day? Was it not because he _rested_ on that day? Will this reason apply to _any other day_ of the seven? Did he not _work_ on EVERY other day? (See Gen. 2:2, 3.)

4. Is not God's example of resting on the seventh day enjoined upon us for imitation? (Ex. 20:8-11.) Do we imitate him, when we rest upon some other day than the one in which He rested?

5. Is it the special _appointment of God_ which renders a day holy, or is it _our own act_? Is the day holy because we _count_ it so, or because God has made it so?

6. When God enjoins us to count the Sabbath, "the holy of the Lord," (Isa. 58:13,) is it not equivalent to telling us that He himself has _previously_ constituted it a holy day by blessing and sanctifying it? Is it any thing more than requiring us to reckon the day to possess that dignity which He _has already_ conferred upon it?

7. If God's blessing does not rest upon one particularly specified day, to the exclusion of all others, and we are nevertheless required to keep a day holy, are we not required to do what _is impossible_? For how can we count a day to be holy, which God has not previously made so? (Compare Quest. 5.)

8. If God's blessing did not rest upon one particularly specified day, could he challenge to himself any propriety in one day more than in another? Yet in the Sabbath day he claims a special propriety; "MY _holy day_." (Isa. 58:13.)

9. Are we not commanded to refrain from labor in _that very day_ which God once "blessed and sanctified," and thereby made holy time? "In IT thou shalt not do any work," &c. Do we obey this command when we work all of that day, and make it the busiest day of all the seven?

10. If it be downright disobedience to set about our work on the seventh day, when God says, "in _it_ thou shalt NOT do any work," can we think to make amends for this act of disobedience by ceasing from work on another day? Even the performance of a required duty will not make amends for another one neglected. How much less, then, the performance of something which is not required! "Who hath required this at your hand?"

11. Has God ever _taken away_ the blessing which he once put upon the seventh day, and made that day a common or secular day?

12. Does not the _reason_ of the blessing (See Quest. 3,) possess all the cogency now that it ever did? Has it lost force by the lapse of time? And while the reason of an institution remains, does not the institution itself remain?

13. Was the reason of the blessing which God originally put upon the seventh day, founded upon any need that men then had of a Redeemer? Was it therefore to receive its accomplishment and fulfillment by the actual coming of the Redeemer? In what possible sense can it be said, that Jesus Christ fulfilled and made an end of this reason?

14. Has God ever said of the first day of the week, In _it_ thou shalt not do any work? Has Christ ever said so? Have the apostles?

15. Is there any scriptural proof that Christ, or his apostles, or the Christian churches in the days of the apostles, _refrained from labor_ on the first day of the week?

16. As there is no transgression where there is no law, (Rom. 4:15; John 3:4,) what sin is committed by working on the first day of the week?

17. Does not the Sabbatic Institution RESULT from the blessing and sanctifying of _a particular day_? Is not this _the very thing in which it consists_? How then is the institution _separable_ from the day thus "blessed and sanctified"? How can it be separated from that upon which its very existence depends?

18. If the very life and soul of the institution consist in the blessing which was once put upon a particular day, is it not idle to talk of the _transfer_ of the institution to another day? If another day has been sanctified and blessed, then it is an _entirely new_ institution, and not a transfer of the old.

19. Does not the law of the Sabbath require the weekly commemoration of _that_ rest which God entered into after he had finished the work of creation? By what principle of law or logic, then, can that law be made to _require_ the commemoration of the work of redemption?

20. If it be necessary that the work of redemption be commemorated weekly by a positive institution, must not the obligation so to commemorate it arise from some law which directly and specifically requires it? But when, instead of this, the attempt is made to derive the obligation from the Sabbath law, is it not a tacit acknowledgment that there is no law requiring the weekly commemoration of the work of redemption?

21. Does the Scripture ever apply the name, _Sabbath_, to the first day of the week? Even in the _New_ Testament, where the term is used, is not the reference always to the _seventh_ day?

22. If Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles ful thirty years after the death of Christ, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, still calls the seventh day of the week the Sabbath, can it be wrong in us to do so? (See Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 16:1, 3; 17:1, 2; 18:4.) If this be the _inspired_ application of the term so many years after all the ceremonial institutions were nailed to the cross, is it not our duty to make the same use of the term now?

23. Is it not a manifest perversion of the scriptural use of terms, to take away the sacred name from the seventh day of the week, and give it to the first day?

24. When the first day of the week is so generally called the Sabbath, are not the common people thereby led to suppose that the Bible calls it so? Are they not thus grossly deceived?

25. If the name _Sabbath_ were no longer applied to this day, and it should simply be called first day of the week, as in the Bible, is it not probable that it would soon lose its sacredness in the eyes of the people?

26. Is it possible, then, that God has not given the day a name sufficiently sacred to secure for it a religious regard, nor even guarded it with a law sufficient to prevent its desecration?

27. _What then?_ HAS GOD LEFT HIS WORK FOR MAN TO MEND! IS IT NOT SAFE TO LEAVE THE DAY AS GOD HAS LEFT IT! "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?" (Isa. 11:13.)

28. Are you very sure that by the Lord's day, (Rev. 1:10,) is meant the first day of the week? Have you any _Scripture_ proof of it? Have you any other proof of it than the testimony of those who are called the early Fathers?

29. If the testimony of the early Fathers is to be relied on, that the Lord's day means the first day of the week, ought not their testimony to be just as much relied on, as to the manner in which the primitive Christians observed the day?

30. If it were even certain that by the Lord's day the writer of the book of Revelations meant to designate the first day of the week, would it thence follow that it is a day _sacred_ by _divine_ appointment, any more than that the "_Sabbath day's journey_" (Acts 1:12,) was a distance limited and prescribed by _divine_ authority? If Luke could select the latter expression from the vocabulary of _human tradition_, without intending to sanction it as being of divine origin, could not John do the same with regard to the former expression?

31. Do the Fathers, or any one of them, inform us that the Lord's day was observed by _abstinence from labor_?--that it was observed as the Sabbath? Mark the question. It is not, was the day _observed_, simply; but, was it observed _as the Sabbath_?

32. Is there not an important distinction between the _Sabbath_ and a _religious festival_? Does not the word Sabbath mean _rest_? Can any day, therefore, be called a Sabbath day, which is not a day of rest from ordinary labor?

33. Does a religious _festival_ require any thing more than the commemoration of some important event, allowing the time not occupied in the public celebration of it to be spent in labor or amusement? Is not this precisely the manner in which the first day of the week was observed, according to the testimony of the ancient Fathers?

34. Though the observance of the first day of the week as a religious festival be in itself innocent, (Rom. 14:5,) so long as it is not made a pretext for dispensing with an express law of God, (Matt. 15:6,) yet do you find it any where in the word of God _commanded_ as a _duty_?

35. Do you believe that a Sabbath, in the true and proper sense of the term; namely, a day of rest from all ordinary labor, is necessary and indispensable to the well-being of mankind? If so, do you honestly suppose that God would set it aside, and have its place supplied by nothing more than a religious festival?

36. Is it not wicked to uphold a course which makes the commandment of God of none effect? (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13.)

Reader! carefully ponder the foregoing questions, together with the Scripture references. Answer them as you would if you stood at the gates of death. Do not trifle with the Holy Spirit of God, by forcibly wresting his word from its obvious meaning. Let conscience be unfettered; and act, as fully realizing that "THOU, GOD, SEEST ME."

Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society, No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.

DIALOGUE,

Between a Minister of the Gospel and a Sabbatarian

_Sabbatarian._ Did Jehovah ever sanctify one day above another?

_Minister._ He did.

_S._ And what day was that?

_M._ The seventh.

_S._ When?

_M._ When he finished his creative work.

_S._ Where?

_M._ In Eden.

_S._ On whom was it obligatory?

_M._ On our first parents, and all their posterity.

_S._ Did he ever unsanctify that day?

_M._ No.

_S._ Did he ever sanctify the first, or any other day than the seventh, as a day of rest?

_M._ Not that I know of.

_S._ Then do not those who neglect the seventh day, take away something from the word of God? And do not those who keep the first day add to that word? Read the threatnings of the Lord against such:--"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 the book 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 which are written in this book."

COUNTERFEIT COIN.

Being the substance of a recent Conversation between an eminent Counsellor at Law and a Sabbatarian.

The Lawyer contended that although the first day of the week had no divine authority for its sanctity or observance as a Sabbath, yet if it be kept as scrupulously and conscientiously as the seventh day demanded, _it could not but be_ as acceptable to God.

In answer to such sophistry, the Sabbatarian submitted the following legal case to him:--

"I am told that I can purchase, in the State of Connecticut, _one hundred_ copper cents, bearing the impress and superscription of the United States Mint, and equal in every respect in value to the mint coin, for _sixty-five_ cents, payable in gold or silver. But I admit them to be counterfeit. I admit, also, that I circulate this spurious coin. Now, will you undertake, for a fee of $10,000, to defend my cause against a prosecution for passing such false coin, and exonerate me from conviction in the United States' Courts."

The honest lawyer's answer unhesitatingly was, "I cannot argue your cause in the very teeth of so unquestionable a law as appears to exist on the Statute Books."[9]

The Sabbatarian replied:--"Then, as you admit _your first day Sabbath a counterfeit_, allow me to answer you as the celebrated Mr. Whiston did Chancellor King of England upon a similar question: 'If God Almighty should be as consistent, as just, and as jealous of his laws in the Court of Heaven, as my Lord Chancellor is in his, _where are we then_?'"

THE INFERENCE.--If, then, I cannot obtain an advocate on earth, (for no one of repute would undertake it,) to plead my cause with the offer of a fee of $10,000, for the violation of a law of man's making, what ground have I to expect that the only advocate to be obtained in the Court of Heaven, i. e. _the Lord Jesus Christ_, will defend my cause against a breach of that law which his father ever made punishable with DEATH, temporal and eternal?--and who himself, when on earth, in his comment on that law, averred that not one _jot_ or _tittle_ could in any wise pass from it? (Matt. 5:18, 19.)

[9] If any person shall falsely make or counterfeit any copper coin of the United States, or pass or publish the same, he shall be subjected to a fine of $1000, and suffer imprisonment to hard labor for a term not exceeding three years.--Gordon's Digest, p. 922.

Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society, No. 9 Spruce Street, N. Y.

No. 8.

SABBATH CONTROVERSY.

THE TRUE ISSUE.

One of the greatest difficulties which we who observe the seventh day have ever found in the Sabbath controversy, is to make our opponents understand what is the real question at issue. So long have their thoughts, feelings and habits, been moulded under one particular view of the subject, that it seems almost a miracle if one is found who can disregard all foreign matter, and look at the precise point in debate long enough to come to any certain and intelligent conclusion about it. But it is evident, that if an opponent is suffered to raise false issues, or to be continually striking off into the discussion of some point which does not affect the final question, we may prolong the controversy _ad infinitum_.

Let us then endeavor to state distinctly what is, and what is not, the issue between us and the observers of the first day of the week.

1. The issue is not whether the first day of the week was observed at a very early period by Christians. We admit that it was. We admit that its observance may be traced up to very near the borders of the apostolic age. What more can a generous, conscientious opponent, who scorns any other aid than what the truth will give him, ask? He knows in his own soul that this is the very utmost that can be produced from any of his histories. Let him ransack his old musty volumes all the way backward, till he fancies he can almost talk to the "beloved disciple" face to face, and what more can he find? Verily, nothing.

But when you have got this admission from us, then we have another question to ask. _How_--don't dodge the question--HOW was the day observed by the early Christians? We admit the observance of it; but that is not the issue. The issue respects the _manner_ of observing it. You, if you are consistent, will say that the early Christians observed it not only by public worship, but by _abstaining from labor_. We, on the other hand, deny that they abstained from labor. We admit that they held public worship; but--we repeat it--_we deny that they abstained from labor_. We deny that they regarded it as a _Sabbath_, "resting according to the commandment." Now with the issue thus fairly stated, we put the laboring oar into your hands, and challenge you to prove your position. Bring proof, if you can, that the early Christians regarded the first day of the week as any thing else than a _religious festival_; between which and a _Sabbath_ there is a very important difference, the latter requiring abstinence from labor, the former merely requiring public worship in honor of the event commemorated, and allowing the remainder of the day to be spent in labor or amusement.

2. When it is once settled, that in a very early period of the church the first day was observed as a festival; when our opponents have fairly jaded themselves to a "weariness of the flesh," in their "much study" of the old fathers, to find proof of it;--though we never called it in question;--then the issue is, whether this festival was _ordained_ by _Christ_?--whether the New Testament furnishes _inspired example_ of such festival? Our opponents affirm; we deny. We maintain that in every passage of the New Testament, where the first day of the week is mentioned, the context furnishes a sufficient reason why it is mentioned, without the least necessity of supposing it to have been a festival season. No exception can be made to this, unless in regard to 1 Cor. 16:2. The reason why the Apostle in this place specifies the first, rather than any other day of the week, does not so clearly appear from the context; but the peculiar phraseology employed, "let each one of you lay by him," [himself,] is against the idea of any public meeting; and if no public meeting, of course no festival season. As every allusion to the first day of the week is sufficiently explained by other circumstances noticed in the context, the _inferential_ proof of its festival character is thereby destroyed. As for _clear_, _positive_ proof of it, such as express precept or command, no person of modesty pretends it. Still less is there any proof of its _Sabbatic_ character.

3. Another point wherein we are necessarily at issue with great numbers of Christians, is whether the _institution_ of the Sabbath is separable from the particular _day_ to be observed. They affirm; we deny. We maintain that God's blessing and sanctifying a particular day is the very thing in which the institution consists. To render this plain matter yet more plain, we invite close attention to the wording of the fourth commandment; premising, however, that the word Sabbath is not _translated_ from a Hebrew word, but is the Hebrew word itself anglicized, just as baptism is an anglicized Greek word. The proper translation of the word is _Rest_. Now let the word Rest be substituted for Sabbath, and how clear it becomes--

"_Remember the Rest day to keep it holy._" [Surely some particular day is denoted; for it is THE Rest day, not A Rest day.] _Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Rest of the Lord thy God._ [Is it any where historically recorded as a fact that God rested on THE seventh day? It is Gen. 2:2. 'On the seventh day God rested from, all his work which he had made.' Who does not see that that day on which God rested, was the _last_ of the seven which constituted the first week of time?] _In it_--[in WHAT? why, in the seventh day, the last day of the week; for the pronoun _it_ can have no other antecedent]--_thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates._ [WHY must no work be done on that particular day, the seventh or last day of the week? The reason follows.] _For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and_ RESTED _on the seventh day_, [as the record in Gen. 2:2 proves. See also Heb. 4:4.] _Wherefore the Lord blessed the Rest day and sanctified it._

The conclusion is irresistible, that the Rest day spoken of is the particular day on which God rested from his work, which, as before shown, was the last day of the week. That very day, and no other, God blessed and sanctified. The only reason assigned _why_ he sanctified it, is "because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Gen. 2:3. The Rest day, then, which we are required to observe, is "the Rest of the Lord thy God:" which does not mean the rest which the Lord thy God has appointed, though it is true that he has appointed it; nor does it mean a rest which becomes the Lord's by reason of our appropriating it to him; but "the rest of the Lord thy God" means THE REST WHICH THE LORD THY GOD OBSERVED.

Now from all this we think it must be evident, that whoever observes any other Rest day than the seventh day of the week, does not observe the Rest--Sabbath--"of the Lord thy God." He may, it is true, appropriate it to the Lord his God, and in that sense call it the Lord's; he may ignorantly suppose that Christ in the Gospel has appointed it, and in that sense also call it the Lord's; but it can by no means be called "the Rest of the Lord thy God" in the sense of that expression in the fourth commandment. Hence, irresistible is our conviction, that he does not obey the commandment. O brother Christian, why will you persist in maintaining that your Sunday keeping is an act of obedience to the law of the Sabbath?

Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society, No. 9 Spruce-street, New-York.

No. 9

THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.

FALSE EXPOSITION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

The Fourth Commandment has been variously expounded by its professed friends. Among these expositions, none has been more injurious than that which represents it as requiring the observance, not of _the_ Sabbath, and _the_ seventh day, but of _a_ Sabbath, and _a_ seventh day--not of a certain and well-known time, but of an uncertain and varying time. Yet this is the exposition of it which is given both by commentators and writers on the subject of the Sabbath. It will be found, however, that this view is generally presented in order to prepare the way to introduce the first day of the week, under the specious name of Lord's Day, into the place of the Sabbath. Thus some are made to think, that the name Sabbath may as well be applied to the first day of the week as to the seventh. But to such an exposition there are several serious objections:--

1. It is a perversion of the original text itself. In every place where the weekly Sabbath and the seventh day are spoken of, the Hebrew article is uniformly used. This article is often used like our demonstrative _this_--but more commonly like our definite article _the_--never as our indefinite article _a_ or _an_; and _Gesenius_, in answer to the question whether it may be used _indefinitely_, says, "The definite article cannot be rightly said to stand indefinitely." To this opinion agree all our translators, both ancient and modern, who have rendered the terms, both in the fourth commandment and all other places of the Scripture, by _the_ Sabbath and _the_ seventh day.

2. It makes the Fourth Commandment to be indefinite and absurd. If that commandment only requires the observance of _a_ Sabbath or _rest_, and that on _a_ seventh day, then one man might keep the seventh day, another the third day, and another the fifth day, yet all obey the commandment. What confusion would thus result from carrying out this exposition to its legitimate results! But God's commandment is not yea and nay after this manner. It says, "_the_ seventh day is _the_ Sabbath of the Lord thy God." That man will not be held guiltless who misinterprets and misrepresents it, for however pious a purpose he may do so.

3. It is contrary to the teachings of the very men who give this exposition; for they affirm, that the fourth commandment required the keeping of _the_ seventh day until Christ came. Now, if the Jews before Christ, were bound to keep a certain and definite day, and that _the_ seventh day, then the commandment required a certain and definite day, and that _the_ seventh day.

From these considerations it is evident, that those who represent the fourth commandment as requiring the observance of only _a_ Sabbath, and that upon _some one_ day of the seven indefinitely, are guilty of a false exposition of the commandment, and of handling the word of God deceitfully. They make a plain passage of Scripture to signify one thing for some thousands of years, and then ever afterwards to signify another thing. Thus do they make void the commandment of God, that they may keep their own traditions.

Now let us turn to a consideration of some of the _consequences_ of this kind of exposition. Among these we will mention only three.

1. It overturns all certainty in explaining the Scriptures. If a man, in translating from a Latin or Greek author, should pervert his author's meaning in this manner, by using words in a different sense from that in which they were intended, he would be cast out and despised. But yet when a preacher represents the term _the Sabbath_ as meaning simply _a rest_, that so he may call the first day of the week _a rest_, and therefore _the Sabbath_, he deals worse with the Scriptures than the translator just mentioned does with his profane author. Instead, however, of being cast out and despised, his speculations are allowed to go for truth. Thus unbelievers are encouraged in their infidelity; and occasion is given for them to say, that the Bible is interpreted by its friends to mean just what they please to have it. It is dangerous for men to use their wits thus to blind the eyes of their fellows.

2. It abolishes the Lord's Sabbath, and makes the Fourth Commandment to be a mere cipher. First, it abolishes the Lord's Sabbath, because it teaches that the observance of the seventh day, on which God rested and which he introduced into the commandment as one with the Sabbath, is not at all binding, but the day may be spent in any kind of labor. Is not this to abolish _the Lord's_ Sabbath? Second, it makes the fourth commandment a cipher, because it takes away the _time_, which is the seventh day, and the _event commemorated_, which is God's resting from his creative work. Now read the commandment, as these expounders would have it, bereft of the _time_ and the _event commemorated_. It then commands only _a rest_, without any precept or example as to its length or frequency. One person, therefore, may rest one hour in each day; another one day in a month; and a third one month in a year; and each may call this keeping the Sabbath. Does not this make the fourth commandment a mere cipher?

3. It abuses God's Word, and misleads his people. It abuses his word by representing that the Word teaches what it does not teach, and that it fails to teach what it attempts to teach. It misleads his people, on one side, by pressing the fourth commandment to sustain the first day of the week, which it says nothing about, thus laying a yoke upon the people, requiring them to observe a day, in regard to which they will finally be asked, Who hath required this at your hands? On the other side, it misleads the people, by encouraging them to neglect a day which God hath sanctified; and commanded them to keep holy.

Such are some of the consequences of this false exposition of the fourth commandment. They affect both the sabbatic institution itself, and those whose duty it is to remember it. It is true that the persons who countenance such expositions are called very zealous and godly men; but this, instead of bettering the case, makes it worse. If they were enemies to the commandment, such things might be expected, and would be comparatively unimportant; but that the wound should be inflicted by its friends, aggravates the evil. There is occasion to tremble for some religious teachers, who profess great interest in the Sabbath, but who yet refuse to hear the truth in regard to it. Some such there are, who, if the truth be presented to them, instead of inquiring if these things are so, imitate the Jews of old who, when they were cut to the heart, gnashed on their reprover with their teeth; and when they could endure it no longer, "stoppped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord." Such would do well to inquire if they are not in this thing teaching error for truth, and their own traditions for the commandments of God.

Published by the American Sabbath Tract Society, No. 9 Spruce-street, New-York.

[No. 10.]

THE TRUE SABBATH

EMBRACED AND OBSERVED.

BY ELD. SAMUEL DAVISON,

Many years a regular Baptist Minister; now Pastor of the Seventh day Baptist Church in Shiloh, New Jersey.

NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMER. SABBATH TRACT SOCIETY

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.

Having often been solicited to give an account of my conversion from the observance of what is commonly called the Lord's Day, or Sunday, to the observance of the ancient Sabbath of Jehovah, the seventh day of the week, I submit this brief narrative to public notice, not so much for the justification of my present practice, as in the hope that it may be the means of leading many other Christian people candidly to examine this subject, which, as it appears to me, is very essential to the restoration of primitive Christianity. The narrative derives its importance, not from the person of the narrator, but from the practical exhibition which it furnishes of the working of divine truth upon the mind.

EARLY PREPOSSESSIONS.

My parents, and nearly all of my family connections, being members of Baptist churches, or attached to that denomination--and I having been a member of the same for above twenty-five years, and more than half that time an accredited minister among them--all my preferences and prepossessions were with their peculiarities as churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. If there was one characteristic doctrine of the Baptists which I esteemed above another, it was this: "We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by the inspiration of God, and are a perfect rule of faith and practice." I could say with the Psalmist, "My heart standeth in awe of thy word; for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

MATURED ATTACHMENTS.