The Lost-Time Objection to the Sabbath.
By Editor
II. If claim is yet made that it was lost in the days of the patriarchs, it is successfully met with the fact that it was well known in the time of Moses. 1. The manna was given to Israel a full month before the law was proclaimed on Mount Sinai. And they were directed to gather a double portion on the sixth day, because in the seventh day, which was the Sabbath, there would be none in the field. 2. There is no reason given in Ex. 16 why the seventh day was the rest day; neither does it say that the seventh day will be, or shall become, the Sabbath. On the sixth day Moses said: "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord," or of the Lord. It was the holy Sabbath by a previous blessing and appointment. 3. That this was the original Sabbath, the Creator's rest day, is proved by the words of Jehovah in the fourth commandment. When he spoke his holy law with his own voice; when he wrote the "ten words" upon the tables of stone with his own finger, he gave this precept, and identified the Sabbath which he commanded to Israel as the day of his rest which was blessed and sanctified, as in Gen. 2:3. He said and he wrote, "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," and he commanded them to keep it holy. And he gave the reason in full, in the following words: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Now divesting one's self of all prejudice, and taking "the Bible, and the Bible alone," would it be possible for any man to draw from these words of the Creator himself any conclusion but this: that the seventh day Sabbath or rest-day which God commanded from Sinai, was the same day which he blessed and sanctified, as recorded in Gen. 2:3? It is identified by every particular; and not one particular stated can be applied to any other day. And if any one yet doubts that it is the same day, let him consider and answer this question: If the original or creation Sabbath, the rest day of the Lord God, is not identified in Ex. 20, what language could God have used if he had intended to identify it? Will some doubter answer this without a cavil? Here we will notice that the testimony of the Bible is uniform on the subject of the Sabbath. It knows but one day of the Sabbath. It never speaks of any other. The custom of calling different days the Sabbath, or of speaking of different weekly Sabbaths, never originated in the Bible; it was never derived from statements or facts found in the Bible. The patriarchal Sabbath—the Jewish Sabbath—the Christian Sabbath; as terms of distinction these are "the speech of Ashdod;" the Bible knows nothing of them. The rest-day of Jehovah, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, is the one and only Sabbath of the holy Scriptures. The blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day at creation were not the only acts of the Almighty to put honor upon his memorial rest-day. When he released his people from the house of bondage that they might serve him, Ex. 8:1, and declared his holy law, obedience to which is the only true service and the proof and essence of love to him (1 John 5:3), he wrought many miracles to attest his regard for his holy day, and to inspire respect and reverence for it in the hearts of his people. 4. The miracles wrought not only serve to identify the day, but they rendered it impossible that they should lose it or neglect it in their wanderings in the desert. When the manna fell, which was by a miracle, it fell six days, but did not fall on the Sabbath. In this manner God again sanctified or separated his holy day from the other days and from secular uses. When the manna was kept over night it corrupted and became a mass of worms, but when it was kept over from the sixth day to the seventh it did not corrupt, but remained good for food on the Sabbath. Without attempting to trace this point further, we find that, beside the commandment, and the rebukes frequently uttered, in the space of forty years the Lord wrought at least four thousand one hundred and sixty miracles, and all to put honor upon the seventh-day Sabbath! Can he have "the mind of the Lord" who casts reproach upon it and dishonors it? See Isa. 58:13, 14. No other institution—nothing else ever committed to his creatures—has received so much honor from God as his holy day, the seventh-day Sabbath. And thus it is rendered certain that when the Jews entered Palestine, 2,553 years after the creation, they had the true, original Sabbath of the Lord. In the promised land they became a great and numerous people, a settled and established nation for over 800 years. During all this time, they had the strictest laws and regulations touching the observance of the Sabbath. When they became worldly and selfish they did not keep it as sacredly as they should have done; Jer. 17:19-24; and for this error God sent them into captivity. They did not lose the knowledge of the Sabbath; they lost the spirit of obedience. Neh. 13:15-18. And here again we notice the impossibility of losing the day. In their captivity they were scattered in one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Est. 8:9. But on their restoration the tribes were all represented among those who went up to Jerusalem; and in the days of the Saviour devout Jews "out of every nation under heaven" appeared there to keep their feasts, according to the law; yet when they came together they were in perfect agreement as to the day of the Sabbath. Not a single family had lost the day. Not a doubt exists that the Sabbath was known throughout the Levitical dispensation. III. We have now to consider the period from the advent of the Saviour to the present time. And first we notice that the Sabbath was well known in the time of Christ. We find the Sabbath mentioned some three-score times in the New Testament, and in such a manner as to leave no room for a doubt of its identity. Jesus healed the sick "on the Sabbath day," and he said it was "lawful" to do so; that is, that the law did not forbid such works of mercy on the Sabbath. This indicates that it was the identical Sabbath day that was in the law, the seventh day. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16. Three days are mentioned in the New Testament, which stand so related to each other that it is impossible to err in regard to the position of either one in the week. Mark 15:42 speaking of the crucifixion scenes, says "it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath." Also Luke 23:54: "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on." It was called "the preparation" day because of the order to prepare their food on that day for the coming Sabbath. Ex. 16:23. The preparation day being past, they "rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment." Luke 23:56. Of course they rested the seventh day—the very day upon which God rested when he made the heavens and the earth,—for that is the day specified and enjoined in the commandment. And the Sabbath being past, "upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher." Luke 24:1. "And when the Sabbath was past, . . . very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher." Mark 16:1, 2. Thus we have the day positively fixed by inspiration. That Sabbath was the seventh day of the week, because it was immediately followed by the first day of the succeeding week. And the preparation was the sixth day of the week, as in Ex. 16, because it was immediately followed by the seventh-day Sabbath—the only weekly Sabbath ever given to man from the Lord. Now the only inquiry remaining is, Has the day been lost between the time of Christ and the present year? That is impossible. We have histories covering the whole period, and the multiplicity of dates given show that there has never been any difficulty about the time. And even though months and years should be disarranged, that would not affect the identity of the days of the week. Besides, there was a conflict of days. The Jews regarded as sacred the seventh day, while the heathen nations placed the greatest honor upon the first day, which they dedicated to the sun. After a few centuries the Mahometans arose and exalted the sixth day. Then there were three rival days, and the three parties would act as a check upon each other if one could by any means lose its day. But why consider further a thing so incredible, so far beyond the range of anything deemed possible? We notice one more fact, which, if we had no other evidence, and were not able to show that the objection involved an absurdity, would settle it beyond all controversy. It is this: Historians have recorded numerous eclipses, giving their magnitude and the day of their occurrence. Astronomers now make their calculations and verify the history; they find that such eclipses did take place at the times recorded, on the day of the week stated in history, according to our present reckoning. And this proves that our reckoning of the week is the same as theirs. As some of these eclipses occurred before the Christian era, we know that no time has been lost, the week has not been changed, since the days of the Saviour. Many have rested their objection on the change from Old to New Style, but they have not done it understandingly. No loss of time occurred in any respect by the change of style. The facts in brief are these: The Julian year was found to be too long, and the seasons were becoming disarranged. A new calendar was adopted in 1582, and the year was thrown back by calling the fifth day of October, as it was then reckoned, the fifteenth. But as the day of the month has no necessary connection with the day of the week, no change was made in the week. This is proved by the fact that the New Style was adopted in Rome 169 years before it was adopted in England, but the two nations were, in the meantime, in agreement on the days of the week. It is further proved by the fact that Russia never adopted the New Style, but still reckons by the Old, and yet she agrees with the other nations on the reckoning of the days of the week.259 Hill's Scientific or Perpetual Calendar shows the day of the week of any given date, in both Old and New Style, for twenty centuries after Christ. It gives the following in its explanation of the method of ascertaining the day by both styles: "For instance, Washington was born Feb. 11, Old Style, or Feb. 22, New Style, 1732. It being a leap year the Dominical letter for February Old Style, was B, and for New Style, it was F. The table being entered with the former letter shows the 11th to be Friday, and being entered with the latter, shows the 22d to be on the same day of the week." No one ought to be so ignorant as to stumble on a fact so plain as this. In the year 1865 our Consul at St. Petersburg transmitted a communication to our Government, which was indorsed by our Minister to Russia, Cassius M. Clay, which was dated both in Old and New Style, giving the reckoning of the month both for Russia and the United States. But the day of the week was the same. And, as before said, astronomy confirms it all. The days of the week cannot be lost. If any have stifled convictions of duty, or eased their consciences, by this very flimsy excuse, we entreat them to consider the risk they take. We have far more than proved our position. Much of the evidence here given might be dropped out, and the case still be proved beyond all reasonable controversy. Taken all together, there is not the shadow of an excuse for disregarding the Sabbath of the Lord God—the seventh day. Excuses are not admissible when God calls. Luke 14:16-24. And surely, where the evidence is so abundant, so overwhelming, he who makes excuse does it at his peril. Instead of seeking excuses, we ought to be thankful to God that he has made everything pertaining to his commandments so plain. And Paul says the law is spiritual, holy, just, and good. If we are not in harmony with it, we ought to fear lest it is because we are not spiritual; lest our hearts refuse to be reconciled to that which is holy; to that which God has sanctified, and in which he greatly delights.