Our Sunday; Whence and What?
This is the title of the anti-Sabbath pamphlet, written by a Baptist minister of Santa Barbara, of which we recently made mention. The title is truthfully suggestive,—“Our Sunday.” Jehovah said: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” He calls it, “My holy day.” It is verily “the Lord’s day.” He sanctified it when he made the heavens and the earth. But no such expressions are found in the Scriptures concerning the Sunday. It is “our Sunday.” The Lord our God never claimed it as his day. The Scriptures contain not a hint that the first day of the week is the Lord’s day. No; it is just “our Sunday;” all our own man-made institution! Mr. Nisbet, the author of the pamphlet, is happy in his expression. He struck a rich vein of truth when he labeled it “our Sunday.” This pamphlet is accompanied with a few testimonials from prominent men. We quote them in full:— “C. A. Buckbee, D. D., ex-Pastor 1st Bap. Ch., San Francisco: ‘Your discussion of the Sunday question is able, convincing, admirable. Our Publication Society ought to put its imprint on such a volume as your MS. would make.’” “A. J. Frost, D. D., Pastor 1st Bap. Ch., Sacramento: ‘I have read your MS. with profit and delight. You have effectually taken the ground from under the seventh-day observers; and, also, from those who claim that the day has been changed from the seventh to the first. I would heartily commend your little book to all lovers of clear views and sound doctrines.’” “Prof. Joseph LeConte, University of California: ‘I have found your MS. very interesting and profitable. I fully agree with you as to the origin and nature of “our Sunday.” The Judaic observance of it has sadly obscured its true significance, and produced a revulsion which threatens its entire destruction. Your book is simple, clear, strong, conclusive, and I believe very timely.’” With this indorsement before him, the reader will naturally be anxious to learn the position of the writer; how he has taken the ground away from observers of the Sabbath of the Lord God; and on what correct and firm basis he has established the observance of the first day; and the meaning of the “whence” contained in the title. Before presenting the evidence of the “little book” itself, we will state in brief its position. It is as follows:— - The Sabbath was not made as an institution for observance at creation, but when Israel came out of Egypt.
- The seventh-day Sabbath was only a temporary institution, and therefore there was no change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day.
- There is no divine institution of any sacred day under the gospel; hence, the Sunday is not kept by any divine authority. It is an ecclesiastical or church day, and purely a matter of choice with the church.
- That there is both interpolation and forgery in the writings claimed to be those of the primitive fathers, and which are produced to prove the divine obligation of the Sunday.
- But there is not only utility in, but necessity for, the observance of a recurring day of rest; that one day in seven is the proper proportion of time; that it is necessary both for our physical and spiritual well-being that such a day shall be observed; and that it is most fitting that it should be observed on the first day of the week.
And no better summary than the above can be given in brief. From the above indorsements of the “little book,” it might be supposed that the difficulty which has rested upon the Baptists of California, as shown in the communications of Doctors Anderson and Tombes, in the Herald of Truth, has at last been happily adjusted. But not so; the “muddle” remains, and its proportions are enlarged. Dr. Abbott, the editor of the Herald of Truth, is an out-and-out Baptist. He is watchful over the interests of the denomination, and he has learned caution from the effects produced on the denomination by his learned correspondents. Accordingly, in his notice of Dr. Nisbet’s “little book,” he says:— “We are, however, not satisfied that his denial of any Sabbath from Eden to Moses is entirely sustained. ‘God rested on the seventh day, and blessed and hallowed it,’ is a declaration that is not to be set aside by any reference of it to God himself solely. This looks to us like begging the question. The fact is, Moses speaks of God’s act as the sufficient ground for the observance by his people of the Sabbath themselves.” The reading of the Bible on this point is very plain to all plain Bible readers. While Dr. Frost thinks that Dr. Nisbet has taken the ground from under the seventh-day observers, Dr. Abbott, with more caution, and with experience of the effects of such teachings, asserts that Dr. N. accomplished that wonderful feat only by “begging the question.” And so the “little book,” which Dr. Frost so highly commends, may prove like the “little book” eaten by the prophet, only sweet in the mouth and bitter in the stomach! We feel assured that the process of digestion had scarcely commenced with those Baptists who accepted this “little book” as a “sweet morsel.” It needs but little examination to show that the editor of the Herald of Truth is on the safe side in his statement. And he falls far within the line of truth on the subject. Not only Moses but God himself “speaks of God’s act as the sufficient ground for the observance by his people of the Sabbath.” The commandment—Ex. 20:8–11—was not spoken by Moses, but by Jehovah. “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” And this action of God in resting the seventh day, and of sanctifying it because he rested on it, is not only given by Jehovah “as the sufficient ground for the observance by his people of the Sabbath,” but it is given as the only ground of the institution. It is certainly begging the question, or even worse, handling the word of God deceitfully, to say that Gen. 2:3 only tells us what God did, without any reference to man’s action, or duty. The sole reason of the sanctification of the day is found in the fact that God, the Creator, rested that day; and the word sanctify signifies to set apart to a sacred use. That is, Jehovah separated the seventh day from the other days, and set it apart to a sacred use, because he rested on it from the work of creation. This embraces the entire process of making the Sabbath. And when the Saviour says it was “made for man,” set apart or consecrated and hallowed for man because God rested on it from the work of creation, it is the shallowest kind of sophistry to claim that this record has no reference to man’s action, or to his duty to observe it. The only reason why the writer of the pamphlet did not stand openly self-convicted in his use of Gen. 2:3 is because he did not examine the terms of the text upon which he professed to comment. Dr. Frost is entirely mistaken in the first part of his assertion, namely, that Dr. Nisbet has taken the ground from under the seventh-day observers; Dr. Abbott is clearly in the right when he says that Dr. Nisbet begged the question on the point. But Dr. Frost is correct when he says that he has taken the ground from under “those who claim that the day has been changed from the seventh to the first.” On this point Dr. Abbott does not dispute him, and no one can successfully dispute him. He has most effectually taken away the foundation claimed for “the venerable day of the sun,” as we will show hereafter. We will here suggest to Dr. Abbott that there are some conclusions to be logically drawn from the fact that the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath comes down from creation, and that it is based on the Creator’s rest from the creative work. We shall present them for his consideration in our further examination of the subject.