MILES GRANT ON THE SABBATH.
By R. S. Owen
Probably no individual has labored more tenaciously to oppose the Sabbath reform than Eld. Miles Grant. His voice and pen have both been trained to war against the Sabbath and those who observe it. After, as he says, giving the Sabbath question his special attention, he has written a pamphlet upon the subject, into which he has condensed his strongest arguments. This pamphlet has been extensively circulated the past summer in the vicinity where we have labored. Several have desired that we should review some of his arguments. We offer a few thoughts upon them, hoping that the eyes of some honest persons may be opened to see the true character of the opposition we have to meet. Eld. G. is a man of ability, and has given much attention to his subject, so if he has the truth, we may expect to see it firmly established on a good foundation and fortified by strong arguments. The title presents a subject worthy of our attention,—“The True Sabbath.” This is a sacred institution. The times demand that it should be defended. The no-Sabbath views are having a sad and blighting influence upon the morals of our country. But what must be our surprise, as, upon opening the pamphlet, we find the first twenty-four pages devoted to the work of trying to tear down the only Sabbath God ever gave to man! His “conclusion” is, “The Scriptures do not teach that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the decalogue is now binding upon mankind.”—P. 24. Nearly all that is said in the pamphlet upon the Sabbath question is to prove this proposition. A title more consistent with the character of the work would have been: “The True Sabbath Abolished.” Its author himself has said, “It is a fact that there is but one weekly Sabbath mentioned in the Bible.”—Grant’s Debate with Cornell, p. 115. That is the Sabbath that he claims is abolished. 1. He starts out with an argument on the two covenants, claiming that the ten commandments were the old covenant which is done away. We need not dwell upon this, as so much has already been said upon that subject in the REVIEW. Under the new covenant, the law was not to be done away, but written upon the heart. See Jer. 31:31–33. 2. The Sabbath Jewish. Eld. G. makes many assertions on this point. On page 7 he says, “The rest of the Jews was not given to other people for the obvious reason that they were not delivered from Egyptian bondage.” His proof that the Sabbath was a memorial of their deliverance is found in Deut. 5:15, where Moses makes an appeal to their gratitude, as he does in many other places in reference to other duties. If this makes the Sabbath a memorial of their deliverance, then every one of God’s commandments was given to commemorate the same event. See Deut. 7:8–11; 8:2–7; 24:17, 18; Lev. 19:35–38. When God gave a Sabbath law, he gave a reason for it. “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.” That is the event which the Sabbath commemorates. Eld. G. unwittingly acknowledges it on page 51. When upholding the seventh-part-of-time theory, he says, “Whoever does this [keeps one-seventh part of time] follows the example of his Creator, and thereby acknowledges him as the one who made the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh.” But now he wishes to make it appear Jewish. On page 6 he says: “The Lord instructed them [the Jews] to work six days and rest the seventh. It appears that this special arrangement began when they came out of Egypt. Their first rest-day in the wilderness must be so arranged that there would be six days of labor between it and the time they left their state of bondage.” Yes, it “must be” so if his theory is true; but let us see if it was so. According to Eld. G.’s arrangement, the seventh day from the time they left their state of bondage was the Sabbath, likewise the fourteenth, twenty-first, twenty-eighth, and thirty-fifth days. But notice the facts. We learn from Ex. 12 that their deliverance took place the night following the fourteenth day of the first month. They arrived at the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth day of the second month (Ex. 16:1), after a journey of thirty days. The next day the manna began to fall. They gathered it for six days, then Moses told the rulers, “This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Thus the Lord has the Sabbath come on the thirty-seventh day, while, according to Eld. G., “it must” be on the thirty-fifth day! Another effort to prove the Sabbath Jewish is made on page 20. Here we find a daring misquotation of Scripture to make it serve his purpose. Thus he says: “We read in Neh. 9:13, 14, ‘Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from Heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments; and madest known unto them the holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.’ Here is a time specified when the Lord made known unto the Jews their Sabbath, implying very clearly that it was a new day, not observed by their fathers.” Whose Sabbath was made known—God’s Sabbath, or rest-day, or a new day? That is shown by the adjunct preceding “holy Sabbath,” and here is just where Eld. G. has dared to tamper with the scripture. He puts in the word “the” instead of “thy,” thus robbing God of his just claims, that he may give the Sabbath to the Jews, saying “their Sabbath, implying very clearly that it was a new day.” We have endeavored to look upon this as an oversight in the writer, but cannot for several reasons. One is that if he had quoted correctly, it would have destroyed his own argument, by showing that it was God’s Sabbath and not “their Sabbath.” Another is, that he quotes from that verse again, and does it in such a manner as to prove positively that he knew the text did not read as he had previously quoted, and that he did not design to quote it as it does read. Here it is just as he has it on page 51: “The Jewish rest-day was peculiar to them, hence we read the Lord made ‘known unto them’ the ‘holy Sabbath . . . by the hand of Moses.’” Now why does he throw “the” out of the quotation marks? Because he knows it is not so in the text; and why he does not quote it as it is, the reader may judge. On page 1, he says that all he desires is to please the Lord. He must have strange ideas in regard to what is pleasing to the Lord. The same prayer recorded in Neh. 9 says, “Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them.” Verse 20. If Eld. Grant’s argument is sound, the Spirit of the Lord is Jewish, it was not enjoyed by their fathers, and is not given to other nations. However well Eld. G.’s theory may apply to himself, we would prefer not to be deprived of God’s Spirit or his Sabbath, simply because it was enjoyed by the Jews when they were his chosen people. 3. Manner of keeping the Sabbath. Pages 12, 13: “The Sabbath feast-day must be kept in a particular way, or it was broken. If it was not kept according to the prescribed manner, . . . it was violated. For instance, those who kept the Sabbath day holy were required to offer on the Sabbath day two lambs of the first year, without spot. . . . Num. 28:9, 10.” He then asks, “Who keeps the Sabbath now?” and goes on to condemn as Sabbath-breakers all who do not offer the two lambs. He here conveys the idea that each individual who kept the Sabbath was required to offer two lambs in order to keep the day holy. This would make offerings to the amount of one hundred and four lambs per year for each person. Read Num. 28 and 29, and we find that if these were individual offerings, then each person must offer in a year over one thousand sheep and lambs, more than one hundred head of cattle, besides between forty and fifty barrels of flour, nearly as much oil, etc. Does he believe this was required of each individual? He knows better. This was the work of the priests, which has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. See Heb. 8:1–5. The followers of Christ could observe the Sabbath according to the commandment (Luke 23:56) after he had caused the sacrifice to cease. Eld. G. claims that it cannot be done. 4. The Sabbath a shadow of Christ. After such a labored effort to make the Sabbath a memorial of the rush out of Egypt, we should suppose he would be content to let it remain so. But no; he now calls the Sabbath a shadow. On page 24, he quotes Col. 2:16, 17, and remarks, “The shadow never extends beyond the body,” and concludes that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not now binding. Paul evidently refers to the ceremonial sabbaths connected with meats and drinks, and so say all our commentators. Barnes, in his note on Col. 2:16, says, “There is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding. . . . No part of the moral law could be spoken of as a shadow of good things to come.” Tract No. 177 of the American Tract Society on Col. 2:16 says, “No allusion whatever is made to the weekly Sabbath.” A. Clarke on this text says, “Sabbaton, of sabbaths or weeks, most probably refers to their feasts of weeks.” Eld. G. seems soon to forget about his argument from Col. 2:16. On page 33 he says, “The ten commandments have nothing in them that has the least reference to Christ.” Then certainly the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not a shadow of Christ. It is a remarkable fact that almost every argument that Eld. G. urges against the Sabbath is refuted by himself before he gets through. Notice a few more instances. On page 13 he claims that we cannot keep the Sabbath according to the law without offering two lambs, while on page 23 he says, “All the law ever required was to work six days and rest the seventh.” Although he labors hard to show the fourth commandment abolished, yet on page 23 he admits that a moral benefit was derived from the keeping of the seventh day; and on page 7 he says, “The moral principles . . . did not begin with the Jews nor end with them; they are co-existent with the human race.” On page 23 he argues that we cannot keep the identical day that was observed at Sinai, because in Joshua’s time “sunset was put forward about twelve hours, thus changing the beginning of the Sabbath day at sunset, and all other days, to a time about twelve hours later.” According to this, no day of the week is now identical with the days before Joshua’s time. Yet on pages 50 and 51, and elsewhere, he claims that “the original rest-day kept in Eden” is the very day that Christians now keep. Did not the sun’s standing still affect Sunday as much as it did the seventh day? The fact is, that no day lost its identity. God blessed the seventh day, and when that came it was the Sabbath, whether the other days had been longer or shorter. On page 22 he claims that we cannot keep the particular seventh day, because the world is round and time differs in places according as they are east or west of a given meridian. On page 53 he says, “He who refuses to make the first day his rest-day . . . virtually joins with the enemies of Christ.” Does the world become flat on Sunday, so that all can keep it? But enough of this. Now for his proof for Sunday. “Astronomical calculations give evidence that the Lord’s day now observed by Christians generally, is the one first kept in Eden.”—Page 20. We should be greatly astonished at this statement were it not that our minds, by this time, are prepared for almost anything. Has Eld. G. the records of astronomical observations reaching back to Eden? I have before me a discussion between Elds. Grant and Cornell, in which Eld. G. says, “It is a fact that there exists no proof that man kept, or was required to keep, a Sabbath from creation to the exode, a period of about twenty-five hundred years.” Eld. G. makes a calculation on page 6 which, as we have seen, falls short two days in the short space of five weeks. Here he would have us trust his calculations for six thousand years, with no records to calculate from, to show that Adam kept the first day of the week, when, according to his own testimony, he did not keep any day! We now come to the foundation of his first-day theory. He says a great deal about obeying Christ and keeping his commandments, so we naturally look for him to establish Sunday-keeping upon Christ’s words. But no; he brings not a word from Christ in regard to it. We next look for testimony from the apostles; but they, too, are silent on the subject. So leaving the word of God without one text to prove the change of the Sabbath, he attempts to build upon history. Those Sacred Scriptures which will thoroughly furnish unto all good works do not give a particle of evidence for his first-day Sabbath. An authority no less than Grant himself has said, “It is a fact that there is but one weekly Sabbath mentioned in the Bible.”—Grant’s Discussion with Cornell, page 115. His “true Sabbath,” then, is not a Bible Sabbath. His first testimony, he professes to quote from Ignatius’ epistle to the Magnesians. “Let us [Christians] no more Sabbatize,” he says (that is, keep the seventh day as the Jews did), “but let us keep the Lord’s day.” In regard to this testimony, several points are worthy of notice: 1. This epistle is acknowledged by almost universal consent of critics to be spurious; 2. This extract is a fraudulent translation; the original does not contain the term “Lord’s day”; 3. The writer was not speaking of Christians then living, but of the ancient prophets who waited for Christ. Eld. G. next tells us that Irenaeus says, “On the Lord’s day let every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath, meditating on the law and rejoicing in the works of God.” Our objection to this is that the above sentence, or anything like it, is not to be found in the writings of Irenaeus. This has several times been quoted by first-day writers, but Sir Wm. Domville, of England, years ago exposed it as a false quotation. Other historians have since done the same, yet Eld. G. quotes it with as much apparent confidence as though he could point to the chapter and section where it is found. This he does not attempt to do. Irenaeus does say, in book 4, chap. 15, sec. 1, when speaking of the decalogue, “Which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation.” Tertullian is his next witness. We are not surprised that he quotes him. There is a certain similarity between the two men; that is, Tertullian’s writings, like Eld. Grant’s, abound in contradictions. It seems that this writer lived in a time and place of great apostasy. He says, “We have nothing to do with the Sabbath.” Does Eld. G. agree with him? Yes. He quotes him as though he were our pattern. He also says, “We make offerings for the dead.” “We make Sunday a day of festivity.” “At every forward step, . . . in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead, the sign [of the cross].” Does Eld. G. do all this? If we make such men our guides in one thing, why not in all? The epistle of Barnabas is the next authority. Mosheim, Neander, and Kitto condemn that as a forgery. Domville says it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion to ascribe that epistle to the companion of St. Paul. Eusebius says it is spurious. Milner says it is an injury to his name to call it his. Such is the opinion of leading first-day men. Grant’s remaining historical evidence is brought mostly from men who lived after the Sunday of the heathens began to be introduced into the apostate church. Dr. A. Clarke, speaking of these fathers, says, “their authority is with me nothing.” Yet such worthless authority is the best that is offered in support of the first-day Sabbath. We are to be judged by God’s law. That stands unharmed amid all the fierce assaults of its enemies. God in speaking of his law147says he will not alter the thing that has gone out of his lips. Ps. 89:30–34. Christ did not destroy his Father’s law. Matt. 5:17–19. Paul delighted in it. Rom. 7:12, 22. The remnant church keep God’s law. Rev. 12:17; 14:12. Notwithstanding all the heterogeneous mass of contradictions found in his writings, Eld. Grant still occupies a position as contributor to the World’s Crisis. In the issue of Oct. 9 we find the following from his pen: “It is asked, Does Matt. 28:1 afford evidence that Christians should observe the seventh-day Sabbath? . . . It is a well-known fact that the first day was kept by the primitive Christians in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. As he was not raised when Mary Magdalen and the other Mary came to the sepulcher, of course the time had not arrived to keep the first day.” Had “M. G.” ever read the sixteenth chapter of Mark’s Gospel? That inspired penman informs us that when the Marys came to the sepulcher they found the stone rolled away, and saw in the sepulcher a young man clothed in white, “And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.” How “well known” the “fact” is that the first day was observed by the primitive Christians will be seen from the testimonies of some of our most learned men. Sir Wm. Domville says, “Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed by the Christian church as a Sabbath.” Dr. Heylyn says, “Take which you will, either the fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord’s day instituted by any apostolical mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week.” A. Campbell says, “Was the first day set apart by public authority in the apostolic age? No.” Coleman says, “Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church.” Morer says, “The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the apostles themselves.”