Your ShelfYour Projects

THE SABBATH

4%

Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Dec 23, 1851

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 2, No. 9.

Read the full edition

THE SABBATH.

By Editor

In our last we noticed the article of the Editor of the "Harbinger and Advocate," entitled the "Seventh Day Sabbath Abolished," that had then appeared. We now call attention to another article with the above title, in the "Harbinger" of Dec. 6th. In this article M. goes on in his usual manner denouncing the "Review" and "reviewer." We give the following from his last article.
"We will point out a few more of the very many absurdities of the Review. It says Paul makes no reference to any of the commandments of God in Col. ii, 16, 17. His subject relates to meat, and drink, the new moon, &c." We will let Paul speak for himself; for doubtless he is full as capable of telling to what he referred, as is the author of the Review.
Col. ii, 16, 17.—'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon.' [If Paul had paused here, then the Review would have told the truth; but it utters a positive untruth, as the case stands, for Paul in the next sentence adds with only a comma intervening, or of THE SABBATH days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.'
No human rumblings in the form of reasonings, can invalidate this divine teaching. It makes the Sabbath days a shadow,—hence those who observe them walk in a shadow, or in the dark, instead of the light."
If bold, overbearing assertions and bitter denunciations can prove our position on the Sabbath incorrect, then there is an "overwhelming" amount of proof against us in M.’s recent articles, for he deals largely in these things, so unlike the spirit of the gospel, and the motto of the "Harbinger" "Speak the truth in love," and which must disgust the candid reader of that paper." We say that those who teach that the ten commandments are abolished, and who profess to fulfill the law of God in LOVE, should prove to us their sincerity in taking this position by manifesting a better spirit towards us. If they think us "overtaken in a fault," why not seek to restore us in THE SPIRIT OF MEEKNESS? Why not meet us on bible ground with fairness and candor?
We will here give our remarks on Col. ii, 16, 17, partly quoted by M., and commented upon in as unchristian a manner as is seen in the above quotation from his article.
"If we would rightly understand the words of the Apostle, we should first learn the subject of his discourse. And here we would say that he makes no reference to any of the commandments of God in Col. ii, 16, 17. His subject relates to "meat," "drink," "the new moon," &c. which are associated with the sabbaths of the law of Moses, that were blotted out, and nailed to the cross."
In the above remarks we are charged with "uttering a positive untruth!" But we inquire, where? in what? Certainly, M. will not say that meat, and drink, the new moon, &c., mentioned in Col. ii, 16, 17, are not associated with the sabbaths of the law of Moses. He knows they are. We have fully shown in our review, that the sabbath-days in this text properly apply to those days which are called in scriptures "YOUR SABBATH," and "HER SABBATH," for they were shadows of things to come, and not to the "Sabbath of the Lord our God," which is not a shadow.
If we are incorrect here, we think it would look far more Christian for M. to point out our error, than to charge us with an untruth, and then wrap up the point with language of ridicule. We leave our readers to judge of the amount of "bible argument" in his remarks relative to those who observe the Sabbath walking "in a shadow,—hence in the dark," &c. We solemnly protest against treating any bible subject in this manner, and we are sure that all sincere, reflecting Christians will join with us here.
As M. has not attempted to reply to our reasons for believing that the seventh day Sabbath is not referred to in Col. ii, 16, 17, we can only refer the reader to our remarks on this text in No. 6 of the "Review and Herald."
2 Cor. iii, is introduced to show that we are wrong. And from verses 7-14, M. has selected here and there an expression which he gives in the following manner.
"But if the ministration of death, WRITTEN and ENGRAVEN on STONES . . . was to be DONE AWAY . . . is ABOLISHED . . . is DONE AWAY."
He then adds, "What can be plainer than this?" We answer, the scripture as it reads would be much plainer. It is sometimes proper and necessary to omit a portion in quoting from the Bible, but we see no reason why twenty-one words should be selected from eight verses, as is the case in the above quotation, unless to make it appear that the commandments of God are abolished.
After dealing out the usual amount of denunciations and assertions, charging us with contradicting the word of God, M. dismisses this portion of scripture. For a full reply to all that he has written on 2 Cor. iii, 7-16, we refer the reader to the "Review and Herald," Vol. II, No. 6, Page 46.
Next, M. denies the distinction between the two laws, or covenants, one called the "BOOK of the covenant," and the other the "TABLES of the covenant," and asserts that "God has not made two covenants yet." He says that the old covenant was made in Horeb, and that the new covenant is future. And that "the first covenant embraced the Sabbath, the second does not; consequently the Sabbath is done away." This is a singular argument indeed! The Sabbath "is done away," and is not binding in the gospel dispensation, because a covenant, not yet made, does not embrace it.
Rom. xiv, 6, 7, is next introduced. "It is mere assumption," says M. "to say that the Sabbath is not referred to in this text." We ask for proof that it is. We showed in our review of M. that there was no ground for even a reasonable inference that the weekly Sabbath is referred to in this text. Mark well the manner that the Apostle introduces his subject.
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not with doubtful disputations; for one believeth that he may eat all things; another who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth."
This is sufficient to show that Paul’s subject related to the trials of the church at Rome, in consequence of some holding, and urging, the Jewish views of eating and feast-days. He does not once name the Sabbath. And there is no more evidence that the phrase "every day alike" proves that we should violate God’s Holy Sabbath, than that the phrase "he that eateth not" proves that we should not eat. And when it can be proved from Rom. xiv, 6, 7, that it is a sin to eat, then it can be proved by that chapter that we are wicked in observing God’s sanctified Day, and are, as M. represents, "stumbling into irretrievable ruin" by so doing.
Consistency limits the words "eateth not" to the subject of discourse, which was the Jewish views of eating. It limits the phrase "every day alike," there also. That is, they did not esteem the Jewish feast-days, as the Jews had done, above the other common working days. Some, did as Paul states in Gal. iv, 10. "Ye observe days, and months, and times and years." But, admitting that Paul here refers to the weekly Sabbath, his language does not show that he thought those who esteem it, in danger of "stumbling into irretrievable ruin." It really seems very inconsistent for one to cry out against the Sabbath, as M. does, and represent those who observe it as "fallen from grace," walking in the dark, and sinking into certain ruin, and then say that the Apostle refers to the weekly Sabbath when he says: "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord."
The New Testament nowhere gives liberty to break, or keep the commandments of God, just as may be thought best. Their observance is made a test of Christian fellowship, and Eternal Salvation. This is sufficient proof that the fourth commandment is not referred to in Rom. xiv.
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing," says Paul, "but the keeping of the commandments of God is something." Whiting's translation of 1 Cor. vii, 19. "If thou wilt enter into life," says Jesus, "keep the commandments," [Matt. xix, 17,] and in the next verses he quotes six of the ten. "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." 1 John v, 3. And in Chap. ii, 4, the beloved disciple, who has dwelt much upon the love of God, and the duty of Christians to love one another, addresses his children as follows: "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments Is A LIAR, and the TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM."
The love of God that dwelt in the bosom of the good old Apostle of Jesus Christ, made him jealous for the law of God, and led him to speak the truth thus plainly. That which was the love of God 1800 years since, is the love of God now. The commandments of God were not "grievous" then, but joyous to those who had the love of God. They are the same to such now. Like David they can say; "O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day." Ps. cxix. 97. Or, as Paul has said, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." "For we know that the law is spiritual." "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." See Rom. vii, 12, 14, 22.