Dr. Nicholas Bound on the Sabbath Question.
By John Nevins Andrews
The work of Dr. Bound published in 1595, marks an era in the history of the first-day Sabbath. The seventh-part-of-time theory was either invented by him, or so shaped by his skill that it took in a most marvelous manner with those who were the observers of Sunday. I have carefully examined the second edition of his book to get the points of his theory. He contends for the institution of the Sabbath at creation, and has some very excellent thoughts on that part of the subject. He is so earnest in advocating the definite seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, that the reader might suppose him to be an observer of that day. But as he proceeds with the subject, his system of first-day divinity develops itself. The seventh day is not ceremonial, but—it is positive! That is to say, it is something not in itself moral; for it is not capable of being discovered by the light of nature as are other duties of the law of God. And this positive part of the precept he shrewdly manipulates till he gets the first day of the week into it. According to Dr. B., the seventh day in the commandment is a generic term, and embraces all kinds of seventh days. Of these he says there are at least two kinds or species. The first is the seventh day on which God rested, which was observed until that world came to an end, (!) but when Christ did renew that world by his death and resurrection (!!) then a new seventh day came in, even the day of his resurrection, which must now be kept in obedience to the fourth commandment. The friends of the Bible Sabbath will be profited by a careful perusal of this theory which has come to be regarded as the very foundation of the first-day Sabbath. The transition from page to page is marked in the article in order to facilitate the references to Bound's work. Here follows the title of the book, and the passages taken from his work. J. N. A. SABBATHUM VETERIS ET NOVI TESTAMENTI;
OR, THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE SABBATH, BY NICHOLAS BOUND, D. D.,
SECOND ED. LONDON, 1606. Dr. Bound thus states the antiquity of the Sabbath on page 7: “This first commandment of the Sabbath was no more then first given when it was pronounced from Heaven by the Lord, than any other one of the moral precepts, nay, that it hath so much antiquity as the seventh day hath being; for so soon as the day was, so soon was it sanctified, that we might know, that as it came in with the first man, so it must not go out but with the last man, and as it was in the beginning of the world, so it must continue to the end of the same, and as the first seventh day was sanctified, so must the last be. And this is that which one saith, that the Sabbath was commanded by God, and the seventh day was sanctified of him even from the beginning of the world; where (the latter words expounding the former) he showeth that, when God did sanctify it, then also he commanded it to be kept holy; and therefore look how ancient the sanctification of the day is, the same antiquity also as the commandment of keeping it holy, for they two are all one.” On page 20, he gives us his judgment concerning Gen. 2: 2, 3:
“That not only God did even from the beginning command our first parents to keep holy this day, but also that they were bound from that time to teach it to their posterity.” Again on the same page he quotes Junius on this same passage thus: “That which he ordains consisteth of two parts: one, that God blessed the seventh day; the other, that he sanctified it: and by the former he meaneth, that he did appoint it that it should be a blessed day; by the other, that he did command that this blessed day should be kept holy of man, and be spent in holy exercises.” And following this author, Dr. B. gives us his own judgment of Gen. 2: 2, 3, on the same page, in these words:
“Where we see how he saith, that God from the beginning did command men to keep holy the seventh day: and it must needs be so, for seeing the cause of this was from the beginning, namely that God rested in it from all his works; therefore the thing itself must needs be as ancient even that we should be commanded to keep it holy for the remembrance of the creation.” On page 21 he gives this commentary on the commandment: “And this is that also which Master Zanche observeth upon this word of the fourth commandment, Remember. Where he rendereth two reasons of this addition: and that we might always remember it: but there is another cause, for by it God would signify that this precept of sanctifying the Sabbath day was not then first prescribed by him unto the people: for it was delivered from the beginning of the world unto Adam and to the rest of the fathers, in remembrance that the world was created in six days, and of the rest which God himself kept upon the seventh day; and therefore it is not simply said, Sanctify you the Sabbath, but, Remember to sanctify it. So that this word looketh forward and backward: backward, because it doth show that this day was dedicated unto the worship of God from the creation of the world; forward, because it doth admonish us that we should never forget it. Man was made to worship God; for as when all other things were created, on the sixth day God made man: to signify that all things were made for man, so when man was made, [p. 22] then by-and-by he sanctified the seventh day, and doth command that he should be worshiped in it, that we might know that we are made to worship God. So that from the beginning God commanded Adam and Eve to sanctify the Sabbath, and their posterity, that all might know the end of their creation to be the worship and service of God. ” “The law of the Sabbath was so deeply engraven in the heart of man by God himself, that howsoever the print of it, was by the fall of Adam, and by sin growing in the posterity, greatly mangled and defaced, so that it could not be read: yet it was not so wholly razed out, but that some deformed scratches, and (as it were) scars of it did appear, and therefore, though they could not attain to the knowledge of the day, much less to the true manner of sanctifying it without the word; yet that there should be a day differing from other in use sequestered from the common affairs of the world, and consecrated to the worship of God, this was that which did evidently and most clearly show itself to them whether they would or no.” Dr. Bound enumerates many errors concerning this institution: One error is that the Sabbath belongs only to the Jews. The second is that the Sabbath is ceremonial and therefore is now taken away. Another is that the Sabbath was partly moral and partly ceremonial. Some think that the ceremonial part is in the observation of the set day, and some in its being the seventh day and some in its being that seventh day which the Jews kept, and some in the rest on that day, and some in the strictness of that rest. But he says that there was nothing ceremonial in it at all, but that that particular seventh day which the Jews kept was positive, and therefore was superseded by the seventh day which the Christians keep. Dr. Bound refutes these various errors, and then proceeds as follows: Page 43: “The third opinion is of those who holding according to the truth that the seventh day is perpetual, yet affirm that that seventh day which the Jews kept was ceremonial, and therefore at Christ’s death taken away, as other ceremonies were, and hath never since been revived: whom though I will not impugn and gainsay, yet I may propound these interrogations unto them: First, when this began to be a ceremony? If they say at the first, I do further demand whether that this day was not made known unto Adam in Paradise, and that before his fall he knew not the seventh day of rest, as well as the six days of labor, where the Lord bade him bless and keep the garden: and thirdly whereof this seventh day (I speak not yet of the rest of the day) but this seventh day, whereof was it a ceremony? and what it did shadow out? As all ceremonies did prefigure something to be fulfilled in Christ, and therefore when he came they had an end. Besides this, I may boldly profess, as known unto all men, that that seventh day was ordained by God for the memory of the creation of [p. 44] the world in six days, and therefore it was to continue to this end as long as the old world stood: but when Christ did renew the world by his death and resurrection, the memory of the former, together with the day, was swallowed up, as it were, by the day of Christ’s resurrection, and so there was some cause of the taking of it away at Christ’s coming, though it were not ceremonial, because the end for which it was first appointed did now cease, and so though that seventh day be called signum, a sign of something, yet it doth not thereupon follow that it was a ceremony like unto those which God appointed to Moses; for as Athanasius saith, Sabbathum est signum, ut sciatur dies creationis. The Sabbath is a sign to know the day and time of the creation; so that it was a sign of a thing past, but not a figure of a thing to come. And so in that sense may the Lord’s day which we now keep, be still called a sign, namely, of the redemption of the world, that is, a thing to put us in mind of it. And so the cause of the abrogation and change of that seventh day might be, not that there was any ceremony in it, but something else as namely that the first world was ended for the memory of creation, whereof it was first appointed by God.” Dr. B. prepares the way for a new seventh day as follows: Page 50: “But as Master Junius saith: The substance of this [p. 51] law is natural, and therefore it is placed in the fourth precept of the decalogue: as that which is to be observed of all men alike. That which is natural, namely, that every seventh day should be kept holy unto the Lord, that still remaineth: that which is positive, namely, that day which was the seventh day from the creation, should be the Sabbath, or day of rest, that is now changed in the church of God. Where we see that he maketh not that day, though changed, ceremonial, but positive, that is set down and named by the Lord from the beginning above the light of nature: instead whereof Christ hath named another day, and so the substance of the law remaining, this day is made positive in the commandment.” Here are some thoughts worthy of notice: Page 59: “For as it is true that all the creatures were made for man’s use, and therefore they were made before him, that he being made, might use them; so man was made that he might keep the whole law of God, and every part of it, and therefore it was not given out till man was made: so man is above the creatures, but the law is above him, and he is made to worship God, to hallow his name, and to sanctify his Sabbath. And so I may say with Peter Martyr: Here consider the order of things: some things are created for man, and therefore man was made after them: but man was made for the service of God, therefore straightway after the creation, was [p. 60] brought in the blessing and sanctification of the Sabbath. And thus we may conclude the truth of this doctrine that we have in hand, notwithstanding anything that hath been spoken against it, namely, that as there hath been a Sabbath day from the beginning, so there is great reason it will continue to the ending; and though it had never so many adversaries that have bent their force against it, yet they are not able to overthrow it; as being that which is strengthened by God’s commandment and (as it were) fortified by his own hand.” Having thus vindicated the observance of the definite seventh day, and shown that it is in no sense a ceremonial observance, Dr. B. next assumes that our first day of the week is the seventh day in the sight of the law as really as was that seventh day on which God rested which was observed by the Hebrews. Thus in speaking of the Greeks and Romans, p. 64, he says:
“The one observed the eighth, and the other the ninth, day, and neither of them doth the seventh, as the church doth now, and hath always done from the beginning.” He does not scruple to assume the existence of a second seventh day as follows:
Page 65: “For if the ignorance of that first seventh day bred that heresy in the philosophers [that the world had no beginning], why may not the ignorance of this seventh day also work a like effect in the wisest of our own day, or of the posterity?” Page 66: “So where this seventh day was not known and kept, men, even the wisest of them, fell into this heresy, to think that the world was eternal, and had no creation or beginning, as some of the philosophers. So might we be ignorant of Christ’s redemption without our seventh day, as the Turks and Jews are, who observe it not. And so I conclude with a learned writer of our own time, a man of blessed memory, that these words, ‘Six days shalt thou labor, &c., but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,’ are moral and contain a perpetual truth: so that there must be one of seven, and not of eight.” On p. 68, he says: “So that the day cannot be changed from the seventh to the42eighth; neither can this seventh day be changed into any other, as shall be more fully declared hereafter.” Having changed the day once, he does not want it to be changed again. On the same page, commenting on the words of another, he says: “So that from the substance of the law he concludeth that the seventh day must be kept, and from the practice of the apostles that Christ hath appointed this seventh day, and so neither the number of seven nor this seventh day ever to be changed.” On p. 70, he quotes and comments on Junius as follows: “And so a little after he addeth: that the law of sanctifying the Sabbath is natural in respect of the substance of it, which is this, that every seventh day is to be kept holy unto God, and so that remaineth still, though that very seventh day be changed. And this must always remain, and never be changed unto the eighth or the tenth.” On p. 71, he comments on the words of a previous writer, thus: “So he maketh the seventh day to be genus [a general term for everything of that nature] in this commandment, and to be perpetual: and in it by virtue of the commandment to comprehend these two species or kinds: the Sabbath of the Jews and of the Gentiles, of the law and of the gospel: so that both of them were comprehended in the commandment, even as genus comprehendeth both his species, and so in saying that both of them were included in the commandment, we do not imply contradictions, as though if this were commanded, the other could not be; but according to the rules of logic, we make the general to include both the particulars.” Now he gets the first day into the fourth commandment: On p. 72 he says: “So that we have not in the gospel a new commandment for the Sabbath, diverse from that that was in the law; but there is a diverse time appointed: namely, not the seventh day from the creation, but the day of Christ’s resurrection, and the seventh from that: both of them at several times being comprehended in the fourth commandment.” He means to say that the fourth commandment enforces the seventh day from creation to the resurrection of Christ, and since that enforces a different day, namely the seventh from Christ’s resurrection. Now see how shrewdly he can justify first-day observance: On p. 74 he quotes Zanchius as follows: “The substance of this commandment as it appertaineth unto us, and is confirmed of Christ, is not that we should sanctify the seventh day, but the Sabbath or day of rest, whichsoever it be: and by this means we also keep this commandment, while we keep holy the Lord’s day: because this is the Sabbath and day of rest to us, as the seventh day was to the Jews.” He comments on this in these words: “From whence also it seemeth that the first seventh day might be taken away, though there was no ceremony in it at all. For God did ordain, that it being appointed for the memory of the creation, and to the end of the first world (that I may so speak) when a greater benefit came in place, as the redemption of the world, then that should have an end, though a seventh day were still to be retained.” Finally he guards against further changes of the day. Thus on p. 77 he says: “Why we keep another seventh day and not that which was from the beginning. But now concerning this very special seventh day, that now we keep in the time of the gospel, that is well known that it is not the same, that was from the beginning which God himself did sanctify, and whereof he speaketh to the Jews in this commandment; for it was the day going before ours, which in Latin retaineth his ancient name, and is called the Sabbath, which we also grant, but so, that we also confess that it must always remain, never to be changed any more; and that all men must keep holy this seventh day and none other; which was unto them not the seventh, but the first day of the week, as it is so called many times in the New Testament; and so it still [p. 78] standeth in force, that we are bound unto the seventh day, though not unto that very seventh.” He makes the following remarks respecting the prohibition of fires: Page 140: “St. Augustine moveth this question, by Moses when he came down from the mountain of God, the second time, with the two tables in his hand wherein were all the ten commandments written; why he admonished the people of the Sabbath, and not of the rest, seeing that was in the tables as well as they. For if it were needless to admonish them of the Sabbath, because they had heard them before, then this was needless also, because they had heard it as well as the rest. And then maketh this answer: He doth not admonish them of it without cause; for that he speaketh in making the tabernacle and all things belonging to it, and showeth that notwithstanding that, they must rest upon the Sabbath day, and not under the color of that (as it is said in the text) so much as kindle a fire. For as Lyra saith: Here the Lord speaketh of the final end whereunto the tabernacle was referred; for it was made that it might be appointed for God’s worship, which for the most part did consist in the observation of the Sabbath, which was pronounced by God before; yet here it is repeated for two causes: the first because the people of Israel might think that it was lawful for them to do the work of the tabernacle upon the Sabbath day, because the tabernacle was ordained for the worship of God; therefore to shut out this, here is repeated the commandment of sanctifying the Sabbath. The second cause is for the better authorizing of the commandment; because here is set down a punishment for them that brake the Sabbath which was not expressed before. And so afterward when Moses delivered this unto the people, he saith: First, he repeateth the commandment of observing the Sabbath, lest that they might think it was lawful to break it for the work of the tabernacle.” [We have given these lengthy extracts from Dr. B.’s book to show how the first-day Sabbath was set upon a seventh-day foundation less than 300 years since. We invite attention to these passages.
J. N. A.]