"The Seventh Day Is the Sabbath."
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
A CARD lately received from Mendocino County, Cal., informs us that the writer was somewhat disturbed by reading what the Signs has to say on the Sabbath question, but that after searching the Scriptures, and reading Baptist publications (especially the latter), he is satisfied that we are wrong. The writer also promises to send us two papers containing a sermon on the subject of the Sabbath, which he wishes us to read with care, looking up the references, and thinks that it will convince us of our error. The papers have come, and prove to be copies of the Tennessee Baptist, the sermon being by a Dr. E. Daniel, a Presbyterian minister, of Memphis, Tenn. We thank our unknown friend for his kindly interest in our welfare, but we are obliged to say that after reading the sermon we are not convinced that we are wrong. The little tract, "Seven Reasons for Sunday-keeping Examined," published at this office, takes up all the Scripture texts referred to in the article, and many more. There are, however, in the sermon, some good things, which serve to counterbalance the errors. We quote a few of them:— "The Sabbath was not for the Mosaic, or Jewish dispensation only, because the Sabbath law was not originally given to Moses; but the institution runs parallel with the history of the human race from the beginning of time. Proof of this proposition is found in the Old Testament, of course. At the end of the week of creation, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Marriage and the Sabbath are the two divinely ordained institutions which we can trace backward to Eden. . . . At the gathering of manna we read, 'To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord. Bake that ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe, and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.' And Moses said, 'Eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath to the Lord. Six days shall ye gather it, but on the seventh, which is the Sabbath, there shall be none.' Let it be remembered that this gathering of the manna here referred to was before the Israelites had come to Mount Sinai, and consequently before the typical law was given. How, then, can the Sabbath be of merely a positive and ceremonial nature, to be abrogated as a part of the ceremonial law, when we find its origin in Eden, traces of its observance through all the patriarchal dispensations, and indisputable evidence of its existence before the Israelites had ever received their ceremonial law? Is not the conclusion irresistible, that it was given originally to the whole race in Eden, and as it did not begin with the Sinaitic positive enactments, so it did not end with them at the coming of Christ?"
That is good, and now beside it we want to place one more quotation from the same sermon:— "The Sabbath, in its essence, as already defined, is not a part of the ceremonial law, because it is found in the heart of the moral law. It is one of the ten commandments. It belongs to the great decalogue. Whoever may sweep away one of those grand moral precepts, binding all men, as men, Jew or Gentile alike, may sweep away them all. But these words are written on the rock, and while time endures, they shall abide."
The reader may ask, If the Dr. believes that which he has written, as quoted above, how can he agree for first-day observance? We will let him speak:— "The substance of the Sabbath may be defined as this: The setting apart of one day in seven for purposes of rest and of religious worship. This is substantially all that is to be included as essential in a definition of the Sabbath. All else concerning it, as, for example, which day is to be observed, is matter of positive enactment, and may be changed, and has been changed."
Here we disagree with him, but no more so than he does with himself. He has said above that the Sabbath originated in Eden, together with marriage. In the record of creation what do we read? That God blessed the Sabbath institution? Not at all. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it." Gen. 2:3. It was the day that was sanctified and blest. Again we come to the gathering of the manna. The Doctor says that this was before the typical, ceremonial law was given. Very good. Now what does Moses say? "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath;" "on the seventh, which is the Sabbath, there shall be none." Here we find that the day is the prominent thing; yet it is claimed that the matter of which day is to be observed is ceremonial. We submit to the intelligent reader that if the typical law was not yet given, then there can be nothing typical about the day. Once more; it is said that the Sabbath cannot be done away, like ceremonial ordinances, because it is a part of the decalogue,—enshrined in the heart of the moral law. We agree. Now let us read a portion of the commandment. "Remember the Sabbath-day [literally, the day of the Sabbath], 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." Here we find the day of the Sabbath clearly specified in the moral law. If the Sabbath is not ceremonial, but is enduring as the rock, because it is found in the heart of the moral law, then the day of the Sabbath must be unchangeable, because that is found there also. Nay, more; if the keeping of a definite day be not necessary to the observance of the true Sabbath,—if that part of the commandment is ceremonial, and has been changed,—then we have no moral precept for Sabbath observance at all; for that being taken out, nothing is left. Will our friends please try to read the fourth commandment, leaving out that part which refers to a definite day? They would have to omit the first clause, for that says, "Remember the Sabbath day." The next clause would likewise have to be omitted, for the words, "six days shalt thou labor," are simply introductory to the definite statement that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The next two words, "in it," clearly show that something definite has been mentioned; they must therefore be dropped. The whole of the latter part of the commandment is simply historical and explanatory, telling why God gave such a precept. Leaving out, then, all of the commandment which enjoins the observance of a specified day, we have this much left: "Thou shalt not do any work." This would be indefinite enough for anybody. Let us try this "indefinite" argument on the first commandment. The Lord says: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Why may we not say: "Man is a worshiping being; he must have some object of adoration. This commandment recognizes that fact, in providing a deity. The act of reverential worship is all that is essential; all else, as, for example, the specific object to be worshiped, is a matter of positive enactment, and may be changed." This reasoning is exactly parallel to that which we so often hear concerning the fourth commandment; yet the man who should act upon it would be called a heathen. Now will some one tell us the exact difference between ignoring the Creator entirely by setting up some god in his stead, and refusing obedience to plainly worded commandments, and especially that one of all the rest by which we recognize his creative power? The Saviour says, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Let every one who calls upon the name of the Lord remember that Christ and the Father are one, and then consider that question as addressed directly to him. It will do to meditate upon.