Please to read Gen. i, 14—18. God made the sun and moon to rule the day, and to rule the night, and to divide time into days and years. Now, as it is in the highest degree absurd to believe that the Creator then established two contradictory methods of reckoning time; we conclude that those who are favored with the light of the sun and moon as the earth revolves on its axis, enjoy the benefit of these great time-keepers, while those who may be beyond their light for a long period, do not enjoy the benefit of this division. Look at the words of the Review again:
'Relative to the people that have but 'one Sabbath in seven years,' we ask whether this statement made by C. was in sober earnest, or thrown in for effect. Look at the Sabbath law. We are to work six days because God made heaven and earth in six days—not in six thousand years—nor yet in six years; and we are to rest the seventh day—not a thousand years—nor yet one year, but one day, just as God did. That is the guide, 'given in the Sabbath law.' The first three days of the Creation week were reckoned without any sun.—When the plagues were poured out on Egypt there were three days of total darkness. These according to the view of C. made but one long night! And there is yet to be in the fearful scene before us, a period when the vials of unmixed wrath from Jehovah's temple, shall be poured out on the worshipers of the Beast and of his Image, and on those who have his Mark, when the kingdom of the Beast shall be full of darkness, and they shall gnaw their tongues for pain. But we ask, may not time be reckoned even then, by those to whom 'the plagues shall not come near'—could it not be reckoned in Egypt—was it not reckoned in the week of Creation? And finally, Cannot Sunday be reckoned in the polar regions, or do men who have spent a year there, reckon it but one day?' You continue:
'It concedes the 'difficulty' of keeping the Sabbath reckoning while circumnavigating the globe—one day being lost by sailing in one direction, one day being gained by sailing in the other direction.'
The following is what you grasp as a concession of 'difficulty':
'Relative to circumnavigating the globe, we ask C. a question: Suppose that men were able to encompass the globe with the speed of a telegraphic despatch; suppose they could, for instance, be able to encompass it twenty-four times in one day, and thus gain twenty-four days, we ask how much weight such a circumstance would have in deranging dates? How much weight would it have in deranging his or your reckoning of Sunday? Verily none at all. It is doubtless very difficult to keep God's Sabbath in the polar regions, (if to here,) but it is not difficult to keep the day of apostolic 'preference' either there or in circumnavigating the globe! When you are called to circumnavigate the globe or to visit the polar regions we will try to aid you further; till then we earnestly suggest the propriety of your obeying God.'
You think every body ought to yield the 'untenable' position, that the Sabbath was made for the human family, after reading these 'insurmountable objections.' And that these are laws of nature with which Scripture does not conflict.
Will you please give attention to a few thoughts from the Volume of Inspiration.
1. It appears that the Sabbath could be kept from the wilderness of Sin, west of Palestine, to the city of Babylon, a long distance to the east. These points are remote from each other, and the variations of time must be considerable.
2. Nor does it appear very evident that those violated the Sabbath, who performed voyages of three years length, by command of that king who thought it the whole duty of man to 'fear God and keep his commandments.' 1 Kings x, 22—24.
3. I next invite your attention to Isaiah lvi. The promise of gathering in God's holy mountain the outcasts of Israel, and the sons of the stranger, is here distinctly stated on the condition that they would keep the holy Sabbath. If you choose to do so, call this prophecy Jewish, these outcasts literal Jews, and this holy mountain, the land of their inheritance. Now where are these outcasts? Just where the leader of Israel predicted; scattered among all people from the one end of the earth even unto the other. Deut. xxviii, 64. What is the condition of the gathering of these outcasts together? The observance of the holy Sabbath! And if they can do it in every land under heaven, the sons of the stranger, who have the promise of being gathered on the same condition, can do it also.
4. The Holy One of Israel hath spoken on this point, 'For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord:' Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. Thus if the Holy One of Israel with whom a lie is impossible, be credited, we may consider one point established.—When the dominion of Christ is from sea to sea, and from the river to the end of the earth, and the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, shall have been given to the people of the saints13of the Most High, ALL FLESH shall come to worship before Jehovah from Sabbath to Sabbath, and from new moon to new moon. Then it is possible for the human family to observe the Sabbath over the whole globe!
Your second article concludes as follows:
'But finally on this point, the Review appeals to Barrett's Grammar for help in the passage: 'The Sabbath was made for man.' Mark ii, 27. The rule quoted reads: 'A noun without an adjective is invariably taken in its broadest extension, as: Man is accountable.' Now it happens that this noun has an untranslated article, which Mr. Barrett calls an adjective. It is as follows: 'To sabbaton dia ton anthropon egeneto, ouk ho anthropos dia to sabbaton.' 'Ton' and 'ho' are the untranslated articles, agreeing with anthropon and anthropos, man. So the Review fails here again, as it must in every position it takes on this question, if attacked by the simple weapons with which the armory of Scripture and reason is replete, and for this reason, because it is advocating an error.'
To show the character of your reply, and the manner in which you attempt to hide the arguments of the Review, I quote its words:
'C. having presented a groundless inference, and an amount of 'philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ,' we inquire, Does not the word of God contain some better answer than all this? Yea verily. The beloved Son of God has told us for whom the Sabbath was made, and his testimony would not have been disregarded, and an inference from the words of Moses chosen in its stead, were it not for the vain hope of making the 'Servant contradict the Son.' Jesus was with the Father at Creation, [John i, 1—3,] he is competent to testify. The Father says of him, 'This is my beloved Son, HEAR HIM.' We respond, Amen. He testifies in so many words; (his testimony is ultimate truth;) 'The Sabbath was made for man.' Mark ii, 27; 1 Cor. xi, 9. Now look at one or two Bible instances of such expressions. 'Man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more.' Job. xiv, 12. 'There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man.' 1 Cor. x, 13. 'It is appointed unto men once to die.' Heb. ix, 27. We offer the following grammatical rule from Barrett's Principles of English Grammar, p. 29. A noun without an adjective is invariably taken in its broadest extension, as: 'Man is accountable.' With the following points we submit the second question:
All flesh shall yet come to worship before Jehovah on the Sabbath.—God the Father.
The Sabbath was made for man.—Son of God.'
As you have not attempted to reply to any part of the above except the grammatical rule, I remark that the rule being taken from the principles of English Grammar is with perfect propriety applied to our English version. But you point to an untranslated article for the purpose of invalidating the use of the rule. Why did you not have the frankness to say that it was the Sabbath article, ton, instead of calling it an untranslated article? Let us read the text with the article translated: 'The Sabbath was made for THE MAN, not THE MAN for the Sabbath.' This language fixes the mind on THE MAN, Adam, that 'was made' of the dust of the ground, just before 'the Sabbath was made for' him, of the seventh day.
As this text comes in at the close of our discussion on the questions, 'When was the Sabbath instituted?' and, 'For whom was the Sabbath instituted?' its testimony is of great value. It exactly reverses your decision, that it was made for the Hebrews after they left Egypt, and shows that it was made for the head of the human family, and consequently made at Creation.
The Sabbath was made for THE MAN, and not THE MAN for the Sabbath. Is not this a 'great truth plainly stated'?