Untitled article by W. H. Littlejohn

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, August 20, 1867

THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

(Continued.)

Acting upon this principle, we shall exclude, as not being pertinent to this issue, any testimony which shall be offered, which has for its foundation Church history, and for its object, the establishment of the fact, by other than Scripture evidence, that Christ and his apostles profaned the seventh and regarded as holy the first day of the week. Nor shall we make any discrimination in favor of Martin Luther, his co-laborers, or any of the good men who have since lived. What we want, is to ascertain if possible, the will of God in this matter. We shall go, therefore, directly to the fountain head, refusing to drink from the pitcher of any, no matter how illustrious his name, nor how pure his intentions, lest, when tested by the chemistry of Heaven, its contents shall be shown to contain properties which do not belong to the waters of life. Nor shall we, in this, render ourselves liable to the charge of being over-nice. For we are but urging in theory, what all have admitted in practice. To illustrate: are you a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, a Methodist, a Baptist, or an Episcopalian? If so, then you have in your creed, doctrines which Luther never espoused, and some of which he would have disapproved. This being the case, you have, yourself, refused to make his opinions the standard. Nor have you erred in this. For that he held views for which the Scriptures furnished no warrant, is too generally admitted to need proof. Nor should this fact occasion surprise. The wonder is that, indoctrinated as he was in the beginning with the multitudinous errors of the Catholic church, he was so far favored as to receive that degree of light and grace which enabled him to see and expose so many of her false doctrines as he did. God's purpose, as shown in his providence, since the great apostasy of this dispensation, is to bring us back ultimately to a perfect understanding of that faith which was originally committed to the saints. The men of the sixteenth century acted a noble part in this glorious work. It was their fortune to rear the first great barrier which was able to resist the power of the rapidly-advancing flood of Papal corruption. They did more than this. They pressed it back, and re-possessed a large portion of the territory which had been occupied by the enemy. Since then other noble spirits have been raised up, who have covered themselves with imperishable honor, without detracting from that of those who have gone before, by correcting their mistakes, discarding some of the tenets which they had accepted as sound, and rescuing others which had been entirely overlooked. Has this long line of devoted and courageous men terminated forever? Is there no longer any need of their services? Have we attained the unity of the faith and the perfection of love? Is our age an exception to the rule, in that it has no present truth which will test the sincerity of every man's profession, and purify a people by trials and sacrifices? Does not the present apathy of the church, its pride, its worldliness, its fashionableness, its popularity, afford unmistakable signs that the leaven of false doctrines still corrupts its life? Has it not been noticeable that her declension in piety began at the same time, and has increased in exact ratio, with her disposition

to ignore reforms, and avert her eyes from the path of crosses, lest she might discover that it was that of duty, also? If so, the proper remedy should be immediately applied. Every article of her faith should be made to pass under a critical examination. This is a work of time and should be characterized by order and system. As Sunday-keeping is now under consideration, we shall do well to settle this, as being the first in order. It becomes us to move with the greatest caution in this matter, and to apply with perfect fidelity, those rules which we have already seen to be the only ones which can be used with safety in deciding questions of this nature. If the results which would follow from the verdict which we as individuals must give, are not sufficient to awaken in us an appreciation of the extreme circumspection which should characterize our movements, it will be well to recall the fact that, since the keeping of the first day of the week has been shown to involve a violation of the letter and the spirit of the fourth commandment, it is at least possible that it may be the work of that power which was to “think to change times and laws.” Dan. vii, 25. That after all, this coin which has passed current till its friction of centuries has worn it so smooth that its date can only be deciphered with difficulty, may, when placed in the crucible, and subjected to the developing power of heat, be made to exhibit in stronger outlines the crown of an Emperor on one side and the tiara of a Pope on the other. To the law then, and to the testimony.

As I cannot be expected to prove a negative, I ask for a candid statement of the reasons which have induced you to adopt this innovation. Give me the chapter and the verse which contains a positive declaration that the Lord has ever amended the fourth commandment in such a manner as to enjoin the observance of the first, instead of the seventh day of the week. You answer, It cannot be found. Then inform me where I can obtain an exact copy of the commandment, as amended. This is very desirable, as we may differ widely as to the import of the language in which it is expressed. Perhaps you have misconstrued it altogether. You reply, it does not exist. When, where, and under what circumstances was it amended? You respond, the place and manner are not definitely given. But do you not see, that by these three confessions, your belief has been shorn of every thing which gave it positive character? That it has become a thing of conjecture, the creature of hypothesis, the child of supposition. And yet you have admitted nothing more than what is true. Thousands when challenged in like manner, though confident at first that they could turn immediately to the desired testimony, have, after weeks of patient investigation, been forced to make the humiliating concession that it did not exist.

But, say you, I can furnish proof that Christ and his apostles kept holy the first day of the week. Before examining the grounds upon which you base this confident assertion, suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, that it is correct. Having done this, since it is your chosen stronghold, and constitutes the only defense which is left you, if we can show, that though it were true, it would not shield you from your obligations to observe the seventh day also, then would you be left entirely without cover. Do you not acknowledge, you ask, that such a precedent would be binding upon us? Yes, provided there is any thing to show that it was given for our imitation. And we are willing to agree, for the sake of giving you all the latitude which you ask, that there is. Do you not perceive, however, that all this simply has the effect to multiply the difficulties of your situation? That since you have failed to prove the repeal of the fourth commandment, we are now obligated to keep both the seventh and the first day of the week? For one is ordained as the Sabbath by a plain precept, and the other by an admitted precedent. But, say you, it is not possible that God desires us to keep two days in seven. Consequently it follows that the old Sabbath is done away. Should we admit your premise to be true, your deduction is unsound. There cannot be a more obvious principle of logic, than the admitted one, that when there are apparently two duties imposed, one by hypothetical argument, and the other by positive command, and when it would be

unreasonable to suppose that both are binding, then the latter will always take the preference, and furnish the rule of action.

Nor would the case be different should we go one step farther, and grant that you had an explicit statute, for the keeping of the first day; for laws never repeal each other, unless by necessary consequence; i. e., if two be passed both are executed if it be possible, even though they be somewhat similar in their natures, provided, that it is not expressly stated that one is designed to repeal the other, and provided that it is not utterly impossible that both should be carried into effect. Suppose for example, that some prince should issue an edict requiring every person in his kingdom to suspend business on the fourteenth day of February in each year, because it was the anniversary of his birth. Again, suppose this has been faithfully carried out for years, and another is promulgated, whereby the fifteenth day of the same month is to be celebrated annually, in the same manner, because it was on this day that he entered upon his regency, and suppose the penalty attached to these laws was that of death. Think you that there would be found in his whole realm a man rash enough to conclude, at the peril of his life, that the issuing of the last of the edicts, abrogated the first? Ought you then to be less cautious about disregarding a decree of Jehovah, whose penalty is that of eternal death, and therefore more terrible than any which man can inflict? Yet such is the course which you pursue. For you set aside God's chosen memento of his rest after creation, simply because you claim that he has selected the day following as one to be kept in honor of redemption. Think not however, that you can easily escape condemnation. For if your premises are right, you are chained by every principle of logic and consistency, to the observance of both of these days.

As this would be an unpleasant necessity, and one which in the long run would become exceedingly burdensome, the idea naturally suggests itself, that it is highly improbable that God has ever imposed it. That, after all, we may have misconstrued certain events which have hitherto been regarded as furnishing abundant proof that Sunday-keeping is of apostolic origin. In order that we may be doubly sure that you have not misjudged respecting this, we propose to put you upon your proof. Where is it recorded, in so many words, that Christ, his apostles, or those converted under their preaching, ever kept, or attempted to keep holy one single first day of the week? You answer, Nowhere, and continue that your belief that they did, rests upon certain facts incidentally brought to view in the New Testament. Here then, is a ray of light. Our first inquiries revealed the fact, that the superstructure of your faith was reared upon the shifting sand of precedent, instead of the fixed rock of precept. The answer to our second, already suggests the possibility that another glance will show the whole thing to be a delusion which owed its existence to an unwarrantable deduction from admitted facts. This will become more evident as we proceed.

We have neither the space nor the disposition to enter into an examination in detail, of even all of the limited number of passages which are quoted in defense of the views which we are combating.

We call attention first to the language of Rev. i, 10. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.” These words of John are often cited by our opponents as containing a recognition of what they are pleased to term the “Christian Sabbath.” The manner in which this is obtained, though it cannot claim the merit of ingenuity, furnishes such a striking illustration of the extent to which prejudice and preconceived notions can cloud the judgment and blunt the perceptions of minds that are naturally acute, that it demands a passing notice. The syllogism which is ordinarily used for this purpose, runs substantially as follows:

First, The Lord has a day in this dispensation which is peculiarly his own, since the Holy Spirit gives this appellation to the one on which John was in the Spirit.

Secondly, Christians ought therefore, to celebrate it in a suitable manner.

Thirdly, The first day of the week was the one to which the revelator referred, and should, consequently, be observed with great solemnity.

With the first two points we shall not quarrel. All that we ask is, that those who urge them, will act the part of consistency, and follow them to their legitimate results as they will be made to appear farther on. The third, we unhesitatingly pronounce a non sequitur, a begging of the question, so bold, that none can fail to recognize it as such; a dogmatic assertion that their view is right, without a scintilla of evidence to rest it upon. The text, standing alone, by itself, barely proves that there was a day known, as late as the writing of the Apocalypse, as the Lord's. While unexplained by other scriptures, we would be as much in the dark respecting the one which here bears this distinguishing title, as though we had never heard of its existence. We cannot even determine from it whether it is of annual or weekly recurrence. One, with a show of logic, might insist that it was the day of Christ's nativity, here alluded to. Another, that it was that of his resurrection. Again, the classes to which the last two belong, might be so sub-divided that one would understand that these days returned yearly, the other weekly. And thus we might multiply inferences without number. So that should we approximate as nearly to certainty as we might under the circumstances, we could only say with confidence, that if the annual theory were right, then we must be on at least one in every seven years. But if that be wrong, and the weekly right, then our chances would be as one to seven.

Fortunately, there is a way of escape from a position so disagreeably uncertain. The Scriptures, in this, as in most other cases, will furnish the key that will unlock the mystery. The very familiarity with which John speaks of the Lord's day, renders it certain that it was well known to all. This being so, it would be strange indeed if no trace of its origin and history could be found upon the sacred pages. But if they are there, it will be an easy matter to determine whether the first or some other day, was the one upon which the apostle witnessed that sublime panorama of coming events, reaching even beyond the limits which history has yet attained. Take your Bible, therefore, and search patiently for the chapter or the verse which registers an act or a word of Jehovah, which clearly indicates that he has at any time bestowed upon the first day of the week, honors which rendered it especially his own. Our word for it, you will not find what you desire between its lids. Though it is many times mentioned in both Testaments, the same Spirit which you claim inspired John to designate it as the Lord's day in the Revelation, afterward, while guiding his pen in writing the gospel, always refers to it by the use of its proper numeral; facts which are strangely mysterious, if you be right; for it would be difficult to explain why it was that the Lord having a day of his own, in a sense higher than that in which all belong to him, should have spoken of it but this once in the possessive case. To our mind, the conclusion is irresistible that the words in controversy, have had a misapplication. Nor need we travel far before discovering where the difficulty lies. The very men who have made the mistake, have furnished an index finger which points so directly to the source of all this trouble, that we have but to look where it indicates, and the mystery is at once unveiled. Times without number have clergymen read with solemn emphasis, and devout congregations sung with the spirit, if not the understanding, the following:

“Another six day's work is done, Another Sabbath is begun: Return my soul, enjoy thy rest, Improve the day that God hath blessed.” —Church Psalmist.

There is, then, a day which “God hath blessed.” Listen again, and we shall ascertain which it is that has received this benediction:

“Again the day returns of holy rest; Which, when he made the world, Jehovah blessed. When, like his own, he bade our labors cease, And all be piety, and all be peace.” —Church Psalmist.

The allusion here made is unquestionably to Gen. ii, 3. “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created and made.”

It affords us important aid at this juncture, since the passage to which it refers furnishes the most indubitable evidence that in the beginning God made a marked difference between the days of the week, so far discriminating in favor of the seventh, as to bless and sanctify it. Having learned thus much, and knowing that the Lord is not fickle, that he should without cause withdraw his favor from one day, and give it to another, and having seen that the first day when placed in the scales has been found wanting, we are now prepared to examine the strongly presumptive claims which the seventh lays to the honor of being the only one which can properly be denominated the Lord's day. These claims are based upon the following scriptures, and many others of like import, but which it will be unnecessary to quote here. First, “And he said unto them, this is that which the Lord hath said: to-morrow [i. e. the seventh day,] is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Ex. xvi, 25. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Ex. xx, 10. “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.” Ex. xx, 11. “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, [i. e. the Lord's holy day,] and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isa. lviii, 13, 14.

From the above it is clearly deducible that the Sabbath day and the Lord's day were identical. For inspiration, while referring to the former, applies to it (as in the case of Isa. lviii.) the term Sabbath, and my holy day, in a manner which shows that they were considered but different names for the same thing. It is manifest therefore, that following the example set us, we can with propriety substitute the latter for the former, wherever it occurs.

Again, as the Sabbath has once been set apart by solemn act of God as a day which belonged to him exclusively, it must ever remain such, till by an equally clear expression of his will, all days are reduced to a common level, or another receive the sanctity that had been previously attached to the one which he had claimed. As this has never been done, since the commandment has not been repealed, and since it is true that even though it had, the seventh day would still remain the Sabbath, because its claims to this distinction are even older than the commandments themselves, reaching back to the first week of creation, it follows, that it entered the new dispensation, clothed with the same dignity, and shining with the same lustre, which characterized it in the old. This being the case, whenever reference is made to it in the New Testament, it would be legitimate to make mention of it by the use of its old and familiar name, Lord's day. And as the definite article the is used by John, it is evident that there was but one day known as such. We conclude, therefore, that this is the one of which he spake. Without further comment, we pass to the consideration of the other points, with the simple request that we may be allowed to correct the syllogism before us in such a manner, that its teachings will accord with the facts in the case. It will then read:

First, The Lord has a day in this dispensation which is peculiarly his own, since the Holy Spirit gives this appellation to the one on which John was in the Spirit.

Secondly, Christians ought, therefore, to celebrate it in a suitable manner.

Thirdly, The seventh day of the week was the one to which the revelator referred, and should be observed with great solemnity.

(To be continued.)