A SUPPOSED OBJECTION CONSIDERED.
By E. Goodrich
By those who believe that the Sabbath ceased with the former dispensation, a kind of indirect objection is frequently urged in the following language: “If the Sabbath is binding in this age, why did not our Saviour teach that it was?” The above is by no means a fair or proper way of treating any question; for while it assumes none of the responsibilities of offering anything, yet it claims all the benefits of affirmation; for it supposes a fact and demands a decision upon said fact, challenging proof to the contrary—thus throwing all the burden of proof upon others. Now as it seems that any view worth holding is worth stating and defending, if it be a fact that both the Sabbath and the commandment guarding the sacredness of the same were peculiarities of the Jewish dispensation, why not have the moral courage to say so? Why not say, Resolved, That both the Sabbath and the commandment guarding the same, were peculiarities of the Jewish age, and ceased with the same; therefore we have an unfounded right to live in open disregard of these, and to teach others to do the same. The above demand, and the language in which it is contained, are perfectly reasonable; for if it be a fact that both the Sabbath and the law for the observance of the same ceased with the Jewish age, it is both the right and duty of every Christian to act and teach in accordance with this fact. The unwillingness with which many take anything like a positive position on this question, impresses one very unfavorably, and reminds him of the chief priests and the elders of the people of whom the Saviour asked, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from Heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From Heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all men held John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell.” Touching the objection referred to above, it is false; for our Saviour taught in every possible manner both the sacredness and the observance of the Sabbath. Now all teaching is embraced in three points: (1.) Doctrine, (2.) Reproof, and (3.) Corrections. And there are only two ways of preaching any truth: (1.) Theory, (2.) Practice. To the former (that is theory) belong all those distinct statements and definite propositions whereby any right or duty is declared, or any course of conduct recommended. While the latter embraces all those illustrative examples, all those forms and customs, and every action whereby it is shown how theory is to be applied. And in the demonstration of truth, it does not matter whether the theory is presented and then the example, or first the example and then the theory, as an explanation of the example. At the time that our Saviour made his advent to earth, the Jewish church had so far apostatized from the true faith, they had so far corrupted the worship and law of God, that we cannot regard them as the proper representatives of God’s will; but we are to have Jesus the great Master, teacher in all things. The first plain and direct reference that we have in the New Testament to any controversy upon the observance of the Sabbath, we find in Matt. xii, 2, in which the disciples of our Lord are accused of doing that which was not lawful to do on the Sabbath day. And the point of dispute is neither the sacredness nor the perpetuity of the Sabbath, but the manner in which it should be observed. The Saviour after justifying the disciples by reference to certain examples, as of David eating shewbread, and that of the priests who in the temple profaned the Sabbath day, and were blameless, declared his right to determine this question by laying down the proposition: “For the Son of man is Lord, even of the Sabbath day.” A lord is a ruler or one who has authority or jurisdiction over any matter. And here is indeed a very broad and positive proposition of right and authority—a proposition from the decision of which no one has a right to appeal. And upon all questions upon which the Saviour has pronounced, we should regard his answers as final. And we may continue to read from the same chapter: “And behold there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days. Then said he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole as the other.” This scripture just read, contains a very plain and forcible argument in vindication of that which is lawful to do on the Sabbath day. The argument contains examples of sound logical reasoning, and it concludes with a plain and conclusive proposition; and the whole is completed by an illustrative example which demonstrates the truth as a problem that is solved. We have, therefore, in this chapter and the lesson that it contains, everything necessary to a full and complete argument in defense of the Sabbath and its proper observance. We have doctrine, we have reproof, we have reproof, we have corrections, we have theory, and we have practice. And by turning our attention to Mark ii, 27, we have another plain proposition declared: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath;” and the conclusion: “Wherefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” This lesson is also enforced by an illustrative example showing the truth. And if we add to this array of testimony, the fact that our Saviour, at the very297beginning of his ministry, declared, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill;” also the fact that he observed the Sabbath; we have an amount of evidence sufficient, it would seem, to convince any one that Jesus taught both the design, the sacredness, the perpetuity, and the proper observance of the Sabbath day. We may add to the above, the fact that the apostles, and the churches established by them, observed the Sabbath day. And if all the facts contained in the foregoing are insufficient to show that the Sabbath belongs to, and is binding in, this age, it is difficult to conceive what would be evidence in the matter. But if we are to suppose that the Sabbath was abolished with the Jewish age, and that neither Jesus nor the apostles enforced its observance, we may ask, Have we a Sabbath in this age? and if so, upon what authority, either in precept or example, does it rest? Does it rest on divine or human authority? And having answered these questions, we may continue to ask, How oft are we to have a Sabbath? for if the original Sabbath was destroyed, the order of time ordained at the beginning was broken up; and if this be broken up, who can tell what the new order of time is, whether we are to have a week of seven, ten, or forty, days each? In other words, if God’s order of time, ordained at the beginning, was destroyed, why retain the divisions of time into periods of seven days each? Again we may ask, By what authority is the sacredness of the fourth commandment transferred from the day upon which God rested, and which he sanctified and blessed, to some other day? All these, and many more such questions may be asked; but if the Sabbath be not binding in this age, enough.