THE LORD’S SABBATH PROVED BY SUNDAY ARGUMENTS.
By G. W. A.
A FEW days since, an esteemed lady placed in the writer’s hands a book of nearly 400 duodecimo pages, which had been presented to her by a minister who wished to convince her that "the seventh day is not the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The volume, however, instead of establishing her mind in favor of Sunday, was the main thing, aside from the Scriptures, which led her to become a Sabbath-keeper! Upon an examination of the work, we are not at all surprised at the effect it had upon the lady’s mind. And believing that the Sabbath cause would be well served if such books were even more plenty, liberal extracts are presented from it for the benefit of the reader. The name of this volume is, "The Sabbath: A Brief History of Laws, Petitions, Remonstrances, and Reports; with Facts, Appeals, and Answers to Popular Objections relating to the Christian Sabbath. By Harmon Kingsbury." This title shows the character and aim of the book, and is thus given in full lest some might naturally infer from the extracts made that the author was really a Sabbatarian. So much by way of introduction. The first page of Mr. Kingsbury’s work, speaking of the law of the Sabbath, starts out as follows:— “The first law on record relating to the Sabbath, was written on tables of stone, by the finger of God, more than three thousand years ago. It is in these words, viz:— “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; 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. “This law ever has stood, now stands, and always must stand, unrepealed. It is over and above all law, binding on all men through all time; and its claims are imperative.” In reference to the time when the Sabbath was instituted, Mr. K. says:— “It is an important question, pertaining to this subject: When was the Sabbath instituted? If it was made for man, and is so wonderfully adjusted to his whole nature, the inference seems almost irresistible, from this consideration only, that it was given in Eden. “If not, where was it given? Can any other period be assigned for its institution, so well authenticated, as this is in the first of Genesis? Was it at Sinai? Most assuredly not. All the commands of the Moral Law, there given, relate either to moral beings, or things of a moral nature already in existence. God and man are the moral beings there introduced. The Sabbath is an institution of a moral nature, and must, therefore, have had a previous existence. No new moral obligations were there originated; no new moral acts were there required.” The position that the Sabbath originated at the fall of the manna, before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, is met thus:— “Should it be said, that if the Sabbath was not given at Sinai, it was at the first fall of manna—we may reply, that of this there is no proof, and no probability. The language of Moses, in respect to the Sabbath, at that time, clearly implies that it was not a new, but a pre-existing institution, equally with the language used in the ten commandments: ‘To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.’ It is not ‘a Sabbath,’ but ‘the Sabbath.’ ‘The Lord hath said,’ not ‘the Lord now says.’ The surprise of the people, on seeing twice as much manna fall on the sixth day as on others, was because it was unexpected. As they knew it could not be preserved from one day to another, they of course expected it would fall on the Sabbath, as at other times. The whole history shows that the Sabbath was not then instituted, but only recognized and honored of God, by a two-fold miracle, wrought to guard it against profanation. “When, then, was it instituted? When but in Eden, and at the very beginning of time. The prevailing silence of the Scriptures, together with the manner in which the Sabbath and the marriage institution are often alluded to, confirms this hypothesis. If, on the very threshold of creation, God had enacted and promulgated them, and had also inscribed them on man’s original constitution, and they were therefore already familiar to the Hebrew race as Heaven’s own appointed ordinances, then, and only on that supposition, is the Scripture method of only adverting to those institutions natural. The whole subject being perfectly understood, and no one questioning that God had, from the beginning, appointed a Sabbath, it would be superfluous to re-enact its observance. It might become important to call attention to it, and to write it, to enjoin upon the people to remember it, and keep it holy. And while on this theory the language of Scripture is perfectly natural, on any other it is incapable of any satisfactory explanation. It was doubtless given at the beginning, and Sinai only witnessed its republication. “But let us examine a little more minutely the precepts of the decalogue. The first three prohibit certain things in relation to God, the Lawgiver. The fourth is addressed to man: ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ Here the institution is first particularized as already existing: it is ‘the Sabbath day.’ Then follow specific enactments to secure its observance: ‘Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work’: so as to be prepared for the seventh. The remaining six refer to duties which men everywhere, and in all ages, were bound to perform toward each other; duties the obligation of which did not originate then, nor did those enjoined toward God. That obligation existed always. It grew out of the very nature and relations of man; not of the Jews, but of all men, in all ages. With what propriety, then, could the Sabbath alone be supposed to be of recent origin, or limited obligation, while all the other precepts are universal? Besides, as if to guard against the possibility of such an hypothesis, the Sabbath is spoken of explicitly—as if, however ignorant men might be of every other duty, they already knew that this institution existed, there was no necessity for enjoining a day of rest, but only of enforcing the remembrance of one which they already knew to have been ordained. “From these considerations, it is obvious that the Sabbath is not peculiar to any dispensation, patriarchal, Jewish, or Christian. It is older than either, and belongs to the race. It was ‘made for man.’ It derives none of its authority from either, as such; they rather have been dependent upon its influence for their entire efficiency and support.” The common objection that the Sabbath was only intended for the Jews, is fairly met and answered by Mr. Kingsbury. He says:— “Man, from his relation to his Creator, has always been under obligation to love him supremely, and from his relations to his fellow-men, to love them as himself; hence the duty of dealing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God, before the ten commandments were given to the Jews as well as after. For, previous to that time, all men were as really under law, and accountable to God, as the Jews have been since. Though the will of God was more clearly revealed to the Jews than to any other nation; though they had more blessings and privileges secured to them than their idolatrous neighbors; yet this, while it increased the weight, did not alter the nature of their obligations. God’s people, now, though composed principally of Gentiles, are as much his people, and are so much entitled to all the privileges which are suited to make them happy, as the Jews were. God’s moral claims on them are the same, and they are under no less obligation to walk in the ways of his commandments blameless. The same moral laws which bind the righteous in every age, to fulfill the great law of love, extend to the wicked also. If these obligations should be met and fulfilled by the Jews, as sacred obligations which they owe to God and man, and as productive of the happiest consequences, why not by the Gentiles for the same reason? “If it be objected, that a change has taken place since the coming of the Saviour, it may be answered, that the change consists in breaking down the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, and by this means making the latter, equally with the former, participate fully in all the blessings and privileges of the gospel. Whatever the Jews were bound to do under the Old-Testament dispensation as typical of Christ, ceased, of course, to be obligatory on them, when Christ had, by his sufferings and death, fulfilled the types and promises: so that what is peculiar to that dispensation is now no more binding on either Jew or Gentile. If, then, the ten commandments are to be regarded as peculiar to the ancient dispensation, and not binding on the Gentile, they are not on the Jew. And as Christ gave no new law, the Gentiles are of course utterly destitute of law, and so are the Jews. We are therefore brought to the conclusion, that all persons are now left as destitute of written law as were the antediluvians. Has God then finally concluded, since his creatures have broken all his laws, that they may go on without any? If not, all the moral laws, which were binding on the Jews before the coming and crucifixion of the Saviour, are and were equally binding on the whole human family. If any benefit was derived to the Jews from the keeping of a Sabbath, then the same benefit belongs to us and to our children. For he hath made us both one, so that in Christ Jesus, there is no longer either Jew or Gentile. “Thus it clearly appears, that if the Sabbath was designed only for the Jew, then we Gentiles are under no obligation to observe any of the ten commandments; for they, all alike, were given either to the Jews alone, or to both Jews and Gentiles. “This is sound logic, and, if the objector’s premises are correct, leaves the Gentile without law, without gospel, without Sabbath, without promised blessings, temporal or spiritual, without a guide or friend when he leaves this world, and consequently without hope.” These extracts from Mr. Kingsbury’s work will appear in several papers. The italics in every case are his.
G. W. A.