The Sabbath Question by R. F. Cottrell

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · May 9, 1878

The Sabbath Question.

By R. F. Cottrell

I HAVE on my table, "A Sermon by Rev. R. M. Webster, Pastor of Union church, Berlin, Wisconsin," in which the author gives his "Reasons against changing our custom," that is of keeping the first day of the week. Some of his reasons, those which he makes most prominent, I will briefly examine.

His first and most important reason, that upon which he depends most, the alpha and omega of the whole discourse, is the claim that the Sabbath commandment does not, and never did require the observance of any particular day of the seven. I give some quotations to show that I do not misrepresent him. He says:—

"The command itself warrants our present custom. The command is not, remember Saturday to keep it holy. It is not remember the seventh day of the week to keep it holy. It is, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Now the first day of our week is with us the Sabbath day. To keep this day holy, then, is to fulfill the command. He worked six days, the seventh day he rested. As much as to say, this is to stand as an hallowing example and illustration. You shall work six days, then rest one day and hallow it as God did. So far therefore as the letter of the law is concerned there is no reason for changing our day. We keep the law as literally as do our friends who persist in calling us Sabbath breakers. Their doctrine that the law means the seventh day of our week is pure assumption. We do keep the seventh day according to the terms of the law, the next day after the sixth. As to where this day comes, in our week, as we reckon time, the law assumes nothing."

Now these assertions do contradict the word of God, or they do not. To test this we have only to read Ex. 20:8-11, and Gen. 2:2, 3. Our writer says truly that the command is to "remember the Sabbath day." Sabbath day means rest day. We are commanded to remember the rest day. Whose rest day? The Lord's. It is not our rest day. We are not commanded to "rest one day and hallow it as God did." God has hallowed and sanctified a day for us, and what he requires of us is to remember that day and keep it holy. It is the rest day of the Lord our God that we are keeping. What day is his rest day, or Sabbath day? The day on which he rested, the seventh. "The seventh day is the Sabbath [rest], of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested the seventh day." Did God rest on the seventh and last day of that first week, or was it on no particular day?

The record says, "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested." To sanctify means to set apart, or to appoint, to a sacred use. Did God set apart or appoint a particular day? The record says he did. What day was that? It was the day in all future weeks on which he had rested in the first week. He did not bless and sanctify the day for himself and then rest upon it. He simply rested upon it for an example. This made it his rest day. He then blessed and sanctified the day, "because that in it he had rested." Now did God sanctify a particular day? If he did not, then our friend is correct when he says he did not. His reply is it is not "the seventh day of the week." Of what is it the seventh day, if not of the week? It has always taken just seven days to make a week; consequently the last day of the week is always the seventh, and the seventh is always the last.

But our author speaks of "our week." What is our week? Is it not the week upon the first day of which Jesus rose from the dead? Exactly; else our observers of the resurrection day keep the wrong day. Now whoever will read Matt. 28:1, and Luke 23:56, and 24:1, will find that the Old Testament week and New Testament week correspond precisely, and that the "Sabbath according to the commandment" is the day before that first day of the week. Over the whole enlightened world the same week is known to-day; therefore any other week is an artificial one, gotten up for special occasions. "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

The week was well defined when Israel were in the desert. Ex. 16. Manna was given on each of "the six working days," Eze. 46:1, a double portion on the sixth day, none on the Sabbath, and it could be kept over night for use on the Sabbath and on no other day of the week, it would putrefy and breed worms, if kept over any other night than the hallowed evening before the Sabbath day. Preparation for food on the Sabbath was made by gathering and preparing it on the day before, and on no other. Now suppose our author to have been there, and taking the privilege which he claims the Sabbath law allows every one, he had chosen for himself a day that God did not hallow, say "the first day of our week." "Very well." He enters upon the duties of his sacred day expecting to "find the good which God willed in it, [the Sabbath,] by observing it in its true spirit." But after the morning devotions the appetite calls for food but he has none. None was gathered the day before, for none fell on that day. The manna now lies around the camp, but he cannot gather it upon the Sabbath day. His neighbors are busy gathering their rations for the day; but he is obliged to fast. This circumstance might induce him to choose another day, the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth. For either of these days he can lay up a portion of food for Sabbath use. But, lo, in the morning of his chosen Sabbath he has nothing in his clean-vessel but a loathsome, putrified mass filled with worms! Perhaps by the time he had tried every other day of the six for his Sabbath, he would find it to his interest to choose for his Sabbath the day which God's providence pointed out as the definite day; since he would not wish to turn every Sabbath into a fast. And he might also, if apt to learn, learn this lesson: that God's law and providence do not disagree with each other; and therefore since his providence requires a definite day, his law also requires the same.

Now we have proved briefly, That the fourth commandment requires the observance of the definite seventh day of the week in the order of the first week of time, the same seventh day in order, on which God rested. That the Sabbath was the day on which God rested; and that he sanctified, that is, set apart, or appointed, this very day. That his providence unmistakably pointed out the day to Israel in the desert; and that the week which the Jews were thus taught to observe, corresponds precisely with the New Testament week, the week which all christendom do truly claim to observe.

Having refuted his first proposition, or "reason," the one on which each of his other five hinge, except one, we might drop the subject as requiring no further notice. But we will notice that one additional idea which is found in his second reason, and intermingled in succeeding parts of his discourse. I give several quotations, that he may be clearly understood on this point, as follows:—

"The spirit of the law is the thing to obey and follow. 'The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.' [Do the letter and the spirit of God's law disagree? and would it be a killing thing to obey the letter?] Even then if the law did originally specify Saturday, or the seventh day of the calendar week, which we don't allow, it being clear to us [as we have shown] that it did no such thing, we need only be anxious now to secure the end of the precept, and find the good which God willed in it, by observing it in its true spirit. What then is the true spirit of the fourth commandment? Is it not God's recognition and enforcement of the obligation resting upon us, by virtue of what we are, to rest ourselves occasionally from all things else, that we may acquaint ourselves with God and be at peace? 'It is no arbitrary decree. In this Sabbath precept God's love wills a certain and real good to us. This is the spirit of it.' "Now the point is this: There is no good thing willed of God in this Sabbath precept, which is more surely or more readily found by the sticklers for the Saturday Sabbath, than is found by us. Very well; since it is impossible that one should disobey a law of God, and be as well off as if he obeyed it, and since those who keep the Sabbath on Sunday are as well off as those who keep it on Saturday, receiving equal physical refreshing, equal mental and spiritual opportunity and nourishment, it follows that they are equally obedient, that they as truly honor the law." "Whence it appears that even if the precise day of the week on which the Sabbath fell, was originally pointed out, [which we have shown was not the case,] still that could not be an essential part of the precept; since, as we have seen, the good secured by obedience is independent of that. When we so make a preceept as to find the end, the good it proposed, we do truly obey it, whatever different senses the words may bear. There is no good that would naturally result from observing the Sabbath on Saturday that does not as naturally result from our present way. It is clear that no good could result to us by a change unless God arbitrarily decrees that it should. In which case we should have a God, acting not reasonably, with reference to natural causes and effects, but capriciously." "I dare not express, as I feel, the abhorrence I have of any notion or doctrine that makes our God and Father whimsical and arbitrary. He is not so. I am sure through all my soul that I accept the great thought and purpose of God in the Sabbath, and receive its holy influences to the refreshing and nourishing of all that is good within me, I have obeyed the fourth commandment."

The reader now has the pith and marrow of the sermon before him. The remainder of it is too chaffy to be worth the winnowing. I have quoted quite fully the two leading and most important ideas. In the first place the writer is quite sure that the Sabbath precept appoints and requires no definite day; but supposing it does, he has shown us how he would dispose of it; he would keep the spirit of it, while he disobeyed the letter.

Now I can understand how a person can violate the spirit of the command, "Thou shalt not kill," by hating his brother, and so being in spirit a murderer, though he does not actually kill him; but I cannot see how any sane man can willingly kill his brother, and still keep the precept in spirit.

Our friend seems to see no object in the Sabbath commandment, but the good that is to result to man in keeping it—the physical rest, and mental and moral improvement. If this were all, God might have omitted to appoint the day, and left us to choose. Any one day might do as well for this as another. The Sabbath precept does contemplate man's good. "The Sabbath was made for man." But the great, primary object is the honor of God. He would have mankind honor him as their Creator, by the weekly celebration of the day on which he rested from his work. No other day will answer this purpose, but the day on which he rested. Hence the Lord says, "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure," &c. Please see how this text would sound, reading in the indefinite day theory. Thus: From doing thy pleasure on one day in seven, and call this one day in seven the holy of the Lord, honorable. Our friend's grand argument on getting the good thing willed of God in this Sabbath precept, is faulty, because it is one-sided and selfish, leaving the great design of the precept, the honor of God, out of the question.

Mark the presumption of a professed teacher of the word of God. If he knew that the precept did point out "the precise day of the week," still he would sit in judgment on the law and decide that "that could not be an essential part of the precept." This is as much to say that he would not turn and keep the seventh day, if he knew that the commandment required it! In the first place he does his best to prove that the commandment does not appoint a particular day; but failing in this, being convinced that God did set apart the definite day of the week on which he rested from his work, he would not keep it; he would take a new and entirely different and incongruous position and say the word of God is not essential. Could the predicted anti-christ, who was to think to change the times and laws of God, do more? Is there any use to labor to convince such a one of error? It may benefit others to have his glaring sophistries and astonishing presumption exposed.

Let us illustrate the doctrine of this sermon by a Scripture example. God sent Saul, the king of Israel with his army, to destroy utterly the Amalekites, because of their sins, and to leave nothing alive either man or beast. But instead of executing his orders to the letter, he saved the king of Amalek alive, and some of the best of the sheep and oxen. Still he claimed that he had obeyed the commandment of the Lord. He may have reasoned thus: "The spirit of the law is the thing to obey, and follow. We need only be anxious now to secure the end of the precept, by observing it in its true spirit. The things which God willed, and that these Agag should die sometime, and that these cattle should be slain. This end will be secured by offering them in sacrifice. Besides this, we shall make a triumphant display on our return, and have a good time at Carmel and Gilgal, worshiping God by offering sacrifices in abundance. It is no arbitrary decree. I abhor the notion that makes our God and Father whimsical and arbitrary. When we so observe a precept as to find the end—the good it proposed we do truly obey it, by taking home a drove of these fine cattle and offering them to God in sacrifice, the end of the command is gained, and more too. Very well: Since it is impossible that one should disobey a law of God, and be as well off as if he obeyed it, it follows that they are equally obedient, that they as truly honor the law. 'The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.'"

But the result was that the Lord viewed this matter very differently. Saul has done his own will, and not the Lord's. Said the prophet, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." Then Saul confessed that he had transgressed the commandment of the Lord, "because" said he "I feared the people and obeyed their voice."

How many now are doing the same thing trampling on the word of God, because they fear the people. Said Jesus, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" The Lord has magnified his word above all his name. Ps. 138:2. He says, "If I then be a father, where is mine honor?" Mal. 1:6. "Them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." 1 Sam. 2:30. Alas! how many will come to the great day of the Lord deceived.

It is the duty of preachers to "preach the word"—to teach the people Bible truth. They should not preach "peace and safety," while the word of God threatens wrath, as it does in the third angel's message. Rev. 14:9-12. It is not enough for them to sneer at those who are warning the people of the wrath of God which is coming upon those who worship the beast, and do not keep the commandments of God, and say that they who are preaching the message do not understand it. It is for teachers of the word to tell the people what it does mean, and warn them faithfully, that they may escape the wrath. It is evident that God will test the people. Can they keep the commandments of God in the Spirit, while they obey those of the beast to the letter? "Let no man deceive you." "He that doeth righteousness is righteous." No person can obey the spirit of a command, while he willingly transgresses the letter. R. F. COTTRELL.