Next in order in the study of Eld. P.'s book we may properly consider the changes of the Sabbath which, according to this work, have occurred at sundry times in its history. It will perhaps surprise the reader to learn from its teaching that the Sabbath has been changed no less than three times since God made it for man by hallowing the seventh day in Eden! Twice has it been changed for the benefit of the Jews, and once only for that of the Christians.
THE SABBATH CHANGED AT THE DEPARTURE FROM EGYPT.
Dr. Peter Akers, a Methodist divine, has the honor to be the man who first discovered this, the earliest of all the changes alleged to have been wrought in the Sabbatic institution during its eventful history of 6000 years. Some sixteen years since, he gave to the world a work entitled “Biblical Chronology,” the chief object of which is to prove that God changed the Sabbath the day the Israelites started from Egypt, by setting it back from Sunday, the original seventh day, to Saturday, the sixth day of the week. His argument chiefly depends upon two propositions:
1. That by counting the entire number of days from the creation to the departure out of Egypt he finds the day after that departure, viz., the sixteenth of the first month, Abib, was the seventh day in order from the beginning.
2. That God did at that time fix the weekly Sabbath upon the fifteenth of that month, and further, did so arrange the year that the fifteenth of that month should each year coincide with the weekly Sabbath thus appointed; and because this day, thus ordained, was “much to be remembered unto the Lord” it was therefore a significant and “high Sabbath day” each year.
Eld. P. says nothing respecting the first of these two propositions; but he gives us a lengthy extract from Dr. Akers's book which is devoted almost exclusively to the establishment of the truth of the second one. See his “First Day Sabbath,” pages 136–138. But if the second proposition be true, a change of the Sabbath took place on the day that Israel departed from Egypt, though the particular day of the week which then became the Sabbath day is not indicated. The quotation from Dr. Akers is not of the slightest importance, except as giving one portion of his argument for the change of the Sabbath in Egypt. It is in support of this point that Dr. Akers, as here quoted by Eld. P., speaks thus of the alleged act which made the fifteenth of Abib to become the Sabbath:
“But there are others, and among them I claim to be numbered, who hold that the Sabbath in question was a weekly Sabbath, recurring annually by divine appointment, on the fifteenth day of Abib, the first day of unleavened bread.” p. 136.
1. This “divine appointment” that the Sabbath should come on Abib fifteenth was made when God set apart the fifteenth day of that month to be the first day of unleavened bread; and this was at the time of the departure out of Egypt.
2. But before this “divine appointment” the fifteenth of Abib and the weekly Sabbath did not coincide.
3. It was the Sabbath which was changed to the fifteenth day of Abib (for before that change it came on a different day of that month) and not the fifteenth of Abib that was made to come upon the Sabbath. It was the Sabbath, therefore, and not the fifteenth of Abib that was changed at the departure from Egypt, as taught by Dr. Akers.
The language of Dr. Akers as given at length by Eld. P. still further relates to this newly constituted Sabbath. Thus he says:
“And that this was to be the regular weekly Sabbath of the Jews is demonstrated by what Moses adds in the same chapter,” etc. p. 137.
Observe, this language implies just what Dr. Akers elsewhere positively affirms, that “the regular weekly Sabbath of the Jews” established for them by this “divine appointment” at the Exodus was different from that observed before that event. And that this day was called a “high Sabbath” because on the return of each year it was always found to come on Abib fifteenth, Dr. Akers as quoted by Eld. P. on page 137, explains by saying:
“On the fifteenth day, Saturday, the Lord's passover, connecting with that typical ‘night’ and ‘day,’ ‘much to be remembered unto the Lord,’ in which the enslaved people of the Jews, under the protection of the sprinkled blood of the typical lamb, ‘came out of the house of bondage,’ the first day in which ‘no leavened bread was to be eaten;’ on this significant and ‘high Sabbath day,’ our Lord did not show himself to the inhabitants of our guilty world.”
We have therefore presented to us in Eld. P.'s quotation from Dr. Akers, a Sabbath which originated the day that Israel departed from Egypt, and which in God's purpose “was to be the regular weekly Sabbath of the Jews,” and which actually became such if we can believe him; and as this coincided every year with the fifteenth of Abib, the day of the departure from Egypt, it was “much to be remembered” on that account, and for that reason was annually a “significant and high Sabbath day.”
Eld. P.'s quotation from Dr. Akers is devoted largely to proving that the fifteenth of Abib came every year upon the weekly Sabbath. The idea is so unreasonable that it is cherished by few persons except those who believe in the change of the Sabbath at the time when God delivered Israel on that day of that month. Why then does Eld. P. give Dr. Akers' argument on this point so large a space? Observe the circumstances under which he inserts it. On page 132 he commences an argument from the types to prove that the Sabbath must be changed at the resurrection of Christ. He extends this argument to page 136, where he introduces this extract from Dr. Akers. Again we ask, For what does he quote Dr. Akers? It must be either to finish out his argument on the types by which he introduces the words of Dr. Akers, or else it must be because of his interest in the real point of the extract which is the change of the Sabbath in Egypt. But it cannot be understandingly to add to, and to finish out, or perfect, his argument on the types; for Dr. Akers in this extract squarely contradicts an important part of what Eld. P. had asserted in that argument. Thus Eld. P. says on page 133:
“The paschal lamb was to be offered on the fourteenth day of the first month, and the wave sheaf not on any particular day of the month, but always ‘on the morrow after the Sabbath’ of the passover week. The fourteenth day of the month would move through all the days of the week, but the ‘wave sheaf,’ as well as the two ‘wave loaves,’ were ever stationary on ‘the morrow after the Sabbath.’ The passover was stationary as to the day of the moon, but the wave sheaf, and wave loaves as to the day of the week.”
Thus Eld. P. declares that the months were lunar months; for the passover was a certain “day of the moon;” and he also declares that the day of the passover, the fourteenth day of the month, would from year to year move through all the days of the week; while the wave sheaf which was always on the morrow after the Sabbath of the passover week, would come on different days of the month through a cycle of years. The months were lunar months, and as a consequence the passover was movable as to the day of the week, and the wave sheaf as to the day of the month.
But Dr. Akers in order to establish his change of the Sabbath in Egypt denies that the months were lunar, and affirms that the fifteenth day of Abib came every year on the same day of the week—and of course the same would be the case with the fourteenth—and declares that the wave sheaf always came on the same day of the month, the sixteenth day of Abib. Thus Dr. Akers, as quoted by Eld. P., says:
“According to some who contend that lunar months are intended, it [the offering of the wave sheaf] might occur on any day of the feast. These believe a weekly Sabbath is alluded to, but that it could not recur statedly on any fixed day of the feast. Others, holding also to lunar regulations, admit that it means the fifteenth day of Abib, or the first day of unleavened bread, but contend that it was only called a ‘Sabbath’ because it was made a day of holy convocation, and not because it was a weekly Sabbath. But there are others, and among them I claim to be numbered, who hold that the Sabbath in question was a weekly Sabbath, recurring annually by divine appointment, on the fifteenth day of Abib, the first day of unleavened bread; and that the morrow after the Sabbath, the sixteenth day of the month, when the wave sheaf had to be offered, was always the second day of the feast.” pp. 136, 137.
As Dr. Akers thus directly contradicts Eld. P. in several of the statements in his argument on the types, the question again recurs, Why did Eld. P. quote his testimony so freely when the larger part of all that he says therein is in maintaining these very points? It surely was not to strengthen his own argument on the types, for he gives that argument only a left-handed support, and we must not suppose that Eld. P. did not perceive that Dr. Akers was testifying directly against what himself had just been saying. It must have been therefore because of his heartfelt sympathy with the change of the Sabbath in Egypt that he allowed Dr. Akers to bring it out even at the expense of contradicting what Eld. P. had just been declaring. It could not have been merely to fill up his book with a spicy variety of contradictory things that he gave it space. It appears that he was not satisfied with merely the two changes of the Sabbath which are yet to be considered as we proceed. He desired all that there were; at least he was ready to accept them all. And so he allows Dr. Akers to declare that the fifteenth of Abib by divine appointment was established as the Sabbath, at the first celebration of unleavened bread. If Eld. P. wished the Sabbath changed in Egypt this extract is excellent; if he did not, it is then of no consequence at all except as a contradiction of Eld. P.'s own statements, which by the way it contradicts.
That Eld. P. indorses what he quotes from Dr. Akers is evident, for he has taken such liberties with it as to make himself responsible for its statements. Thus without any intimation of omission he leaves out the word “two” in the first line; again, at the top of page 137, he omits eight lines with nothing to indicate the act; and finally on the same page before the sentence, “On the fifteenth day, Saturday,” etc., there is another omission amounting to more than two and one half pages of Dr. Akers' book. Though as in the other cases of omission there is no sign given to indicate it, yet we shall in due time learn from Eld. P. that such unmarked abridgments are a great fault—in others. And again: whereas one of Dr. Akers' sentences begins, “Now if Josephus and all who hold the same opinion are right,” etc., Eld. P. begins it thus: “Now if we are right,” etc. He also italicizes to bring out the ideas to his mind. And he utters not one word of dissent, but reasons from it at its close as though he approved it.
And now as we pass from this quotation we call attention to a remarkable blunder, or an inexcusable misstatement on the part of Eld. P. respecting it. Thus in introducing it he says on page 136:
“The late Sylvester Bliss, while editor of the Advent Herald made the following remarks on this subject.”
Again, on page 140 where he actually quotes Mr. Bliss, he alludes to this quotation from Dr. Akers, still giving the impression that it was written by Sylvester Bliss. Thus he says:
“For a clear and comprehensive view of the Sabbath, we will once more quote the late Sylvester Bliss.”
And in his index page 467 for the third time he attributes the language of Dr. Akers to Mr. Bliss. For he indexes the quotation from Dr. Akers thus:
“S. Bliss' views on the Sabbath, 136–138.”
We have only to say that this quotation is not from the writings of Sylvester Bliss, but is taken from Rev. Peter Akers' “Introduction to Biblical Chronology,” pages 100–105, published by the “Methodist Book Concern,” Cincinnati, Ohio. If this false statement is simply a blunder it is no credit to a work which aspires to historical accuracy, if not to the conscientious declaration of religious truth. If it is an intentional misstatement it is no honor to Eld. P. We should be more decided in pronouncing it an unaccountable blunder were it not that we shall presently come upon a case which greatly needs such an explanation—in the absence of a better—and which must be set down as something worse than a bad mistake. But whether this be a blunder or an intentional false statement, it does great injustice to Sylvester Bliss who is now silent in death. He held indeed that the Sabbath was probably changed immediately after the passage of the Red Sea; but he did not make himself ridiculous by holding also with Dr. Akers that the Sabbath was changed just as they were about to cross it.
We have seen that Eld. P. indorses the language of Dr. Akers, which, however, he falsely attributes to S. Bliss, late editor of the Advent Herald. We have also seen that in this extract Dr. Akers establishes a new weekly Sabbath for the Jews, commencing with the fifteenth of the first month, Abib. It will perhaps surprise the reader to learn from Eld. P.'s book that in just three days the Sabbath was changed again!
We come now on pages 140–147 to the actual quotation of the language of Mr. Bliss, though with various alterations made by Eld. P. and not indicated to the reader. It may be for this reason that he does not tell where the words of Mr. Bliss may be found. For an enumeration of the changes he has made in the language of Mr. Bliss see the second article of this series in the154Review of Aug. 29, 1871. For two reasons we shall treat this quotation of Mr. Bliss' words as though written by Eld. P. and as giving his own sentiments:
1. Because he pronounces it “a clear and comprehensive view of the Sabbath.” p. 140.
2. Because the language as it now stands is that of Eld. P. rather than that of Mr. Bliss. For he makes many omissions of Mr. Bliss' words without indicating such omissions, though some of them decidedly affect the sense; and he makes several changes in what he retains; and he freely emphasizes to bring out the ideas to his mind; and finally because that in making this quotation our friend Eld. P. commits a fraud not often paralleled in historical works—except such as are written to sustain Sunday as the Sabbath as we shall hereafter show—for he takes a portion of Dr. David Jennings' “Jewish Antiquities” and inserts it into the middle of his quotation from Mr. Bliss and gives it all as the words of “the late Sylvester Bliss.” We will present this matter in its proper place.
Having shown sufficient reason for holding Eld. P. responsible for the doctrines expressed in this quotation, we now return to the subject of the several changes of the Sabbath. We have seen that a new day was “by divine appointment” established “to be the regular weekly Sabbath of the Jews,” just as they were about to cross the Red Sea.
THE SABBATH CHANGED AGAIN ON CROSSING THE RED SEA.
The children of Israel set out from Egypt on the fifteenth of the first month with a new day for the Sabbath. In three days, according to Eld. P.'s book, they stand upon the east shore of the Red Sea and witness the destruction of Pharaoh and his host. And now how soon will God change the Sabbath a second time for his favored people?
Ans. “To make the Sabbath also commemorative of their deliverance from bondage, the day which God selected for its observance was that one of the seven on which they rested on the shores of the Red Sea and rejoiced over the destruction of their enemies.” p. 141.
What day was it “on which they rested on the shores of the Red Sea?”
Ans. “As they encamped at Succoth the first night, in the edge of the wilderness the second (ch. 13: 20), and crossed the Red Sea during the third night, which was the commencement of the seventeenth day—their time being reckoned from even to even—it was on the seventeenth* day that they sang their song of deliverance (chap. 15: 1) on the eastern shore of the Red Sea.” p. 143.
How many Sabbaths does this book indicate that there were from the rest day on the east shore of the Red Sea to that one which came first after the fall of the manna?
Ans. “From the seventeenth day of the first month to the fifteenth day of the second, the day of their journey from Elim, would be just twenty-eight days or four even weeks; and therefore the seventh day, from the day of that journey, the seventh day after the manna had fallen six, and the first of its cessation, would have been the fifth Sabbath in regular order after they left the Red Sea, had they celebrated that as a Sabbath in which they sang their deliverance.” p. 143.
Though the language of Mr. Bliss that “to make the Sabbath also commemorative of their deliverance from bondage, the day which God selected for its observance was that one of the seven on which they rested on the shores of the Red Sea,” does necessarily imply that he gave them a new Sabbath day at that time, which day by computation he endeavors to show corresponded to the one pointed out by the cessation of the manna; yet he thinks the day was not regarded by them “as their established Sabbath” till the fall of the manna when we have “the first recorded instance of the formal observance of a day of rest by the descendants of Abraham.” The march from Elim to Sin which he thinks certainly occurred on the same day of the week with the cessation of the manna shows to his mind that they did not consider “as their established Sabbath” what they afterward regarded as such.
It appears therefore that though the reason for a new day for the Sabbath existed from the day of the triumph over Pharaoh, and though that particular day was so observed, yet some five weeks elapsed before its authority was fully established by the fall and the cessation of the manna, and that during this interval it was not formally observed. But notwithstanding all these suggestions relative to the probability of the change of the Sabbath, and also respecting its necessity, it is certain that Sylvester Bliss did after all regard it as by no means certain that the day observed by the Hebrews did not actually correspond to “the seventh in regular succession from the paradisiacal week.” Thus Mr. Bliss as here quoted by Eld. P. expressly says:
“Whether, or no, the day designated for their observance coincided with the seventh in regular succession from the paradisiacal week, there are no means of determining; but as it was the seventh, after six days' work in the gathering of the manna, its observance answered all the purposes for which the Sabbath was instituted.” p. 144.
Mr. Bliss thus frankly confessed that for aught he could show to the contrary the day observed by the children of Israel might be the veritable seventh day in “regular succession from the paradisiacal week.” But this modest declaration did not satisfy Eld. P. He was determined that Mr. Bliss should affirm positively that the day designated as the Sabbath by the cessation of the manna was a different day from that which God hallowed in paradise. And so he deliberately interpolates his quotation from Mr. Bliss by inserting on page 143 the following words respecting the first Sabbath after the fall of the manna, taking them from Jennings' “Jewish Antiquities,” pages 320, 321, book 3, chap. 3. Here are the words fraudulently inserted by Eld. P. into his quotation from Mr. Bliss:
“And if this had been the Sabbath in course, according to the paradisiacal computation, the fifteenth must have been so too, and would have been doubtless kept as a Sabbath, and not have been any part of it spent in marching from Elim to Sin.” p. 143.
In the second part of his book, to which we shall come in due time, Eld. P. cries out violently against myself because I show from standard authors of high repute, whose words I quote in the “History of the Sabbath,” that the writings of certain of “the fathers of the church” have been corrupted by pious frauds. Yet here is the honored name of a distinguished Advent editor, only a few years deceased, whose writings are treated by Eld. P. himself precisely as I have shown that the writings of “the fathers” have been used. Instead of expressing his indignation against those men who have thus basely treated these ancient writings he turns it all against me as though I attempted to “impeach the fathers” when I was simply impeaching the men who had corrupted them. And now what shall I say of Eld. P.? The facts in the case compel me to bring directly home upon himself the same guilt which I charged upon those who used the writings of the fathers as he has used those of Mr. Bliss. For he ascribes to Mr. Bliss the words of Dr. Akers, and he interpolates the genuine writings of Mr. Bliss with words taken from Dr. Jennings. And by these two acts he makes Mr. Bliss responsible for the change of the Sabbath on each side of the Red Sea; whereas he had not the slightest faith in the first of these changes of the Sabbath, and considered it wholly a matter of doubt, as himself declares, relative to the second.
It is not for me to say that Eld. P. did not think that what he did by way of corrupting the writings of Sylvester Bliss was really for the glory of God. It was with precisely such an idea respecting the honor of God that men in ancient times took similar liberties with the writings of men of renown in the ancient church. But I can no longer wonder that Eld. P. did not sympathize with me in exposing the corruption of the writings of the fathers. He was not so sure that it was not under certain circumstances all right, and even necessary to the success of the truth. In the last part of his book he attacks me for exposing such conduct; in the first part, as we now see, he has done to Sylvester Bliss just what some of the ancients have done to the fathers.
It appears that Mr. Bliss thought the Sabbath might have been changed in commemoration of the triumph at the Red Sea. It also appears that he thought the space of time from the day of that triumph till the first cessation of the manna in Ex. 16, might have been occupied in the full accomplishment of this change. But he frankly confesses that the day observed by the Hebrews might have coincided with the paradisiacal Sabbath as he could determine neither for nor against that idea. But Eld. P. wished a decided testimony from Mr. Bliss that the Sabbath kept by the Israelites was not the seventh day in succession from paradise, but a Sabbath newly received, either at the Red Sea, or the wilderness of Sin, or both, and so he puts into Mr. Bliss's mouth a direct testimony to the effect that this Sabbath does not coincide with the one hallowed in Eden. Whatever therefore may be the judgment of the reader respecting the position of Mr. Bliss concerning this new Sabbath which dates from the east side of the Red Sea, we cannot doubt that he will agree with us in the decision that Eld. P.'s book stands responsible for the doctrine of this second change of the Sabbath.
THE FINAL CHANGE OF THE SABBATH AT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
It cannot be said of the Sabbath of the Lord, as it was said of ancient Moab, that it has been at ease from its youth “and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel,” (Jer. 48: 11), for the reader will, we are sure, decide that it has experienced enough of these vicissitudes already. But it must be changed once more. The creation of the world, the departure out of Egypt, and the triumph over Pharaoh have each need to be commemorated; and now the resurrection of Christ must also have its memorial. And what shall commemorate all these things? Why God's sacred memorial, the holy Sabbath, of course. And so to do all this, it has been emptied from vessel to vessel. That it was designed to commemorate the creation of the heavens and the earth we do know from the express language of God's word. Gen. 2: 3; Ex. 20: 11. That the Lord has ever been under the necessity of destroying this divine memorial in order to use “the institution” to commemorate some thing else is an idea absolutely unfounded in the Bible. But of this, more hereafter. The change of the Sabbath at Christ's resurrection is thus expressly affirmed:
“Although the seventh-day Sabbath is abrogated, yet the first-day Sabbath is binding.” p. 3.
“The day has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week.” p. 3.
“The first-day Sabbath of the dispensation of the Spirit has been virtually in force since the resurrection of Christ.” p. 121.
Here is the doctrine avowed; its reason will be examined in due season. The original institution, the Sabbath of the Lord, has an honorable place among the commandments of God. The institution as changed by the doctors of the church has no place in the law of God, nor in the gospel of Christ. We close with two passages of Scripture:
Matt. 15: 9. “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Eccl. 12: 13, 14. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”