Untitled article by W. C. G.

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, August 13, 1867

“THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH.—IS ITS OBSERVANCE BINDING?”

By W. C. G.

We have received a tract entitled as above, written by one G. W. Bailey, in which he endeavors to show that this question should be answered in the negative. Considerable ingenuity is displayed in his methods of argument, and as it might have the effect to mislead the superficial reader, we deem it worthy of notice; and especially, as it comes to us endorsed by the Western Advent Christian Publishing Association, bearing their imprint, and advertised as for sale at their office. To be sure, the author starts out with the declaration that he wishes no one held responsible for his positions, but it seems the W. A. C. P. Association chooses to assume this responsibility, by publishing the work and advertising it through their paper.

It may not be amiss to remark that this Association is also about to publish a work upon the same subject from the pen of Elder Preble, whose positions are entirely antagonistic to those of Mr. Bailey, Eld. P. professing to be a ten-commandment man and a stickler for Sunday, while Mr. B. is a no-law, no-sabbath advocate. Our opponents care not how the Sabbath question is fought, nor on what grounds, provided it is done, and all the factions in the country, of whatever stripe, are united in one common enmity against God’s Sabbath.

The first point which the writer endeavors to establish is that the Sabbath was a part of the first covenant, and that the ten commandments constituted that covenant. Proving that the first covenant is done away, he has now got rid of the troublesome Sabbath, by having it abolished. But hold! what else has he done? Those precepts forbidding idolatry, profanity, murder, adultery, theft, lying and covetousness, which were also a part of that covenant, have also “waxed old” and “vanished away.” But, says one, those are in the new covenant. How can this be, when they have vanished away?

But suppose he is correct in making the ten commandments the first covenant, and in proving that therefore that covenant came into existence on Mount Sinai! If we can prove that the Sabbath existed and was binding before the giving of the ten commandments to Moses, then the abolition of that covenant would have no effect upon it whatever. If the Sabbath could exist independent of the covenant before it was instituted, it could still continue to exist after that covenant was done away, upon the same basis that it stood before. That the Sabbath was binding for at least thirty days or more before the giving of the law on Sinai is shown in Ex. xvi, where it is recognized as an existing institution and binding upon the children of Israel.

We do not propose however to leave this question here, but shall endeavor to prove conclusively that the first covenant was not the ten commandments. Mr. B. endeavors to prove that there was but one covenant in the former dispensation, or at least utterly ignores the fact that there was more than one. That we may not be accused of misrepresenting him we will give a verbatim extract from his work:

“In Galatians iii, 16 and onward, we read: ‘Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, That the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.’ Here we find a law, the date of which is 430 years this side of the promise to Abraham, which is, also, “the covenant.” We shall find that this date brings us down from Abraham to Sinai; the locality of the first covenant: and, also, the date of it.” Page 7.

It will be seen from the above that a grave error is committed here in confounding the covenant confirmed to Abraham, with the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after. The covenant was one thing and the law which could not disannul that covenant, was another, and we marvel greatly that even a casual reading of the text could lead to any other conclusion. He has now taken the sword by the blade and given us the hilt, for we shall prove by this very text that there was a covenant four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the ten commandments. Whether this was the “first covenant” referred to by Paul is not now material.

The ten commandments are called a covenant, but they do not constitute the covenant which was done away, as it does not “fill the picture,” as Mr. B. triumphantly claims. He first endeavors to establish the fact that the first covenant consists of the ten commandments and nothing else. He finds a covenant in the ark, 1 Kings viii, 21, and then proves from verse 9 that there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone. We are glad he is thus positive on this point, as he has fatally committed himself by admitting all we could ask for.

Now the reader will bear in mind that his first covenant is the ten commandments, no more, no less. Now let us see what Paul says about this covenant. Heb. ix, 1. “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” Do we find anything on the tables of stone about ordinances of divine service, or anything which required a sanctuary? Not one word. The first covenant (or testament—διαθήκη) was dedicated with blood, which was sprinkled on it by Moses, verse 18. Were the tables of stone thus sprinkled? Most assuredly not. Then the first covenant cannot be the ten commandments, for according to Mr. B. the ten commandments alone constitute a covenant, and these cannot “fill the picture.” W. C. G.

(To be continued.)