Your ShelfYour Projects

THE SABBATH

7%

Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Jan 13, 1852

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 2, No. 10.

Read the full edition

THE SABBATH

By C. Stowe

From the "Bible Advocate" of 1847.

THE SABBATH.

BY C. STOWE.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."
BROTHER, SISTER:—Does a secret disgust arise in your heart, as you read the command adopted as a motto for this article? And are you inclined to turn away with indifference or contempt? Reflect; it is the command of Jehovah, uttered audibly, amid the thunders of Sinai; and if not abolished, repealed, or amended, it is still in force, and as fully binding on you, and on me, now, as it was on ancient Israel in the wilderness of Sinai; and will continue to be so, on all; 'till that same voice which then shook the earth, shall once more shake not the earth only, but also heaven; and the glorious rest, of which this is the type* and earnest, shall dawn on the renovated earth, and its redeemed and blissful inhabitants.
'It is a principle which no proficient in the science of government, human or divine, will deny, that a law once enacted and in force' remains in force, 'till repealed or amended by the same authority which enacted it'; except when a law is enacted for a specific object, and a limited time, the object being accomplished, and the time expired, it has then fulfilled its design, and consequently null and void. As for instance the ritual law, which was a shadow, extending to the body, which is Christ; and which was abolished in his flesh. But it is a fact so evident as scarcely to need no proof, that the seventh day Sabbath had no such design or limitation. I ask any one who believes that the weekly Sabbath was one of the shadows thus abolished, to point out the particular ritual for which it was appointed,—Sacrifices were indeed, offered on that day, and so they were on every other day. (Num. xxviii, 3, 9.) But did not that change the character of the days, after those sacrifices ceased to be offered? Ask a child the simple question, whether the value of any number would be changed by adding a certain number to it, and then subtracting the same from it. His reply would be, that the original number remained the same as before the addition and subtraction. So the days on which sacrifices were offered, remained the same after those sacrifices ceased, that they were before they were appointed. Those which were common days before, were so after. And that which was a Sabbath before, must remain Sabbath after. Indeed the Sabbath suffered no change at any time. It was no more holy, its rest no more sacred, under the Levitical law, than it was previously; when the Israelites were commanded to prepare all their bread on the sixth day, and to abide every man in his place on the seventh. Ex. xvi, 29. Consequently, the ritual law could not take from it, a sacredness it never imparted to it. As therefore the Sabbath has not been abolished, our next inquiry is, has it been repealed or amended, by the authority which enacted it? To this, there can be no other rational answer, than, that in the absence of any testimony to this effect, we have no right to infer that it has been thus repealed, or amended. God has given mankind a Sabbath of rest, particularly designating the day which was to be observed, with the reasons for the same, and the manner of observing it; and afterwards incorporated it into that law, which is holy, just and good; and which in the new covenant, he has promised to write, not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. How then, can any portion of this law, be repealed or amended by the unchangeable Jehovah? But admitting that he has done this, where in all his revealed will to man, shall we find a transcript or amendment? We look, and ask in vain. No one, I believe, pretends to bring positive evidence of such repeal or amendment from the word of God. Human inferences from circumstantial evidence with the usages of the fathers, is all which has been, or can be brought, to prove that the Sabbath has been repealed or changed. Have we any right on such grounds to 'change the ordinance, and break the everlasting covenant'? Is it not presumption thus to treat the positive commands and institutions of Jehovah?
But let us examine some of this inferential evidence, and giving it all the weight it will admit, see if it will justify an abandonment of the Sabbath, either with, or without a substitute. But here so many inconsistencies at once present themselves, that I hardly know where to begin. First it is contended, that Christ, in performing cures, and permitting his disciples to satisfy their hunger from the fields through which they passed, did as he was accused, that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath; and that in his reply to the ever murmuring Pharisees, he intimated that it was not then in force. And at the same time it is asserted that he afterwards abolished it at his crucifixion: and again, that it was changed to the first day of the week, at his resurrection. Again that being abolished, Paul was afraid of those who observed it, and yet, that it is immaterial whether it be observed or not; only let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. Truth is always consistent with itself, and with every other truth. But let me ask, which two of these four propositions can be harmonized? I think it is evident, not only that the above inferences cannot be harmonized with each other, but that neither of them, has any foundation in the word of God.
1st.—Christ did not annul, or break this command, for his own testimony is, 'I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill.' Therefore, though Lord of the Sabbath, he did not make it void. But instead of giving any such intimation, he showed the Pharisees that in eating the ears of corn as they passed, they no more profaned the Sabbath than the priests did, in performing in the temple the labor necessary in preparing their sacrifices. And that in releasing the afflicted from disease and infirmity, he no more violated the Sabbath, than they did, in similar acts of humanity to their beasts. Thus exposing their inconsistency; and assuring them, that it was lawful to do well on the Sabbath; by which, he tacitly acknowledged its validity. (Mat. xii, 5—13.) Dare any infer from these circumstances, that the Saviour worked or broke any portion of that law, which he declared he came not to destroy, but to fulfill? Neither should such an inference be made from the circumstance of his omitting the fourth commandment in his reply to the young man, Matt. xix, 18, 19, for the first, second, third and sixth are also omitted.
Such an inference would also contradict another express declaration of his, Matt. v, 19, 'Whosoever therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.' The 17th, 18th and 21st verses, show the ten commandments to be the ones intended. Campbell renders it, 'shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven.' May we then be found humbly seeking to know, and faithfully striving to do, all the commands of God; and especially beware of encouraging any to break even the least of them.
2d.—The Sabbath has not been abolished, as has been already proved.
3d.—It cannot be a matter of indifference whether it be regarded or not. For if abolished or annulled, there is none to be regarded. A decision on its validity, must therefore, settle this point. If neither repealed nor abolished, it is still in force; and its observance every where represented in the Bible as a matter of the greatest importance. What day it was, that the Romans (chap. xiv) could not agree about observing, we are not informed. But its being ranked with the use of meats and herbs, is far from indicating it to be the Sabbath.
4th.—The law of the Sabbath was not amended, either by Christ, the Apostles, or the primitive Christians. 1st. Christ did not amend this law by substituting another day for the seventh. Or if he did, the Apostles never recorded it, and the women who prepared spices to anoint his body, did not know it, otherwise they would not have delayed that office of affection for their Lord, and 'rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.' 2d. The Apostles did not change the day, as we have any account; nor had they any right thus to invade the prerogative of God. 3d. Neither had the early Christians any authority to amend the law of God. If they did it, it is an evidence that 'the mystery of iniquity began to work, which thought to change times and laws.' That this leaven did begin to steal insensibly upon the church from the days of the Apostles, (as Paul affirms, 2 Thes. ii, 7,) we have evidence from the fact, that the early Christians began to observe the first day of the week as commemorative of the resurrection of Christ, though not as the Sabbath; 'till Constantine began to legislate in its favor. Eusebius says, (Life of Constantine, B. 4, ch. 18, Basle Ed.) that 'he, (Constantine) appointed as a suitable day for prayers, the Dominical day.' His body guard observed the day, and offered in it prayers written by the Emperor. 'He determined that those obeying Roman power, should abstain from every work upon the days named after the Saviour; that they should venerate also the day before the Sabbath in memory as seems to me, of the events occurring in those days, to our common Lord.' Sozoman also says, (Ecc. Hist. B. 1, ch. 8) 'that Constantine also made a law that on the Dominical day, which the Hebrews call the first day of the week, and the Greeks the sun, and also in the day of Venus, (i. e. Friday) judgments should not be given, or other business transacted; but that all should worship God with prayers and supplications, and venerate the Dominical day, as in it Christ rose from the dead; but the day of Venus, as that on which he was fixed to the cross.' 'Sylvester, who was the Bishop of Rome, while Constantine was Emperor, changed the name of Sunday, and gave it the more imposing title of Lord's day.' Lucius Ecc. Hist. Cent. 4, p. 740. From this circumstance, and the custom thence derived, probably arose the impression that John in Rev. i, 10, applied the term Lord's day to the first day of the week:—while not an intimation is given in all the word of God, that the first day ever received that appellation, either from Christ or his Apostles. But God called the seventh day 'the Sabbath of the Lord'; 'the holy of the Lord'; 'my holy day,' &c., and Christ styles himself 'Lord of the Sabbath.' And in all places in the New Testament, where the Sabbath is named, reference is had to no day but the seventh. Matt. xxviii, 1; Acts xiii, 14, 27, 42, 44 and xvi, 13 and xviii, 4. The last of these references state that Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath; and verse 11, tells how long he did so, viz., a year and a half. This was at Corinth. But we find, chap. xvii, 2, that he had been accustomed thus to do, in other places. The historical facts above ci-ted, show the fallacy of substituting the usages of the fathers, (which at best are but the traditions of men,) for the commands of God; and the Scripture references prove, that in the New Testament the Seventh day is called the Sabbath, without intimating that there was any other. Had there been, they would have been distinguished as now, by the appellation, Jewish and Christian. But in fact, the Bible recognizes no Jewish Sabbath. But 'the Sabbath of the Lord.' 'My holy day,' and the Sabbath, in distinction from all others.
Let us now hastily glance at some of the circumstances from which the first day is inferred to be the Sabbath. First, it is said that the Saviour rose the first day of the week, thus completing the work of redemption, and as this is more important than that of creation, therefore we shall honor Christ more by observing the first day. Ah! human wisdom. 'Shall mortal man be more just than God?' 'Shall a man be more pure than his maker?' Shall we attempt to instruct the Almighty, and to amend his work, and think thus to honor Christ?—Behold, to obey, is better than sacrifice. If the Lord had seen fit to appoint a day to commemorate his resurrection, still, it would have been a new institution having altogether a different design; and would in no wise affect the Sabbath. But he has no where given any intimation of the kind. And any such addition or substitution by human authority or tradition, might with the same propriety be followed; the celebration of the day of his nativity, Good Friday, and all the other festivals by which the Papal church seeks to honor Christ, and to 'change times and laws.' Let us beware that we 'partake not of her sins.' Neither the resurrection of the Saviour on the first day of the week; his appearing to his disciples, who were to be witnesses of the same, in that day; their being assembled on the evening of the same day; Paul's meeting his brethren to preach to them, and to break bread just before leaving them, occurring on the evening of the first; nor their being requested to lay by their contributions on that day, can prove it the Sabbath, when not even an intimation of it is given; unless it can also be proved, that the Saviour should rise, or give proofs of his being alive on no day but the Sabbath; that the disciples assembled on no other day; and that it was customary to break bread, and to attend to such acts of benevolence on no other; while there are considerations in the circumstances themselves, which are unfavorable to such a conclusion.
In the first case, two of the disciples had spent a considerable part of the day in other business; traveling 60 furlongs to Emmaus, and returning the same distance after it was 'towards evening, and the day far spent:' then attending the meeting of the disciples and while relating their interview with Jesus on the way, he appeared in their midst. Luke xxiv, 30, 31, 33, 36. Again, the breaking of bread at which Paul presided, did not take place 'till past midnight, consequently not 'till the second day;—and lastly, their contributions were not to be brought together, but to be laid by in store; which to say the least, might be done with as much propriety on any other day as the Sabbath. And now, could we divest ourselves entirely of prepossessions contracted by early instruction, and confirmed by long custom, and the influence of public opinion and example, where I ask, in all these circumstances or any others furnished by the word of God, should we discover that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week? That myself, with all who may read this may be constantly found among those who call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord honorable, and who shall honor him, not finding their own pleasures, speaking their own thoughts on his holy day; yea, by doing all his commands, we may have right to the tree of life, and soon enter on that rest typified by the Sabbath, is the fervent desire and prayer of C. STOWE.