When God gave the law at Sinai, he spoke ten precepts to all the people, "with a great voice; and he added no more; and he wrote them in two tables of stone," and delivered them to Moses.—Deut. v, 22. This is pre-eminently and emphatically THE LAW OF GOD. This is the supreme law of right—a law founded in the nature of things, and naturally binding, with the exception, if you please, of the fourth commandment, on the whole human race. This law embodies every principle of right between man and man, and between man and his Maker, and yet it may be resolved again into two principles—love to God, and love to man—and on these two hang all the law and the prophets. This law, being the basis of every law of right, might be called the constitution by which God governs the world. And yet Christians of the nineteenth century impiously talk of God's revised constitution—comparing the ways of God to those of men! Christians, I say, for if God had no people in Babylon, he could not say, come out of her my people.
This is the law of which Christ spoke when he said, Matt. v, 17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." All what? All that the prophets had said. It was the prophecies which were to be fulfilled. I know of no way to fulfill a law, but to keep it inviolate; and to keep a law does not put an end to it.
It was this law of which Paul spoke, Anno Domini 60, when he said, "By the law is (not was) the knowledge of sin;" and "I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known unlawful desire, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."—Rom. iii, 20 and vii, 7.
It was this law of which James spoke, about the sixtieth year of the christian era, when he said, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty (not was guilty) in respect to all. For he who said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill!" And it may be truly added, He who said do not kill, said also, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. John referred to the same law when he said, A. D. 90, "Sin is (not was) the transgression of the law." If transgression of the law was sin, Anno Domini 90, what is it now?
The truth is, my dear brethren, Jehovah has always had one standard of morality and only one; and a violation of this standard of right, always was, and always will be, sin. What change then took place at the introduction of the new dispensation?—Not a change of that law by the transgression of which all men are sinners; but a change in the outward acts by which we come to God for remission of sins. For example: from the days of Abel to the coming of the Lord, men were required to acknowledge their faith in the promised Messiah by the shedding of blood, which pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ. Now we are required to show our faith in a crucified and risen Saviour, by being baptized into his death. Changes similar to this are all that Jehovah made; man has made the rest.
THE FIRST TABLE.
The first four of the ten commandments contain our duty to God alone—duties which naturally grow out of our relation to God, the universal Father.
1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them." We are not, in deed, to admit the existence of another god.
3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." We must not speak the name of Jehovah but with the utmost reverence.
4. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." We must acknowledge in deed, that God is the Maker of the world and all its inhabitants. "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." Here, then, at the creation, God erected a monument sacred to the memory of the Creator.
We talk of moral and positive precepts; but who, brethren, shall decide which of the above four has the most morality about it?
THE SABBATH HAS ALWAYS KEPT GOOD COMPANY.
It is a common saying that a man is known by the company he keeps. If he associates with good, respectable company, he is considered respectable; but if he chooses vicious and dissolute companions, he must bear their character.
God, instead of associating the Sabbath with Jewish ordinances, which pointed to Christ, and were abolished by his death, placed it in company with nine moral precepts, which are, in the nature of things, obligatory on every son and daughter of Adam. This was not done without some good reason. If I were asked the reason, I would humbly suggest, that the Sabbath was of a nature entirely different from Jewish rites, having neither beginning nor ending together with them. And that its obligation is as universal and unlimited as that of its nine companions. Brethren, I repeat it, there was a reason for this; and I insist upon your giving me a reason, coinciding with your views of the Sabbath being done away, or that you admit that I have given the true one. O, thou short-lived Jewish Institution! How didst thou contrive to forsake thy fellows, and to ingratiate thyself into the very midst of an immortal company? Thou ordinance which was against us, which was contrary to us! By what foul means didst thou induce our Savior to say, thou wast made for us? Thou Beggarly Element to which the Galatians, who were idolaters before their conversion, desired AGAIN to be in bondage! What infinite trouble and perplexity hast thou, by thy intrusion, caused the priesthood! But for thee, the dissecting-knife need never have been applied to God's law—that law, which, in the words of an apostle, "is spiritual—is holy, just and good." How many of my beloved brethren have, by thy means, been induced to attempt to dash in pieces God's law—by the use of Paul's comparison between the minister of the law, and the ministers of the gospel, 2 Cor. iii, and thus to leave God without a law, while they might pick up the pieces, selecting the nine and rejecting thee!
My dear brethren, how has the Sabbath been slandered by the lovers of God and his truth!
THE MONUMENT—AN EXTRACT.
"We will now suppose, that a person wandering through the streets of some great city, suddenly comes to an enclosure containing a collection of spacious and beautiful buildings. On inquiring, he finds that they are designed for a benevolent purpose—say, a home for friendless and indigent females. He obtains permission to enter the enclosure, and the first thing which attracts his attention is an imposing monument, upon which is an inscription to the effect, that the ground was given, the buildings erected, and the institution endowed by the munificence of one John Howard; and that this monument was raised to commemorate the fact. We will next suppose that after this monument has stood unmutilated for many years some person undertakes to demolish it, and build another in its place, for the purpose of commemorating a different event; or, if he should not choose to build a monument entirely new, that he removes the slab containing the inscription, and substitutes another having a new inscription, an inscription which leaves out the name of John Howard, making no allusion to him, nor to the object for which he had caused those buildings to be erected. Would not the person, who would act thus, show that he did not feel towards the name and memory of John Howard as he ought to feel? Would it not be natural to infer, that he harbored some enmity against him?—That he did not wish his name perpetuated?—or, that he hated the work itself, and did not wish such a monument of god-like benevolence to be kept in memory?—Some such inference, we think, would be perfectly natural. Indeed, we see no room for any other, unless it be this, that the destroyer of the monument was actuated by the mere love of mischief."
The advocates of the first day of the week may take notice that we have spoken this parable against them. The Sabbath is a monument, upon which is the plain and unmistakable inscription, that Jehovah created the worlds; that by power, wisdom and goodness, he formed and perfected all in six days, and rested on the seventh; and that for the purpose of commemorating60this fact, the monument was erected, so that men might have no excuse for atheism, and none for idolatry. Ho! all ye that pass by, the way-faring man and the fool, as well as the philosopher and the learned, stop—read—and know, that Jehovah is the Creator of all things. Those who deny the obligation of the Sabbath under the gospel, are represented by the man who tears down the monument, and builds another in its place. Those who pretend to admit the perpetuity of the Sabbath, but contend for a change of the day, on the ground of the work of redemption, are represented by the man who secretly removes the slab containing the inscription, and substitutes another, with a different inscription. And now, so far as the design of the Sabbath is concerned, what difference does it make whether the monument be altogether demolished and a new one built, or merely the slab of inscription removed, and another substituted. Practically it makes no difference. The advocates of both these seemingly different views are agreed in their object. They both desire to maintain the observance of a day different from that which the law of the Sabbath enjoins, and both desire it on the same grounds. They both wish to have the first day of the week considered holy, and not the seventh; and both are governed, in this, by a desire of commemorating—not the creation, but—the work of redemption.
Must we, therefore, conclude that the advocates of the first day observance are actuated by a feeling of enmity against Jehovah, as the Author of creation, and that they desire that his name should no longer be had in remembrance on this account? Must we conclude that they despise the work of creation?—that they see so little of beauty and glory in it—so little of benevolence and goodness—that they think it unworthy of any farther commemoration? We had supposed that it were enough for unregenerate sinners to cherish enmity against Jehovah as the God of creation. "The CARNAL mind is enmity against God." We had supposed that when one was created anew in Christ Jesus, his enmity was destroyed, and that he then loved to contemplate Jehovah as the Author of his existence, and of all created things, and that he began to love the law which Jehovah, as Creator, enjoined. We always thought that the effect of redemption was to open the eyes to see, not only the beauty of redemption itself, but the beauty and glory of creation, and the goodness and benevolence of Jehovah is displayed in the works of his hand. This, at any rate, is our experience; and it is passing strange if the effect of redemption on every heart to which it is applied, is not to eradicate everything like atheism, and to create that faith which is firmly persuaded that God exists, Heb. xi, 6, Ps., xiv, 1, and that the worlds were framed by the word of his power. Heb. xi, 3.
But we are persuaded that our first-day brethren do not mean what their practice so clearly implies. Still we cannot forbear asking why they go about to tear down the monument which proclaims Jehovah as the Creator of the world? Why seek to demolish that which was set up for the very purpose of being a standing testimony against Atheism and Idolatry. Surely you do not mean to strike hands with infidels and heathens! Or, why seek to alter the inscription which God originally placed upon this monument? Why seek to make it tell a different story, as if the old one was too old to be repeated any longer? You may, perhaps, reply, that a monumental institution, to proclaim Jehovah as the God of creation, is not necessary, inasmuch as it is so abundantly proclaimed by the works of his hands. If so, then it was never necessary; and for four thousand years the Sabbath was a useless institution. The truth is, men are just as apt to be infidels now as they ever were, and the Sabbath is just as necessary now, as a testimony against their infidelity, as it ever was. Why, then, seek to destroy the Sabbath, or to modify it, and alter its character, so that it can no longer be recognized as commemorative of creation? We are astonished that Christians will act thus.
But that which makes their course in regard to the Sabbath still worse is, that they attempt to father it upon Jesus Christ! The Church of Rome with all her impiety, has never been guilty of this. But you, who call yourselves protestants, allege that Christ tore down the monument which God had set up to be a witness against Atheism and Idolatry! You allege, at least, that he began to batter and deface the inscription, and gave his apostles instructions to complete the work of demolition after his resurrection! If Jesus Christ were an Atheist—if he taught that the world came into existence by chance, without any forming hand—if he desired to spread this belief among men, and blot out, as far as possible, everything which attests that Jehovah was the Creator—we should suppose that one of the first things he would undertake would be to destroy the Sabbath.—But if, on the contrary, he came to declare the glory of the Father—if he came to bear testimony against infidelity, and by his redeeming power to lead men back to the acknowledgment and worship of the Creator, as we know he did—it stands to reason, that he would honor the Sabbath, that he would enforce it by his example, and that he would say of this, as of any other divine precept, "I come not to destroy the law—one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from it, till all be fulfilled."
APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE
Is in favor of the Sabbath. The apostles never broke the Sabbath, nor were they accused of it, after the resurrection, by their most bitter enemies. And think you these fault-finding Jews would have kept silence on this point, if they had broken it, or sought to introduce another day in its stead? On the contrary, they continued to speak of the Sabbath as of an institution which really existed, without calling it old or Jewish. It was Paul's custom to preach in the synagogues on the Sabbath. Acts xvii, 2. You reply, it was because they could find the Jews assembled on that day. Very well. They might have appointed meetings on the first day occasionally, if they observed that day at all. On one occasion as they were going out of the synagogue, the Gentiles asked Paul to preach to them on the next Sabbath.—Acts xiii, 42. If that request had been made to a modern preacher, he would have replied, You need not wait for another Jewish Sabbath; to-morrow is Lord's day, we will preach to you to-morrow. It is marvelous how silent the apostles were in regard to this new institution.
When Paul was at Corinth he labored at his trade of tent making, but when the Sabbath came, he was found at the synagogue persuading both Jews and Greeks. Here, when the chief ruler of the synagogue and many of the Corinthians believed, an excellent opportunity presented itself for the apostle to introduce the new institution. But here, as everywhere else, he was silent in regard to it. But he preached every Sabbath, and continued there a year and six month.
Now, brethren, if you can examine this subject without prejudice, I have not a doubt that you will come to the conclusion that the Sabbath was made for us. If you can forget your early teaching, you will not find a hint at the new institution in the Old or New Testament, if we except Daniel vii, 25. The phrase, Lord's day, is found but once in the Bible, Rev. i, 10, and that rule of interpretation which would apply it to the first day, would prove from the Bible that we all ought to hang ourselves. One solitary instance is recorded of the disciples meeting on the first evening of the week, Acts xx, 7, but not a hint is given of this being a custom. The direction, "Let each of you lay by him in store," would never have suggested the idea of meeting together, to any rational mind, had it not been connected with the words, "first of the week." But these last words occurring but twice in the New Testament except in the evangelists, some good use must be made of them where they do occur; as, where timber is scarce, every crooked tree must be used for something. It is truly said of biased minds,
"They first get their tenets, then make it their care,
To search out such scripture as best will compare;
And when they have found that which suits them the best,
They falsely construe it, and skip all the rest."
Brethren, read the Book, as for the first time, on this subject, saying in your hearts, God's will, not mine, be done, and the result will be a reformation which will honor God, and promote his cause on earth.
NO LAW, NO SIN.
In the great day of accounts, when I stand before the Judge of all the earth, if I am asked why I did not observe the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? this shall be my answer:—
O, Lord Almighty! thou didst give to thy children on earth a Book containing certain requirements; and, as I thought, all thy requirements for man's observance. Nay, the Book itself testified that, to fear God and keep His commandments, was the whole duty of man. That Book contained no commandment for the religious observance of the first day. I searched for61the example of the apostles and primitive churches. I found, indeed, many examples of an apostle preaching on the Sabbath, and this was declared to be his custom. But only one instance was recorded, in the whole Book, of a congregation of Christians coming together for religious service on the first day. This was an evening meeting at Troas. It was not said this was a custom, but Paul's being "ready to depart on the morrow," naturally suggested to the mind that it was merely occasional. And as the evening of the day, according to the Book, came before the morning of the day, I verily thought that the apostle started on his journey on the first day. My brethren called this day "Lord's day," but it was not so called in the Book: but Jesus did say that he was Lord of the Sabbath day. Now I confess I did not observe the first day; but "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."
CONCLUSION.—Brethren, the union of Christians is an object for which we all pray. This object might be obtained, if we would attend to the "essentials" of religion, and leave off contending for the "non-essentials." The essentials are the things which are written in the Book, the non-essentials are those which are wisely left out. The observance of the first day, like infant sprinkling, is a non-essential, inasmuch as it is not mentioned in the Book. You, nor I, will be condemned for not attending to it. But possibly, I may be correct in regard to the Sabbath, and therefore condemnable if I forsake it. Now, as nothing can tend more effectually to divide Christians, than a difference in regard to the day of worship, remove this stumbling block or cause of falling out of the way by appointing your weekly meetings on the Sabbath. You can lose nothing by the change; and it would be a great gain to a few brethren who are weak enough to think that Jehovah's law is like its Divine Author—unchangeable.