THE SABBATH by Editor

Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Nov 25, 1851

THE SABBATH.

By Editor

The many positions taken by those who oppose the Sabbath of the Bible, are as much at variance with each other, as with our position. We were forcibly struck with this fact while reading an article in the "Advent Herald" of Oct. 25, 1851, headed "The New Testament Sabbath." As there is no signature, we suppose the "Herald" fully endorses the sentiment of the article. The writer, in laboring to establish the first day, correctly states that Rom. xiv, 5, 6; Gal. iv, 10, and Col. ii, 16, do not refer to a day of weekly rest. So any one may see that he, in establishing his first day sabbath, takes from the no-Sabbath position its most reliable props. We copy the following from the article, on this point, which we pronounce good.

"Some have suggested that the weekly day of rest under the gospel, which is an eminently spiritual dispensation, is not to be a rest from labor or business, but only from sin. To such it is sufficient to reply, that every day of life ought to be a day of abstinence from all sin; and when it shall be shown that we are at liberty to indulge in six days out of seven, and then avoid it for one day only, it will be time enough to make a more serious and expanded answer.

"But some persons of more seriousness ask, Does not the apostle Paul (Rom. xiv, 5, 6,) declare the observance of days a matter of indifference? He does; but the context clearly shows that he speaks not of the weekly Sabbath, nor of any institution of the decalogue, but of matters beside the moral law. The same remark is substantially applicable to what he says in Gal. iv, 10, and in Col. ii, 16.

"Every law is to be known by its position and connection in a code. This is an invariable rule in interpreting every body of laws, and ought to be applied to the laws of God and the teaching of the apostles. When the whole connection of one of their arguments shows that they are simply endeavoring to wean their converts from Jewish ceremonies, it is most unfair to extend their general remarks to institutions as old as the creation, and observed before the fall of man, and by all the pious after the fall, up to the giving of the ceremonial law, and then not re-enacted as a part of the ceremonial law, but put in the middle of the moral law. 'The hand-writing of ordinances which was against us,' is indeed 'blotted out;' but that can never prove that the Sabbath, which is for us, is blotted out also.

"The apostle James says, 'He that keepeth the whole law, and yet offendeth in one point, is guilty of all.' That he here means the moral law is evident, for he cites two of the precepts of it in the next verse: 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not kill.' James ii, 10, 11. Now, if you do not kill, or swear profanely, yet if you violate the fourth commandment, you are become a transgressor of the law. Let those who indulge in Antinomian laxity concerning the law of the Sabbath, solemnly consider the course of reasoning adopted by James, and be warned in time."