"Our Sunday; Whence and What."
In the notice of Dr. Nisbet's work in the Herald of Truth, we find this sentence: "Our belief is that the Sabbath or seventh-day worship is as old as creation." And we think this is the only reasonable belief that can be drawn from the Scriptures. And the professed reasons for believing the contrary are inconclusive and often puerile. Mr. Nisbet says:— "Had such command been given Adam, a clear record of it for the primitive world we should expect in Genesis, when we call to mind the heinous sin of its neglect, as indicated by the Mosaic penalty—death." And such a record we have in Genesis, but they who would get rid of the Edenic Sabbath dispute the record. We show the unreasonableness of his position in two ways:— 1. The record of the command is given in the word "sanctify," in Gen. 2:3, of which Dr. Clarke says: "Here the word kadosh is taken in its proper, literal sense, signifying the separating of a thing, person, or place, from all profane, or common uses, and devoting it to a sacred purpose." And Webster says: "To make sacred or holy; to set apart to a religious use." Also: "To impart sacredness, inviolability; . . . to secure from violation; to give sanction to." Now if Gen. 2:3 were rendered: "And God blessed the seventh day, and set it apart to a sacred use, and gave sanction to it, securing it from violation, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made," it would be no more specific and emphatic than it now is, for all this is contained in the word sanctified. When the Saviour says it was made for man, he certainly refers to its being blessed and set apart to sacred use, or secured from violation, from its being profaned by the man for whom it was made. No one can dispute this fact, that the reason given in God's commandment, Ex. 20, for the Sabbath, is as old as creation. As an institution it commemorates the work of creation. 2. Were the terms of Gen. 2:3 less specific, and were the terms of Ex. 20:8-11 less definite, even then the arguing of Dr. Nisbet would be inconclusive. In all his theorizing he assumes that if the Sabbath were to be observed before the days of Moses there should have been a plain record of the giving of the precept for the benefit of the primitive world. In this he entirely overlooks the plainest facts necessary to be considered if we would get an understanding of the truth. Note the following points:— (a) The book of Genesis, which contains the record of the facts of creation, is not a book of law, but a brief history, covering more than 2,000 years from creation. And
(b) It was not written at or near the time when the events transpired, but hundreds of years afterward. And, therefore,
(c) It was not written for the benefit or use of those who lived during the first 2,000 years, as they were a long time dead when it was written. As might be expected in a book of this character, we often find evidence of the existence and knowledge of a law, when there is no mention of a law in the record. Thus "Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him." This is a very short biography of a very eminent man who lived several hundred years. It does not furnish the least clue to the rules of life observed by Enoch. But it will not do to infer that, because not a single law is recorded, therefore not a single commandment was observed by Enoch. We must apply the principles involved in the case from our knowledge of the relations and responsibilities of a moral agent. Again, the imagination of the hearts of men was only evil, in the days of Noah; and Noah alone was righteous before God. But righteousness consists in right doing. 1 Jno. 3:7. Therefore, the difference between Noah and others was just this: He was obedient to the requirements of God while they were disobedient and lawless. We are absolutely shut up to this conclusion, though the record makes no mention of any law obeyed by the one, or disobeyed by the others. And again, the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners exceedingly. Now there is no record that any law was given to them; but we know that "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 Jno. 3:4); and that "where no law is there is no transgression" (Rom. 4:13); and "no imputation of sin" (Rom. 5:13). Therefore they had the law given to them, and they were its transgressors. Though the record contains no law, it contains positive proof that it was there. Had the record been written for them to point out to them their duty, it must then have contained the law instead of barely referring to it. In all such cases we find in Genesis, not what was necessary in a legal view to guide the lives of those living in that day, for it was not written for such a purpose, nor for them at all; but (we find) all that is necessary in a historical view, to give us full assurance that moral relations were the same then that they are now, and that legal obligations were known by all, and were regarded by some and disregarded by others. As a forcible illustration of the weakness of the method of reasoning adopted by Dr. Nisbet let us take Genesis and the third commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." According to Mr. Nisbet there was no obligation of this nature laid upon the nations and people living before the Lord brought his people out of Egypt and gave the commandment from Mount Sinai; for there is no mention in Genesis of either the commandment or its violation. To adopt his language: "Had such command been given Adam, a clear record of it for the primitive world we should expect in Genesis, when we call to mind the heinous sin of its neglect, as indicated by the Mosaic penalty—death." See Lev. 24:16. But in Lev. 18 the sins of the inhabitants of Canaan are enumerated, and the Lord said: "After the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, ye shall not do." "Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God." "For all these abominations have the men of the land done which were before you, and the land is defiled." Lev. 18:3, 21, 27. This is positive proof that Dr. Nisbet's treatment of Genesis is erroneous. By a careful examination and comparison of the Scriptures we shall find that all the precepts of the decalogue were recognized before the time of Moses. But the proof in regard to the Sabbath is more clearly made than in regard to any other of the ten precepts, as shown in the word sanctified, or hallowed, in Gen. 2:3 and Ex. 20:11. It is the Sabbath (rest) of the Lord because on it the Lord rested from his work of creation. The Lord calls it, "My holy day," for no other reason than that he sanctified it because it was his rest from the work of creation. Of course all this refers to the seventh day, and cannot possibly be applied to the first day. And here is where the great difficulty lies. If these proofs could only be turned over to the benefit of the Sunday, they would be clung to most tenaciously by the advocates of the Sunday-sabbath. And because they cannot the theological world is fast turning away from the decalogue—the "ten words" of Jehovah himself—and adopting the antinomian heresy. Dr. Nisbet follows in the wake. Thus he says: "It may be well to inquire what kind of a document the decalogue is. It was Jewish and temporary,—the document itself once and again declares this." Though the current is fast setting in the direction of antinomianism, we feel assured that the Baptist denomination has not yet so far "fallen from grace" as to satisfy the desire of Dr. Buckbee, and suffer its Publication Society to put its imprint upon such a theory. The organ of the denomination on this coast, the Herald of Truth, has done itself credit, and the Baptist cause a favor, by showing its disapproval of such a doctrine. And inasmuch as it frankly declares Mr. Nisbet's professed argument to be a begging of the question, we dismiss that part of the "little book" to examine it in another phase. What about the second statement of Dr. Frost, that Dr. Nisbet has effectually taken the ground from under those who claim that the day has been changed from the seventh to the first? What ground has he left for the advocates of the Sunday to stand upon? Just none at all. The proof of the seventh day is found in the word of Jehovah himself, spoken by himself, and written by himself in the tables of stone. "All his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever." The apostle Paul inquires, and answers, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." But the Sunday has no such foundation to rest upon. Of it Jehovah never spoke a word in blessing or sanctification. He never called it his holy day. Dr. Nisbet may safely demolish its foundations, well knowing that in so doing he will not do violence to a single text of Scripture or to a Scripture fact! And here again the editor of the Herald of Truth shows his discretion in saying: "As for the New Testament Sabbath, we confess there is too little of it in the precept thereof to justify dogmatism by anybody." Too little indeed, if anything at all is required to that intent. But we could better judge of the correctness of his remark concerning "the precept thereof," that is, the precept for "the New Testament Sabbath," if he would kindly give us the precept, or tell us where it may be found! We shall have to leave it with the well-known supposition that it may be found in the same chapter where the precept is found for infant baptism, and where is found the declaration that the soul is immortal. But we must now turn to Mr. Nisbet's view of the Sunday, and see how that is established. He says: "Conceding the fourth commandment to be now in force, those who urge it for the observance of Sunday, stultify themselves,—they do away with the very essence of the command—observance of the day on which God rested, the seventh. It is the boldest and paltriest hocus pocus that claims: 'One day in seven, is the same as the seventh day,' every child knows it is not. If religious observance of the first day of the week is obligatory, such obligation must arise elsewhere than from the fourth commandment which requires observance—and for a specified reason—of the seventh,—it is not taught us by any voice of nature,—it must for Protestants, rest for its authority simply upon the teachings of the New Testament." These words are true, beyond denial. And now, unless he can produce that authority in the teachings of the New Testament, the friends of "Our Sunday" will not accord to him any very hearty thanks for his service. On this point he speaks thus:— "Let a heathen mind—tabula rasa—search the New Testament for the ordinances of Christ's church, he would find nothing requiring him to observe in any special manner whatever the first day of the week as a new, positive, Christ instituted, universally and perpetually binding ordinance." Truth, every word. And as far as showing any Scriptural obligation for Sunday is concerned, we might here close our examination of Mr. Nisbet's work, for this is "the conclusion of the whole matter" with him, on the subject. But we will take it up once more to show the reader how he disposes of the texts which are claimed to afford proof of a divine warrant for the observance of Sunday.