"JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SABBATH."
By Editor
WHOEVER attended the lecture of the Rev. Dr. Potts, on the evening of the 20th inst., in the expectation of hearing a discussion of the questions naturally involved in his subject, was most egregiously hoaxed. We must say, that we were never more thoroughly disappointed. His text was, "The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath," [Luke vi, 5.] and we did expect some attempt at showing how the Son of Man, in the exercise of his authority as Lord, instituted a Sabbath of his own, to take the place of the one which had always been observed by the Jews. Certainly, this was what the announcement of his subject virtually promised. But, in our opinion, he took the most effectual method he possibly could have taken to show, that the Sabbath is now just what it was from the beginning. "In supporting the authority of the Christian Sabbath," said he, "I plant myself upon the morality and immutability of the fourth of the moral laws of God." "I take my stand upon the original, absolute, and immutable nature of the law itself. Moses did not originate it, but merely republished it. I claim for it all the authority which belongs to its associate laws, all of which have been held as universal by true, as suitable, and as binding, as if there had never been a Jewish nation or a Jewish economy." "Like all the other laws found in company with it, the design and operation of this law proves its moral, perpetual, and obligatory character." "The Christian Church is bound by the sabbatical law, and that law has not been abrogated by any authority. There is no principle of limitation. It was recognized by Christ, and observed by the apostles, and has been transmitted to the Church of all ages." Certainly, principles like these would lead any logical mind to the inference, that the popular distinction of Jewish and Christian Sabbath is a mere fiction—a distinction which has no real existence. If the Sabbath which binds the Church is the Sabbath of the Decalogue, then it never was Jewish, nor is it now Christian; and the most charitable thing that we can say of those who are always mouthing these epithets is, that they use terms without meaning any thing by them. For if the terms do mean any thing, they must mean that the Jewish Sabbath is not the Christian Sabbath. For whatever analogy or similarity there may be between them, they are as different as a sour apple is different from a sweet one, or as a green apple is different from a ripe one. Two apples may correspond to each other very closely in appearance, size, weight, color, and structure; yet they are certainly different apples; one is sweet, the other sour—one is ripe, the other green. And even Dr. Potts himself might demur, if we should argue, from a law binding him to eat the sweet one, that he was therefore bound to eat the sour one, or, from a law binding him to eat the ripe one, that he was under obligation to eat also the one that was green. He certainly would, if the fruit were persimmons instead of apples. We say, the Sabbath never was Jewish, nor is it now Christian. It would be more correct to say, it is Human; for it was made for man. Strange it is, that our Puritan Divines will plant themselves upon the Saviour's declaration, and contend like giants that the Sabbath was made for the human race—for man as man, not as Jew, or as Christian—and then immediately face about, and talk of a Jewish Sabbath, and of a Christian Sabbath! True, their meaning is, that Jews had one day for Sabbathing, and that Christians have another; and by making a distinction between the holy rest itself and the day which is appropriated for it, they fancy that they avoid all inconsistency.—But this distinction is purely imaginary; it is borne out neither by Scripture, nor by good reason. All that we know about a Sabbath at all—all the reason we have for saying that one was ever instituted—is found in the fact, that God sanctified a certain definite and clearly specified period of time. That period was the seventh day of the week. Destroy this fact, and we have no Sabbath. Destroy it, and the Fourth Commandment means nothing. The sanctification of a rest, without including the particular period of time occupied by it, is an impossibility. Rest necessarily includes the portion of time through which it extends; and in order to secure the rest, the time itself must be sanctified. Now, if any one looks attentively at the inspired record, he will find that God's rest occupied the last day of the first week of time. That day was, on that account, constituted holy in its weekly returns. The blessing of God did not fall upon the rest, but upon the day. "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which he had made." That he blessed the holy rest, apart from the day, is not in the record. And as it was for man's sake that the blessing was given, it must have been given to, or taken effect upon, something of which man could avail himself. To avail himself of rest distinctly—that is, of rest without time—is impossible. It appears, then, that the distinction between the holy rest itself, and the particular day on which it is to be observed, is a mere abstraction; practically, it is out of the question. Our Puritan Divines do not, and cannot, by this abstraction, relieve themselves of inconsistency. If the Sabbath is perpetual, it is perpetual because the time which was originally sanctified is holy still. For as the sanctification of the time was what gave existence to the Sabbath in the first place, so the continued holiness of that time is what renders the Sabbath perpetual. The holiness of the time being destroyed, the institution itself is destroyed. For these reasons, we consider that the great body of Dr. Potts' discourse was a complete refutation of his own practice, and of all he said, or possibly can say, in behalf of the so-called Christian Sabbath. But as he tells us that the Sabbath is perpetual, and insists upon it, it must be that, when he talks of Jewish and Christian Sabbath, he does not mean what he says. He must mean Jewish day of the Sabbath, and Christian day of the Sabbath. But as "day of the Sabbath" and "Sabbath-day" are terms so nearly synonymous that we cannot see the difference, it would seem to follow that, in contending for the Sabbath as a perpetual and unchangeable institution, Dr. P. does not mean to contend for the Sabbath-day, but only for the Sabbath's rest. Does he contend for the Fourth Commandment, then? For that says, "Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy." A pretty spectacle, truly! A Rev. Doctor of Divinity contending with all his might for the Sabbath's institution, and yet not contending for the Sabbath-day!—for the holy rest, and yet not for the Fourth Commandment which says "Remember the Rest-day!" We must give Dr. P. the credit, however, of so far noticing the question involved in his subject, so to say, that "whoever objected to the Christian Sabbath, on the ground that the day was different from that of the old Sabbath, offered a very trifling objection, and one that was justified neither by the letter nor the spirit of the Fourth Commandment." We do not pretend to give his precise words as we took no notes, and have to rely wholly on our memory; but we think this was his language substantially. If he really believed what he said, (and he seemed to,) we have heard nothing in saying, that the Rev. Doctor never thoroughly investigated this question. He averred that even the letter of the commandment required nothing but the consecration to God of one day in seven, or the seventh part of time. But let him look at the commandment again. It requires the commemoration, in its weekly returns, of "the Sabbath-day," that is, of the Rest-day. Of what rest-day? "Why, of that rest-day which God has appointed," you will answer. No, sir, that is not the meaning. The language points definitely to that particular day upon which God himself rested, as the day to be remembered and kept holy in its weekly return. Whoever makes the language refer to any other day, wrests it from its proper meaning. The attempt to make it refer to the first, or to any other day of the week except the last, is an attempt to make the Fourth Commandment utter a lie. "Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy," means simply this: "Remember the day of the week on which Jehovah the Creator rested, to keep it holy in its weekly returns." One thing we took notice of; the Rev. Dr. seemed to be somewhat vexed, that there was a class of persons so unreasonable as to demand an express law for every observance imposed upon them. Indeed, his feelings waxed quite warm while discussing this point. And, conscious, probably, that the great body of his hearers were thorough-going Pedobaptists, he took good care to avail himself of the ad captandum argument, found in their prejudices against those who reject infant baptism. This was a master-stroke, and was, no doubt, considered very conclusive. All we have to say is, that when we are called to practice that which involves downright disobedience to a plain law of God, we shall demand "an express law." Infant sprinkling has led to the displacement of believer baptism, as far as it has obtained currency, and is therefore, downright rebellion against the law of Christ's house. So has Sunday keeping led to the rejection of the Sabbath, and is such a manifest rebellion against "the fourth of the moral laws of God," that no efforts to promote Sabbath reformation can be of lasting benefit, so long as it continues. When we are called upon to keep holy the first day of the week, we feel that we are called upon to disobey the law of the Sabbath, and we do demand an express warrant for it.—Sabbath Recorder.