Review of Rev. B. T. Roberts.
By M. H. Brown
The April number of the Earnest Christian, published in the interest of the Free Methodists, contains an article on the Sabbath question, written by the editor, Rev. B. T. Roberts. The article was called out by a request from one of the patrons of the paper that the editor should show why we keep Sunday for the Sabbath. He replies:— “1. For the sake of public decency. People generally agree on keeping this day. Therefore, in the absence of any reason to the contrary we should keep it with them.” In the days of Christ, the people of God were all agreed in keeping the seventh day; why set up another Sabbath on another day contrary to the requirements of public decency? Would our first-day friends surrender their first-day observance if they should move into a neighborhood in which the seventh day is observed? Then why use such an argument against seventh-day observance in a first-day community? Under the same proposition, Eld. R. says:— “To shock unnecessarily the religious sensibilities of the great mass of Christian people, savors more of an overweening vanity and self-will than of true humility.” Does it savor more of vanity and self-will than of true humility for Free Methodists to refuse to conform to the world in matters of dress and adorning? We think not. Why should observers of the seventh day be required to conform to the great mass of the Christian world in Sabbath observance any more than Free Methodists in matters of dress? In each case there is a coming out from the world and a worldly church. How this savors more of vanity and self-will than of true humility I cannot understand. Again he says:— “The Sabbath is much more likely to be respected by the ungodly, if all professing Christians unite upon one day, than it will if some keep one day, and some another.” This is true. But if some keep one day and some another, is it not the exercise of that freedom of choice which the theory of an indefinite seventh-part-of-time Sabbath permits, a theory which, as we shall presently see, Eld. R. endorses? God is not the author of confusion, but of order, and hence is not the author of a Sabbath which comes on any day of the week according to the day upon which we choose to commence our six days of labor. His second proposition proves that his theory of the Sabbath allows every one freedom of choice as to the day he will observe. It reads as follows:— “2. In keeping Sunday we are keeping the original command.” The holy women, however, who rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment, commenced their labors on the first day of the week, after having kept the previous day, which must have been the seventh day of the week. If resting on the first day of the week is keeping the original command, then it may be kept by resting on any day of the week we may elect. What a wonderful institution the Sabbath is! “Not once in all the Bible are we commanded to keep the seventh day of the week.” In Gen. 1 and 2, we have the origin of the week of seven days. The first six days of this weekly cycle were employed in the work of creation, and the seventh day of this first week of time was the day upon which God rested. This week of seven days is of divine origin, and has been retained by all the civilized nations of the earth by universal agreement. This proves conclusively that the weekly cycle which God established has come down to us unchanged. Eld. R. believes the change of the Sabbath was early made; for under proposition 4 he gives quotations to prove it; but certainly there was no need of a change according to his theory as stated in the following:— “We are commanded to keep the seventh day after six days of labor.” If those who kept the Sabbath according to the commandment observed the day on which Christ rose from the dead, they could not have been keeping the Sabbath; for the Sabbath, says Eld. R., “is the seventh day after six days of labor,” and no labor had been performed since the previous day. Luke 23:54-56; 24:1. If they kept the following Sunday it would be the eighth day after seven days of labor, and hence could not be the Sabbath. Does not the theory we are considering give every one the right of choice in his Sabbath to commence his labor on any day of the week he may elect, and keep the seventh day after six days of labor? We are quite certain that we are correct in drawing this conclusion; for, speaking of the change of the Sabbath under proposition 4, he says: “Do you ask by what authority? If our view of the Sabbath is correct, and we have no doubt of its correctness, it needs no authority.” Then as many Sabbaths may be kept as the whims of the people may dictate. Would not such a theory, if carried out, be totally destructive of law and order and the best interests of society? Certainly; but some theory must be framed to authorize the observance of a day God never commanded to be kept holy, and to excuse the desecration of the only day which God ever blessed and sanctified. Proposition 3 reads as follows:— “3. By keeping every seventh day, the most ignorant may know, in any part of the world, what day to keep.” When God established the weekly cycle, the six days of labor would inevitably fall upon the first six days of the week, and the “seventh day after six days of labor” would be the seventh day of the week. It must be admitted by all candid minds that it would be just as easy for Adam and his posterity to preserve the count of the days of the week as of the days of labor, and “the seventh day after six days of labor” would coincide with the seventh day of the week. This is a self-evident truth. Eld. R. refers to the case of the Alaskans who came east across the Pacific. He says that “what we call the first day of the week they call the seventh.” Now the truth is just the reverse of this. What we call the seventh day of the week they call the first. There is no fact better established among navigators and scientific men than that the day line is in the Pacific Ocean, and that in crossing it from America to Asia we must add a day to our reckoning, while in passing from Asia to America we must drop a day from our reckoning, to be in harmony with the rest of the world in commencing the week. This the Alaskans neglected to do, and hence the discrepancy referred to by Eld. R. The position of the day line has been so well known for years that all sea-faring men adjust their reckoning while crossing the Pacific. A person may travel from the eastern extremity of the eastern continent to the western extremity of the western continent and return, and his reckoning of the days of the week will at all times agree with the reckoning at any point through which he may pass. And here we would call the attention of our first-day friends to this very suggestive fact that all the blunders which have been made in keeping the count of the days of the week have been made by observers of the first day of the week; and by this error they have unwittingly become observers of the Lord’s Sabbath, whereas the Jews and other observers of the seventh-day Sabbath, who have been scattered all over the world, have never had any discrepancy arise among them as to which was the seventh day of the week. I do not know how our first-day friends account for these facts. A careful reading of Ps. 111:10, may throw light on the subject. Eld. R. speaks of the change in the length of the year made by the Jews and by Julius Caesar, and also of the change from Old Style to New Style in 1582 when Pope Gregory XIII. ordained that Oct. 5 should be called Oct. 15, and then asks, “In all these changes has there been any change in the day of the week? I do not know.” Such a confession of ignorance is astonishing, and if it is honest, why “darken counsel by words without knowledge” in an effort to quiet the consciences of those who have felt it their duty to observe the seventh-day? Will not such efforts cause “many to stumble at the law?” Malachi 2:8. Now the least reflection by any person of common intelligence must convince him that to change the length of the year or of the month, or to call the 5th day of any month the 15th, does not affect the day of the week in the slightest degree. Russia never made the change ordained by Pope Gregory XIII., and her seventh day corresponds with ours. Those nations of the earth which never adopted the Jewish or the Roman civil year retain the same numbering of the days of the week that we do. Suppose the U. S. government should decree that Aug. 2d of this year should be called Aug. 12th; that is, should drop ten days, just as was done in 1582. Now to-day is Monday, Aug. 2d; such a decree would make it Aug. 12th; but the day of the week would still be Monday. The universal agreement of all the nations of the earth concerning the reckoning of the days of the week is a standing rebuke to those watchmen who confess ignorance concerning a subject so plain. Can it be possible that Eld. R. is ignorant of these things? His fourth and last proposition is this:— “4. It is probable that the apostles and early Christians kept what they called the first day of the week.” Is it not more than probable that the apostles and early Christians kept what they called the Sabbath. We have plain and pointed testimony that the day after the crucifixion was observed by the disciples of Christ as the Sabbath; and the day following the Sabbath was called the first day of the week by Luke, when he wrote his gospel twenty-eight years after that event. The inspired evangelists and the apostles called that day the Sabbath which the Jews used for worship in their synagogues, and never called the first day of the week the Sabbath, the Christian Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, but plain first day of the week. These stubborn facts can never be reconciled with the theory that the Sabbath was changed by divine authority. Please read Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2; Luke 23:54-56; 24:1; Acts 13:14, 15, 16, 27, 42, 44; 15:21; 17:2; 18:3, 4. He quotes Acts 20:7, and then says, “This certainly implies that the first day of the week was their regular day of worship.” This inference is very unjust and far-fetched. The Scriptures are silent respecting the customary observance of the first day. It is never called the Sabbath, and we have no mention of any religious meeting on the first day, except the one recorded in Acts 20:7; and on the same day they partook of the Lord’s supper, and Paul started on his journey, traveling nineteen and one-half miles on foot to Assos. See verses 8-14. This shows that Paul did not observe the first-day Sabbath. He quotes 1 Cor. 16:2: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” This is a work to be done at home. Lay in store where? “By him.” It is not to be put into the contribution box of the congregation. “As God hath prospered him.” This involves a review of the business of the week, and a summing up of receipts and expenditures, &c. Is this a proper manner in which to spend the hours of the holy Sabbath? Who will claim it? “The first day of the week was called the Lord’s day, because on it Jesus rose from the dead.” The truth is, never, in a single instance, was the first day of the week called the Lord’s day by any Bible writer. This is conclusive proof that the title was never applied to that day by divine authority. Uninspired men have given it that title, and have given the reason mentioned by Eld. R.; but God never did. Is not the Bible a sufficient rule of faith and practice? or must we take the doctrines and commandments of men, in order that we may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works? 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. As is customary among first-day writers, he quotes the early fathers to prove that the Sabbath was changed at an early date. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is quoted as follows: “Let us no longer sabbatize, but keep the Lord’s day on which our life arose.” This is a false translation. The literal rendering of the decisive sentence is as follows: “No longer sabbatizing, but living according to the Lord’s life.” Eminent first-day scholars have testified explicitly that the term Lord’s day has no right to appear in the translation; for the original is not Lord’s day, but Lord’s life. Eld. R. quotes Justin Martyr where he says: “And on the day called Sunday is an assembly,” &c. According to Mosheim and Heylyn, both eminent church historians who observed the first day, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, were days of assembly among the early Christians. Were these all Sabbath days? They were if the above quotation has any force whatever. Again, Justin Martyr was a no-law and no-Sabbath man. He did not believe in a change of the Sabbath. He believed the Sabbath and law of God were abolished. Why does he suppress this portion of Justin’s testimony? Eld. R. quotes Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, as follows: “To-day we celebrate the Lord’s day, when we read your epistle to us.” This makes no mention of the first day, and hence is no proof whatever for first-day sanctity. He then speaks of the change having been made quietly and peaceably. If he speaks from a Bible standpoint, it is sufficient to remark that no inspired writer ever mentions the change of the Sabbath, and hence it is without divine authority. If he speaks of the change from the standpoint of church history, it is exactly opposite the truth; for every student of church history knows that there was a long and bitter controversy concerning the seventh-day Sabbath and the pagan festival of Sunday. The edict of Constantine in A. D. 321, and the decree of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, abased the Sabbath of the Lord and elevated the pagan Sunday to the honored title of Lord’s day. Dr. Peter Heylyn, an eminent first-day writer, says that the term Sabbath was never applied to any day but Saturday by any writer for upwards of a thousand years after Christ; and he further testifies that the first day was never called the Christian Sabbath till the beginning of the twelfth century. These facts may be found in his History of the Sabbath, Part 2. It may seem schismatical and pernicious in the eyes of Eld. R. to unsettle weak consciences in regard to the Sabbath; but Isaiah says, “Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word.” Isa. 66:5. Persons with weak, tender consciences, who tremble at God’s word, make humble, devoted, self-denying, truth-loving Christians. They are more susceptible to the claims of the Lord’s Sabbath when it is presented than those who fear God less and man more. He then asks, “Do those who keep Saturday give any evidence of superior piety?” We answer, Only so far as they show a greater willingness to be circumspect in all that God has commanded. Again he asks, “Does the blessing of God rest upon them in any remarkable degree?” It does. “Do they ride upon the high places of the earth?” The Lord has promised that they shall. Isa. 58:13, 14. He then refers to a neighborhood settled by observers of the seventh day, and says the first generation were a devout, holy people. Their children learned from their parents not to reverence Sunday, and from the neighboring children not to reverence Saturday, and the result was a very godless community. Did they not all “keep the seventh day after six days of labor”? This theory of Eld. R.’s may be very beautiful on paper, and may quiet some weak consciences, but it works very disastrously in practice. In the case cited by Eld. R., the responsibility of such results rests upon those who refused to rest on the Sabbath day according to the commandment, and upon those who teach that the Sabbath may be kept on any day of the week, if it is only “the seventh day after six days of labor.” He says, “Do not suffer yourself to be brought into bondage.” If any feel in bondage while obeying the law of God, which Paul calls holy and spiritual, it must be because they are still under the condemnation of sin, and have not availed themselves of the cleansing blood of Christ. Perhaps Eld. R. can explain why observing the seventh-day Sabbath brings bondage, while first-day observance gives liberty. He closes by quoting Col. 2:16. This has no reference to the Lord’s Sabbath, which came weekly, but to the annual Sabbaths, which are associated with meats and drinks, new moons and holy days or festivals, an account of the institution of which will be found in Lev. 23. By reference to verse 38 of this chapter, we shall find that these annual sabbaths and holy days were “beside the Sabbaths of the Lord;” that is, they were separate from, and should not be confounded with, the Lord’s Sabbath which was written by the finger of God among the commandments of the moral law. Our first-day friends who advocate the theory of the Sabbath which we have been reviewing, claim that it is very desirable and necessary that all should observe the same day, but their theory is so flexible in its nature that when the liberty it gives is exercised it produces those disastrous results which they so much deplore. The interests of society demand the observance of the same day. Our Creator, in his wisdom, has done his part toward meeting this demand by blessing and sanctifying a definite day, namely, his rest-day—which was the seventh day of the week. This week has come down to us unchanged, as we have conclusively proved. “The seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Dear reader, shall we “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” and thus do our part toward securing uniformity in Sabbath observance? or shall we refuse to obey the Lord in keeping his holy day? Be entreated not to grieve the Spirit of God by delaying obedience. We need no theory of the Sabbath. The commandment is plain. It needs no explanation; for the child can understand it when not confused by the contradictory theories of human invention. We write this review not for controversy but that the humble child of God who loves the truth may be enlightened, and precious souls saved in the kingdom of God. May the Lord bless it to this end is my sincere prayer. Sanford’s Corners, Jeff. Co., N. Y.