NOT A SABBATH, BUT THE SABBATH.
By Editor
THERE is lying upon our table a pamphlet of 114 pages, published by the Methodist houses of New York and Cincinnati, having for its subject the following question and statement: "Is Saturday or Sunday the Christian Sabbath? A Refutation of Sabbatarianism. By Rev. Wm. Armstrong, of the Methodist Episcopal Church. With an Introduction by Rev. D. W. C. Huntington, D. D., of Genessee Conference." There are two errors in the title. It is by no means a refutation of Sabbatarianism. We never saw a pretentious work come farther short of it. By those who send it forth, it may be supposed to be a refutation, but only, we think, for want of a thorough examination of the subject, and of the merits of the book. And the title is deceptive; it professes to be an examination of the claims of the seventh day to the title of "Christian Sabbath," whereas nobody ever laid any such claim in its behalf. We repudiate the idea. And we deny the claim in reference to Sunday also. We deny that there is any such institution as a Christian Sabbath. And we would respectfully, but earnestly, and in behalf of the law of Jehovah, request the Sunday advocates to make this the first point of their investigations; let them first prove the existence of the institution; then we will examine, with all candor, the evidence for the subject of the institution. The Catholic church takes the commandments of God and fashions them over into church institutions. But they frankly state what they have done, and give a reason for their so doing. We deny their authority for their action, and consider that their reasons are insufficient to justify it. But we honor their consistency in the course they pursue; a quality which is entirely lacking in the course of those half-way Protestants who deny both their authority and their reason, and yet follow them in their action. If they would listen to the Saviour, and "either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt," they would save themselves an immense amount of confusion in their theology. They denounce the tree as corrupt, root and branch, but greedily partake of its fruit. The Catholics have taken marriage and made it a sacrament of the church. Of course, according to their system, marriage outside of their church is not marriage in fact. It is considered invalid. But we affirm that the woman was made for the man (1 Cor. 11:9) before Christianity existed, and before the necessity for Christianity existed. Marriage belongs to the race; not to any class as such. It is what we call an original institution, growing solely out of the will of God, and not in any respect made necessary by the action of man, as were the gospel and its types. And the Catholics have taken the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, abrogated it in respect to its essential element, and built up, as the Lord's day, the first day of the week, or Sunday, making of it also a church ordinance; thus turning aside the commandment from its obvious intention to make it subserve the interests of the church. But the Sabbath is also an original institution, "made for man," Mark 2:27; made before the fall—before sin came into the world. It does not possess a single characteristic of a Christian or church institution. And it is easy to show that the only Christian feature accorded to it in the churches is the name. In every other respect they treat it as an original institution, made for the race and not for a class. And here again they are more inconsistent than their Roman leaders. The Catholics give the origin and the reason of the institution of the Sunday Sabbath. It has its origin in that church; the reason is peculiar to that church. And they well say of the Protestant observance of Sunday, that "they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church." In this, again, the Catholics are consistent and the Protestants are inconsistent. They feed upon the fruit and praise its qualities, while they denounce the tree which produced it. But it is not our purpose to review the pamphlet; to do so is hardly necessary. There are thousands of readers of this paper who can take the word of God—"the Bible alone"—and refute its main positions. Our object in noticing it is to expose one of its gross errors, one which will not be obvious to the mass of its readers. On pp. 59-61 is found the following language, being a comment on the 16th chapter of Exodus:— "My reasoning on this passage becomes almost demonstration by the fact that nowhere in this chapter does Moses call the seventh day the Sabbath, but a Sabbath, showing that the day was observed for the first time as a Sabbath. Gesenius, in section 107 of his Hebrew grammar, says: 'The article is employed with a noun to limit its application in nearly the same cases as in Greek and German, viz., when a definite object, one previously mentioned or already known, or the only one of its kind, is the subject of discussion.' In verses 23 and 29 the translators give us 'the Sabbath;' but the article is not in the original, and the rendering should have been, as it is in verse 25, 'a Sabbath.' "According to the above rule in the Hebrew grammar, the absence of the article 'the' would indicate that this Sabbath-day was a day not already known. Let us read the passages as Moses gave them: 'To-morrow is the rest of a holy Sabbath unto the Lord,' (verse 23;) 'Eat that to-day; for to-day is the Sabbath unto the Lord; to-day ye shall not find it in the field,' (verse 25;) 'See for that the Lord hath given you a Sabbath, therefore he giveth you the bread of two days,' (verse 29.) No commentary is needed on this; the language is plainly indicative of the newness of the day. Why call it a Sabbath if this day had been well known as the Sabbath? In the fourth commandment, (Exodus 20:8, 10,) after this day was established and known, it is called 'the Sabbath,' but in Exodus 16, when a new cycle and a new day were given, it is 'a Sabbath.'" It is difficult to determine just how to characterize the statements in the above quotation. We desire to be fair, as we can well afford to be, because we have the truth. We desire, also, to exercise due charity, and to deal with all, of every denomination, with becoming courtesy. We are determined that no one shall have just cause to complain of us. But under the circumstances we must confess to being puzzled to know how to speak to the work of these authors and publishers and appear to be courteous to them, and yet be just to the cause of the truth of God. But the honor of God's truth demands that we speak plainly, and sacrifice personal considerations in its behalf. We say then that, 1. The only truth contained in the above quotation is the statement that the definite article is wanting in the original in certain texts named. 2. The article is not omitted in the Hebrew of Ex. 16:29, though the writer repeatedly says it is. His statement is not the truth. 3. Gesenius, in both his Grammar and Lexicon, gives other rules besides that noticed by Mr. Armstrong, to determine whether a noun in the Hebrew is definite or indefinite. That is to say, that the presence or absence of the definite article is not the sole, or sufficient, evidence as to whether a noun is definite or indefinite. In this, all Hebrew grammarians are agreed. 4. There are two methods of determining whether or not a Hebrew substantive is definite. 1. By the presence of the article. 2. By "construction." A noun may be determined to be definite as certainly and as easily in the absence of the article as in its presence, if the construction demands it. The article is then understood. 5. The word "Sabbath" in Ex. 16, and in the decalogue, Ex. 20, is definite in every instance of its occurrence. It is made definite in ch. 16:29 and 20:8, 11, by the use of the article; it is equally definite in ch. 16:23, 25, and 20:10, by construction, in the absence of the article. 6. Mr. Armstrong says the absence of the article in Ex. 16, proves that it is "a new cycle and a new day." And to make this appear to be true, he quotes verse 29 thus: "See, for that the Lord hath given you a Sabbath," and affirms in positive terms that this is the way in which Moses wrote it. But in a copy of the record given by Moses in his own tongue, (in Hebrew,) now lying before us, it plainly reads: "See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath." Mr. A. resorted to a mere cavil to make it appear that he had the argument on this chapter; and to keep up the appearance he seemed willing to hazard a false statement on verse 29. 7. To further sustain his assumption he says: "In the fourth commandment, (Ex. 20:8, 10,) after this day was established and made known, it is called the Sabbath." To show the falsity of his conclusion, it is only necessary to say that the article is not used in Ex. 20:10, in the Hebrew, but it is in verses 8 and 11. Can the reader be made to believe that Mr. Armstrong's theory holds good,—that it was a new and unknown day in Ex. 16:23, 25, and a day well known in verse 29 of the same chapter, referring to the same day, and the same time and event? or that it was an unknown day in Ex. 20:10, but well known in verses 8 and 11 on either side of it? His reasoning, or that which he calls reasoning, is a mere puerility. The truth in this case is this: The construction of the language does not require the article in Ex. 16:23, 25, and ch. 20:10, the word "Sabbath" being definite without it. But the construction of ch. 16:29, and 20:8, 11, is different, and the article is inserted accordingly. 8. He who conceals the truth is often as guilty as he who tells an untruth. In the above quotation the truth is told in part, and it is evidently the intention of the writer to have the reader understand that all the truth on the subject has been told, and that his argument is as correct as a demonstration. 9. Had Mr. Armstrong told the truth and the whole truth in three particulars, namely, (1.) That the article is inserted in the Hebrew of Ex. 16:29; (2.) That it is not inserted in ch. 20:10; and (3.) That Hebrew grammarians give other rules for determining that a noun is definite besides that concerning the use of the article, he would not have had the shadow of an argument on Ex. 16. We are compelled to believe that he willingly took the risk of his erroneous statements, because it was certain that the mass of his readers could not determine for themselves that they were erroneous. The last General Conference of the Methodists required that all their preachers shall conform to the standards of that church. We are not quite certain to what this requirement will apply; but we are certain that it will be a long day before Mr. Armstrong, or even "Rev. D. W. C. Huntington, D. D.," will compare with Dr. Adam Clarke in scholarly attainments or accuracy of criticism. On the same scripture and the same subject Dr. Clarke says:— "There is nothing either in the text or context that seems to intimate that the Sabbath was now first given to the Israelites, as some have supposed; on the contrary, it is here spoken of as being perfectly well known, from its having been generally observed. The commandment, it is true, may be considered as being now renewed; because they might have supposed that in their unsettled state in the wilderness they might have been exempted from the observance of it. Thus we find, 1st. That when God finished his creation he instituted the Sabbath; 2nd. When he brought the people out of Egypt, he insisted on the strict observance of it; 3rd. When he gave the law, he made it a tenth part of the whole; such importance has this institution in the eyes of the Supreme Being!" This testimony of Dr. Clarke is as truthful as it is explicit. He refers the Sabbath of Ex. 16 to the same day to which Gen. 2:3 refers; and he says there is nothing in the text or context to indicate that reference was made to anything which was then new. The reading of the decalogue, Ex. 20, plainly proves that the Sabbath or rest day of the creation week is referred to therein, and not a new day first made known in Arabia. "The whole narrative implies that reference was made to an institution before known, but not properly remembered or regarded; and not to any new law given on the occasion. Neither the inquiry of the elders, nor the language of Moses, can be consistently interpreted of an entirely new institution." If this were merely a question of criticism, we should claim it against Messrs. Armstrong and Huntington. But it rests on weightier grounds than that. It is a question of plain facts, with the evidence all against our modern critics, who must be either ignorant of the Hebrew, or reckless in their methods of gaining a short-lived victory.247We have not gone fully into the evidence to prove our position in criticising theirs, but stand ready to defend all that we have said if occasion requires. The Methodist denomination is large and influential, and has much talent and learning at its command. If we are wrong it can easily be shown. But if we are correct; if the error is on their part, then we call upon the Methodists to prove their integrity by taking Mr. Armstrong's book out of the market, and not be a party to the work of deception of which the authors of that book must stand convicted. We write with no unkind feelings. We respect the Methodist denomination, and only ask them to do themselves justice in this case, for it is important. It is no slight matter to misrepresent the word of God, and to subvert one of his commandments; for all can see that, if Mr. Armstrong's position holds good, the fourth commandment is obsolete, for it then refers to a local and national institution, with which we can have nothing to do. In that case there is no Sabbath law for this dispensation. Our neighbors cannot afford to stand responsible for such a doctrine as this. Other points in Mr. Armstrong's book are as weak and erroneous as the one we have reviewed. But we pass them by, at least for the present, as every reader can discover their unsoundness. We have selected to notice that which was hidden under the guise of Hebrew criticism, and which was, therefore, the most liable to deceive the general reader.