In the “Elements of Moral Science,” pages 180–184, we read as follows:—
“I. The original institution of the Sabbath.
“First, The Divine authority for the institution of the Sabbath is found in Gen. 2:1–3: ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.’
“Now, concerning this passage we remark, 1. It was given to our first parents, that is, to the whole human race.
“2. God blessed it, that is, bestowed upon it a peculiar blessing, or made it a source of peculiar blessings to man. Such, surely, must be that day which is given, in order to cultivate in ourselves moral excellence, and to prepare us for the happiness of Heaven. He sanctified it, that is, set it apart from a common to a sacred and religious use.
“3. The reason is a general one,—God rested. This had no reference to any peculiar people, but seems in the light of an example from God for all the human race.
“4. The nature of the ordinance is general. God sanctified it, that is, the day. The act refers not to any particular people, but to the day itself.
“5. The object to be accomplished is general, and can apply to no one people more than to another. If it be rest, all men equally need it. If it be moral cultivation, surely no people has ever existed who did not require such a means to render them better.
“Secondly, There are indications that the hebdomadal division of time was observed by the patriarchs before the time of Moses, and that the Sabbath was regarded as the day for religious worship.
“1. Gen. 4:3: ‘And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.’ The words rendered, ‘in process of time,’ literally signify, ‘at the end of days,’ or ‘at the cutting off of days;’ that is, as I think probable, at the close, as we should say, of a section of days; a very natural expression for the end of a week. If this be the meaning, it would seem to refer to the division of time just previously mentioned, and also to the use of this day for religious worship.
“2. Noah seems to have observed the same hebdomadal division of time. The command to enter into the ark was given seven days before the flood came. Gen. 7:4–10. So he allowed seven days to elapse between the times of sending forth the dove. Gen. 8:10–12. Now, I think that these intimations show that this division of time was observed according to the original command; and we may well suppose that with it was connected the special time for religious worship. Thus, also, Joseph devoted seven days, or a whole week, to the mourning for his father.
“3. The next mention of the Sabbath is shortly after the Israelites had left Egypt, when they were fed with manna in the wilderness. Ex. 16:22–30. As the passage is of considerable length I need not quote it. I would, however, remark,
“(1) It occurs before the giving of the law, and therefore the obligatoriness of the Sabbath is hereby acknowledged irrespective of the Mosaic law.
“(2) When first alluded to, it is spoken of as a thing known. God first, without referring to the Sabbath, informs Moses that on the sixth day the Israelites should gather twice as much manna as on any other day. From this, it seems that the division of time by weeks was known; and that it was taken for granted that they would know the reason for the making of this distinction. In the whole of the narration, there is no precept given for the keeping of the day; but they are reproved for not suitably keeping it, as though it were an institution with which they ought to have been familiar.
“Besides these, there are many indications in the earliest classics, that the Greeks and Romans observed the hebdomadal division of time; and also that the seventh day was considered peculiarly sacred. This seems to have been the case in the time of Herod. The same is supposed to have been the fact in regard to the northern nations of Europe, from which we are immediately descended. The inference which seems naturally to arise from these facts is, that this institution was originally observed by the whole human race; and that it was transmitted, with different degrees of care, by different nations, until the period of the commencement of our various historical records.
“From the above facts, I think we are warranted in the conclusion, that the seventh day, or, perhaps, generally, the seventh part of time, was originally set apart for a religious purpose by our Creator, for the whole human race; that it was so observed by the Hebrews, previously to the giving of the law; and that probably the observance was, in the infancy of our race, universal.
“II. The Mosaic Sabbath.
“The precept for the observance of the Sabbath, at the giving of the law, is in these words: ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.’ Ex. 20:8–11. Now, concerning this precept, there are several things worthy of remark:—
“1. It is found in the law of the ten commandments, which is always referred to in the Scriptures as containing the sum of the moral precepts of God to man. Our Saviour and the apostles, who made the most decided distinction between moral and ceremonial observances, never alluded to the law of the ten commandments in any other manner than as of permanent and universal obligation. Now, I know of no reason which can be assigned, why this precept should be detached from all the rest, and considered ceremonial, when the whole taken together are allowed, by universal consent, to have been quoted as moral precepts by Christ and his apostles. Besides, our Saviour expressly declares that ‘the Sabbath was made for man,’ that is, for man in general, for the whole human race; and, consequently, that it is binding upon the whole race, that is, that it is a precept of universal obligation.
“2. The reasons given for observing it are the same as those given at the time of its first institution. Inasmuch as these reasons are in their nature general, we should naturally conclude that the obligation which it imposes is universal.”
The careful reader will notice the prominent points which Mr. Wayland briefly yet ably establishes. They are as follows: The Sabbath was given to the human race. This point proved refutes the idea of some, that it was given only to the Jews. The hebdomadal division of time was observed by the patriarchs, and by the Greeks and Romans, and if it was observed by them, it no doubt was observed by all of the first inhabitants of the earth. This division of time, then, is a fact and not a theory; and inasmuch as it is not founded upon any motion of the heavenly bodies, and we can trace its source to no other cause than to the sacred record, that God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, we must admit that the theory set forth by some geologists, that the world was six thousand years, six long indefinite periods, in being created, is false. Ex. 16:22–30, establishes the obligation of the Sabbath irrespective of the “Mosaic law.” This demolishes the position that the Sabbath was given by Moses or to the Jews.
We will next notice some exceptions, or one or two inconsistencies, showing how exceedingly difficult it is to support a position which is unscriptural. The reader will notice that he says, “From the above facts, I think we are warranted in the conclusion, that the seventh day, or, perhaps, generally, the seventh part of time, was originally set apart for a religious purpose by our Creator, for the whole human race.” He is not as blind as some of our moral philosophers, who will not admit that the seventh day was blessed, but only a seventh part of time. Again, how careful he is lest he should make a mistake! “Or, perhaps, generally,” he says. Perhaps implies uncertainty; generally, not always; accordingly, the writer was unsettled in his mind whether the seventh part of time was the right thing. He thought perhaps it was generally set apart. From the language, we may infer that he thought a part of the time the seventh day was set apart for a religious purpose, and a part of the time a seventh part of time. This is a singular position, but only one of the many in which the supporters of Sunday-keeping are thrown.
After speaking of the Sabbath as a positive institution, and founding it in Gen. 2:1–3: he next calls it the Mosaic, and lastly the Christian, Sabbath. We see no reason for calling it the Mosaic Sabbath, because the law containing it was entrusted to the care of Moses, and from him given to God’s people, the Jews. The words, “Remember the Sabbath,” mark it as a pre-existing institution.
Again, it does not read, Remember the seventh part of time, or a Sabbath, or the Mosaic, or Christian Sabbath, but “Remember the Sabbath.” On page 183, we read, “Our Saviour and his apostles, who made the most decided distinction between the moral and ceremonial observances, never allude to the law of the ten commandments in any other manner than as of permanent and universal obligation.” And yet on page 187, he says, “The apostles declared that the disciples of Jesus were not under obligation to keep the seventh day;” and in proof of this, he quotes Col. 2:16, 17. This affirmation not only overthrows his own words,—“I know of no reason which can be assigned why this precept should be detached from all the rest, and considered ceremonial,” but it also overthrows what he truthfully ascribes of Jesus and the apostles.
In order to uphold the “Christian” Sabbath, this eminent writer seems to lose sight of his own words. Certainly “this precept” cannot be “detached from all the rest and considered ceremonial.” But does not this writer attempt to make it ceremonial when he undertakes to wrench it from the position it holds in the law, when he tries to make Paul say that the disciples of Jesus were not under obligation to keep the seventh day? Especially is this true, as he quotes Col. 2:16, 17, to prove his point. The context and text read as follows: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. . . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” The Greek ἑορτῆς, means a feast day, and it is thus rendered in the American Bible Union translation. It reads, “Let not any one therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or of a new moon,” etc.
Doctors George Campbell, James Macknight, and Philip Doddridge’s translation, with amendments by Alexander Campbell, reads as follows: “Let no one therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a festival, or in respect of a new moon, or of sabbaths, which are a shadow of the things which were to come, but the substance is of Christ.” We have, then, unmistakable evidence in regard to the meaning of “holy day” in this contested text. Many able commentators also agree that the “sabbath days” spoken of refer to the Jewish festivals or ceremonial sabbaths.
It is plain to be seen that the object of Mr. Wayland is to get rid of the seventh day, and yet preserve the Sabbath precept. It seems strange that so many able men should make this text one of their strongholds for the overthrow of the Sabbath, when even the very language of the text proves clearly that Paul refers only to the handwriting of ordinances. Notice the words, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,” etc. The words evidently refer to the handwriting of ordinances spoken of in the context. To show still further the absurdity of trying to array this text against the Sabbath, we will quote the forcible words of Eld. J. N. Andrews (“History of the Sabbath,” first edition, page 139): “It would be absurd to speak of the tables of STONE as NAILED to the cross, or to speak of BLOTTING out what was ENGRAVED in STONE. It would be blasphemous to represent the Son of God as pouring out his blood to blot out what the finger of his Father had written. It would be to confound all the immutable principles of morality, to represent the ten commandments as ‘contrary’ to man’s moral nature. It would be to make Christ the minister of sin—to represent him as dying74to utterly destroy the moral law. Nor does that man keep the truth on his side who represents the ten commandments as among the things contained in Paul’s enumeration of what was abolished. Nor is there any excuse for those who would destroy the ten commandments with this statement of Paul; for he shows, last of all, that what was thus abrogated was a shadow of good things to come—an absurdity if applied to the moral law.”
Mr. Wayland, after giving the usual reasons for the Christian Sabbath, closes with the following candid words: “If, however, any other person be dissatisfied with these reasons, and feel under obligation to observe the seventh day, I see no precept in the word of God to forbid him.” No command for Sunday-keeping, plain precept and law for the Sabbath. Let the reader decide which is right.