p. 68 | THE SABBATH QUESTION AT SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 27, 1879

THE SABBATH QUESTION AT SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND.

By John Norton Loughborough

Since our arrival at Southampton, more than a half-dozen writers have spoken through the secular papers of Southampton on the Sabbath question. Most of them seemed to take it for granted, without offering the slightest proof, that Sunday is the identical day of the fourth commandment. All did not think thus, however. I will give a few quotations from their articles, not because the statements are especially new to our people, but because they may be interested to know what positions are taken here, and how minds are being agitated.

In the Southampton Times of Dec. 28 is an article from a “vicar” of the Church of England, in which are some excellent statements respecting the law of God. I will copy a few of his statements.

“God has given to mankind a law, commonly called ‘the ten commandments,’ or the ‘moral law,’ thus manifestly different from that called the ceremonial law; for while the latter was delivered by the mediation of Moses, the former was spoken to Israel by God himself. . . . Its words were also written by his finger upon tables of stone, and thus doubly and permanently impressed upon the attention of mankind.

“Within this law, as one of the ten, we find the command relating to the keeping of a Sabbath day, occupying among them an equal position, enforced with the same high sanction, expressed at even greater length than any of the remaining nine, and conveyed in words implying its sanctification not only from the beginning of time, but also the necessity of its continued observance while the world shall last.

“In short, for all the purposes of sacred worship, as well as for the needs of human rest, the fourth commandment was not more necessary at the first time of its delivery than it is now. The course of time has not impaired it; circumstances have to us rather increased its value. It was a blessing under the law—far more so is it under the gospel. There is nothing merely national or Jewish in its spirit, or in any one of its conditions, it being, in the wisdom of God, so framed that it might become a standing memorial in all ages of the church and among all the races of mankind.

“I plead for the integrity of God’s law, because in the event of its surrender in this one particular, what have we left?—A mutilated decalogue; no longer ten commandments, as solemnly enumerated by God, hardly nine. If one link of the golden chain let down from Heaven be thus rudely broken, is not the communication severed? For if modern opinion be right in pronouncing that the fourth, standing where it ought not, is no part of the moral law, and the position of that one command be thus undermined, it will follow that the second commandment must be at once surrendered to the many persons who have decreed that also to be but a fragment of Jewish law, and so the whole decalogue becomes at once a broken table. And who will henceforth put faith in any part of that august revelation hitherto held to be divine?”

In the Times of Jan. 18, we read:—

“The seventh day was set apart for rest and worship long before the moral law was given. It was observed in the patriarchal times of Old Testament history; and the fourth commandment, beginning with the significant word ‘remember,’ was only a confirmation of its divine character to the Jewish people.

“Dr. Griffin would have us believe that Jesus Christ deliberately broke the law of the Sabbath to show that it was no longer to be observed as a great religious institution. Could there be any more flagrant perversion of truth? Jesus Christ himself cited the case of David and the showbread as parallel with his own and that of his disciples. He declared that he did not come to destroy, but to fulfil the law. And he was dealing with men whom he denounced as whited sepulchres—men who saw goodness only in observances, merit only in their own actions—men who were hypocritical devotees at the shrine of their own good works, and who, by their traditions, had made the commandments of God of none effect.

“The great Exemplar of Christians was neither a law-breaker nor a Sabbath-breaker; but he taught men what was the essential condition of keeping all God’s laws, namely, that the heart should be right with him. And by his life of perfect obedience he fulfilled the law—that of the Sabbath included—and made it honorable.”

In the Times of Jan. 25 the following article appeared, from “An Inquirer”:—

“I have read with great interest the correspondence in your valuable paper on the proper observance of the Sabbath. It seems clear that the fourth commandment of the decalogue still requires obedience, but there is one question of which many of your readers would like a solution. It relates to the days of the week.

“Before me lies a table of the days of the week in twenty-one languages, such as Arabic, Russian, Polish, Malay, German, French, Italian, Spanish, etc. I notice in all these languages that Saturday is called Sabbath. What does this mean? Perhaps some of your learned correspondents will explain, and give us the texts of Scripture which tell us when and where the observance of the Sabbath was transferred from Saturday to Sunday.”

In the Hampshire Independent of Jan. 25, the following article appeared, signed “An English Churchman”:—

“A great deal has been said and written of late on the observance of the Sabbath. Would you permit a little to be said concerning the observance of the Sunday from a point of view somewhat different to what has been commonly taken?”

“I would purpose, first, to say a few words concerning the obligation of the Sunday as a day of rest. What makes it binding upon us as English churchmen? Is it scriptural? There is no positive precept in the New Testament touching its observance. It is impossible that the ‘Lord’s day’ could have been kept as a day of rest by the primitive Christians. The Jews would still keep their Sabbath. According to the tenor of St. Paul’s writings, the Gentile Christians would not observe the Sabbath, and on the first day of the week they would be found at their ordinary business, meeting very early in the morning for their eucharist, and at night for their prayers, and sermons, etc. Acts 20: 7. There is no trace of modern Sabbatarianism. There is not a trace of its being according to the mind of Christ, to transfer the obligation of the fourth commandment to the first day of the week. There is not a trace that work on the Sunday was deemed sinful; such traces there would be were it so deemed, for other Gentile usages are boldly enough condemned. The observance of Sunday as a day of rest is not scriptural.

“This by no means implies that it is anti-scriptural. That the Catholic Church adopts it is a sufficient proof of this, but as it is not scriptural, so neither is it apostolic. No doubt the observance of the day is in one sense apostolic. The apostles practiced it. They handed its use down to us. It would be a bold act if even an Œcumenical Council abrogated its observance. But the apostles cannot have observed it as a day of rest. Whatever ideas of gladness and festivity may have gathered round it, the charms of quietness, rest, and repose from labor cannot have gathered round it in their time. Constantine issued an edict to close the law courts and forbid work in towns, and this set free a large portion of the community from secular business, and was a great incentive to the public observance of the Lord’s day. By degrees there grew up a desire for a more formal separation of the Lord’s day from other days, and thus a transference to it of the fourth commandment in its literal acceptation.”

Of course, these utterances of the press are stirring up thought and Bible investigation on this topic. We are watching anxiously to see what will be said next in reference to this important question. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.