The Last No-Sabbath Argument
The last argument for no-Sabbath we have seen, is presented by G. A. Brigham, in the Harbinger, [now Expositor] for July 1st. He says:—“But little hope need be entertained of our ever embracing the seventh day while we have the use of our reason. It is said, ‘The Sabbath was made for man,’ we are men, therefore, we must keep the Sabbath. We would remark, circumcision was made for man, we are men, therefore circumcision was made for us, and we must be circumcised. We contend for the validity of one argument as much as the other.” But it should be borne in mind that it was our Divine Lord who said, “The Sabbath was made for man;” while it is a frail mortal man who presumptuously asserts that “circumcision was made for man.” In contending for the “validity of one argument as much as the other,” B. must consider his own assertion of the same authority as the declaration of the Son of God!! It is a plain fact, which will not be denied, that “man,” used in the broadest sense, means all mankind; therefore, when the Great Teacher declares that the Sabbath was made for man, he teaches that it was made for the entire race. Of circumcision, the apostle says: “But he is a Jew which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit.” Rom. ii, 29; Col. ii, 11. Outward circumcision was not made for the entire race of man. The inwrought work of the Holy Spirit on the heart, took its place more than 1800 years since. Will those who teach that the Sabbath ceased with circumcision, be so kind as to show us what has taken its place in the gospel? But we will let the great Apostle settle the question as to circumcision and the commandments of God in the gospel. He says:—“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God is something.” Whiting’s Translation of 1 Cor. vii, 19. Now let him, who dare, place them upon a level! Such Extreme weakness as is apparent in this last argument for no-Sabbath by B., betrays great anxiety to prop up a tottering cause. We are inclined to agree with B. that “but little hope need be entertained” of his “embracing the seventh day” for there can be little hope that one who will present so weak a reason for the abolition of the Sabbath, as he has, and then close his article with misrepresentations and slanderous statements relative to Sabbath-keepers, as he has, will ever appreciate real Bible argument, or feel the force of Divine Truth.