THE LORD'S SABBATH PROVED BY SUNDAY ARGUMENTS.
By G. W. A.
LAST week several important extracts were given from the pen of Mr. Kingsbury, a first-day writer, which were entirely in harmony with the views of those who observe the Sabbath of the Lord. This week still more of these extracts are presented. On pages 41–43 of his work are some very pertinent thoughts relative to the Sabbath and the law of God's being known and understood in the earliest ages of the world. These are as follows:— “Should we take it for granted, that there was no law requiring our first parents, and the antediluvians, to keep a day of rest, because none was then written, we must also conclude that there was none against murder. But God certainly did punish Cain for the murder of his brother, showing that he had, in some way, made known such a law. For where there is no law there can be no sin. For the same reason, the antediluvians must have understood his will; or they would not, for acting contrary to it, have been buried in one common grave. Yet there is not the least allusion made to any of the ten commandments in the history of the old world. On the other hand, suppose it were indisputably proved that there was no Sabbath instituted until after the flood; this would not prove the Sabbath to have been intended only for the Jews. It would only be presumptive evidence that God could not keep men from wickedness, and lead them to himself by oral instruction, without a particular day set apart, to give and receive such instruction; and that therefore he established a new dispensation, wrote the commandments, and appointed one day in seven, when they should be read and expounded. But there is not, in our mind, a shadow of doubt, that the Sabbath was given in Eden, and designed for all men, and of perpetual obligation. Nor, can there be any doubt that all the moral laws were understood by the inhabitants of the old world. Else, the destruction of the antediluvians is wholly unaccountable and unjust. From God's dealings also with Sodom and Gomorrah, it is evident that they were held accountable for their conduct. This would not have been, had there existed no law; yet they were destroyed before Israel, as a nation, had come into existence.” “From the dealings of God with the Jews, and from what is recorded respecting them before the giving of the law on Sinai, we are irresistibly led to conclude, that they were, previous to that event, acquainted with, and governed according to, the laws contained in the decalogue. We find indisputable evidence that they were acquainted with the laws in regard to the Sabbath, marriage, and murder. From plain allusions it is obvious that idolatry, adultery, covetousness, and theft, were also understood to be sins against God, by the Jews, in this early stage of their history. The manner in which the law was given was admirably suited to impress on their minds the importance of obeying it, and to fill them with awe and reverence for the character of the terrible Lawgiver. The commandments were repeated in the hearing of all Israel amidst thunderings and lightnings, and quakings of the earth, and the voice of a trumpet, waxing louder and louder, that the people might believe them, and they were written that they might remember and do them. The whole transaction seems designed, not so much to give the people information on the subject of their duty, as to so impress the commands on their minds, that they might never forget them. “There are expressions in the commandments which show that they were not at that time new to the people of Israel. In the second, for instance, God speaks of showing mercy unto such as love him and keep his commandments—not these commandments, as though they were now for the first time promulgated, but ‘my commandments,’ as if they were already acquainted with them. Again, the fourth commandment commences ‘Remember the Sabbath day.’ But we cannot remember what we have never known; and to suppose that God was calling on the people to remember what was then entirely new to them, is to suppose that he, who is infinite in wisdom would speak nonsense.” Pages 43 and 44 speak still further of the law, why it was written, and of its adaptation to Gentiles as well as Jews:— “The same grand moral principles by which all past generations had been governed, must now be written. The writing of these moral precepts must not be left to Moses, but be done by the finger of God. Other laws were given at the same time, very important for the religious improvement of the Jews, to whom this precious treasure was committed. But they were ceremonial, only designed for them during their scholarship, and these might be written by Moses. They were types and shadows of things to come; yet were they practical lessons, adapted to deepen the impression on their minds. The chosen people, too, were so far gone in wickedness, so ignorant of the divine character and government, that they were kept forty years, as it were, in one vast camp-meeting, learning the mind and will of God, and forgetting wickedness and idolatry.” “At length we find them prepared to come out among the Gentiles, with these moral laws so indelibly written on their memories, as well as on tables of stone, that they could never be entirely effaced. These laws were now to speak to them instead of God; and are also to be to us in his stead. For he does not communicate his will to us, as he used to do to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets. “These same commands were often repeated, in substance, after the transactions on Sinai, which seems to show that very probably they had often been before. “The fact that there were many laws given to the Jews not contained in the ten commandments, and which cannot be inferred from them, furnishes additional proof that God made a distinction between these and other laws which were given only for the Jews as a nation. A distinction was obviously needed between those which, from their very nature, are binding on all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, and those which referred only to one nation, and embraced only a limited period of time.” “We may safely infer that God intended the Sabbath for the Gentiles, because the reasons of its observance apply to them as much as to the Jews. They, and their servants and cattle, as much need the refreshment of a day of rest—they have as much cause for gratitude and admiration in view of the work of creation—God's resting is as much an example for them as for the Jews.” Mr. Kingsbury speaks again with much clearness in reference to there being no mention made of the Sabbath for some time after creation:— “Others object, that as the Sabbath is not mentioned for the space of twenty-five hundred years after the creation, it could not have been instituted in Eden. But if this argument proves any thing, it proves too much. For it is not mentioned from the time of Joshua till David ascended the throne. Circumcision is neither mentioned nor alluded to from a little after Moses till Jeremiah, a period of eight hundred years. Are we to believe that none of the pious kings, during that long period, were circumcised? Who, then, can say that none of the holy patriarchs kept a Sabbath, because it is not mentioned during a period of46twenty-five hundred years? Neither are sacrifices mentioned for fifteen hundred years—from Abel to the deluge; nor from Jacob, at Beersheba, till the deliverance from Egypt—two or three hundred years more. No mention is made of the Sabbath in the books of Joshua, Ruth, 1st and 2d Samuel, or 1st Kings, which are so much more specific and minute, and more voluminous, than the book of Genesis, in which the history of many centuries is written on three or four leaves of a common Bible. (The ordinance of the red heifer is never noticed, from the Pentateuch till the close of the Old Testament; but we know from the apostle that it was in constant use.) The book of Psalms, and some of the prophets, rarely mention the Sabbath; but this is no evidence that it was not kept.” On pages 52–57, inclusive, our author argues in favor of the perpetuity of the law with all the zeal of a Sabbath-keeper. He is meeting the objection so common in our time, that “the moral law, or ten commandments, has been abrogated.” Mr. Kingsbury says:— “The objector to the Sabbath also often meets us with the assertion that the moral law, or ten commandments, has been abrogated. There were given to the Jews a moral, ceremonial, and judicial or civil law. One or more of these may have been abolished, and the other still remain in full, if not augmented, force. We shall see if the latter is not the case with the whole of the moral law, or ten commandments. Infidels, and all those who would give full license to their covetous desires and unholy passions, often quote Paul, Acts xv, 5, 24, to prove that the law, meaning the law of the Sabbath, and indeed the whole decalogue, is now no longer in force. Some of them would have no law, neither moral nor civil. Say they, Let public sentiment be the only law to regulate men's actions. But it may be well to see how Christ and his apostles understood this matter. “In the first place, then, in Matt. v, 17–19, in the memorable sermon on the mount, we find Christ using this language,—‘Think not [for some at that day talked just as infidels and deists now do] that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’ But, it is asked, What law is here spoken of, the ceremonial or moral? Not the former, of course; for that, as a matter of fact, was destroyed, i. e., abrogated, at his death; which is implied in the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles being, by that event, broken down. The apostles, too, throw the whole weight of their inspired teachings, and divinely-bestowed authority, against the observance of the ceremonial law. Christ, then, did come to destroy that law. But he fulfilled the moral law, in his own person; he inculcated it in its purity, and as one having authority; his whole system of morality is based upon it. If he came to destroy the moral law, he came to undo his own work, the effect of his own mission. But Christ, in the succeeding verse, has put the matter forever at rest. ‘Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so,’ &c.; commandments, i. e., the moral law, which no man may break, no, not the least of them. “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” All the prophecies must be fulfilled; for he came not to destroy them. But all the prophecies are not yet fulfilled; therefore, not one jot or tittle of the law, of which Christ spoke, can pass away, until such fulfillment. Consequently he spoke of the ten commandments, the moral law. Now, who dare take from this law, from these commandments, the law of the Sabbath? Would the fourth precept be not so much as a jot or a tittle, or one of the least of them? If not, then Christ may not call the man who tears it from the decalogue to account for his conduct. But be it remembered by all who would go to Heaven, that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, far exceed it, or they will finally fail of reaching that holy place. The whole of the decalogue, then, as written by the finger of God on tables of stone, and all the prophecies, remain as they were at Christ's coming. The law is still, and forever shall be, every word of it, in force; and all the prophecies shall be accomplished. The ceremonial law, the things typical of Christ, were abrogated when he hung upon the cross, and these only. “Matt. xxii, 36–40: ‘Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’ “This Pharisee, who was a lawyer, understood what was meant by ‘the law and the prophets;’ he evidently anticipated the answer he received. No sooner was the question propounded, than Christ gave the answer. This he did by including in one commandment the sum of all that was contained in the first table of the law, touching his duty to God; and in the other, the sum of all that was written on the second table of the law, or ten commandments, touching his duty to man; assuring the lawyer that these two commandments were the foundation on which all the law and the prophets stood; they were built on these two main pillars. Unless these were observed, the prophecies could not be fulfilled, nor would any of the ceremonial or judicial laws avail any thing, if these, i. e., the ten commandments, were given up. “Christ did not tell this lawyer that there was any difference in the commandments; that the Sabbath was one of minor importance, and could be dispensed with; or that those in the second table were not equally dear to him with those in the first table: but ‘the second is like unto it’—each, all are important, and cannot be separated. Should any person say that the Sabbath cannot be included in either of these commandments, mentioned by our Saviour, he would greatly err, not understanding the Scriptures, nor observing the physical as well as spiritual benefits of that day. Love to our neighbor will prompt us to give him a Sabbath. And we cannot love God if we ‘do not the things which he says.’ “In Luke xvi, 17, Christ says, ‘And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail.’ In the previous context he had said, ‘The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached.’ As if he had said, before it was not preached as it now is. But let no man suppose from this, that John or myself have done away the law or the prophets; for ‘it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail;’ the law is immutable; heaven and earth will fail, but the law cannot.”