Remarks of O. R. L. Crozier on the Institution, Design and Abolition of the Sabbath.
By John Nevins Andrews
"TAKE HEED THAT NO MAN DECEIVE YOU," is the solemn injunction of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a singular, as well as painful fact, that men have ever preferred human institutions in the place of divine. The tradition of the Elders must be sustained, even at the expense of the commandments of God. In things pertaining to this life, how carefully men shun a counterfeit! with what interest do they seek for that which is true. But in things pertaining to godliness, and to life eternal, how sadly is the case reversed! With eagerness men grasp the counterfeit, while at the same time they despise and trample under foot that which is sacred and true. Witness the Jews who rejected and crucified the TRUE Messiah, and who still continue to reject him. See how many FALSE Christs they have received! Witness the mass of mankind preferring Mohammedism, and open idolatry, to even a nominal profession of faith in Christ. Witness those who are nominally called Christians. See the Papist preferring the Pope for the head of the Church, in the place of the Lord Jesus Christ; and the fire of purgatory, in the stead of the blood of Christ, to cleanse his soul from sin. Witness the Protestant choosing sprinkling, in the place of burial with Christ as baptism; choosing death as "the gate to endless joy," in the place of the resurrection, the promised "path of life;" and choosing a kingdom "beyond the bounds of time and space," instead of "the kingdom and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven." Witness also the mass of adventists rejecting and trampling under foot the fourth commandment, that they may in its place observe a tradition of the Elders! Matt. xv, 3—9. The reason of all this is plain. The worship of God, while the commandments of men are taught for doctrine, is vain. Satan therefore has no opposition to it. The institutions of men are congenial to the pride of our hearts, and we would fain persuade ourselves that they are quite as acceptable to God, as though they emanated from him. But the law of God cuts up the tradition of the Elders by the roots, makes manifest the carnal mind wherever it exists, [Rom. viii, 7; iii, 20,] and stirs every energy of that wicked principle in deadly opposition. Hence many are found in array against the fourth commandment, and not a few against the whole law of God. Some with the hope of sustaining their favorite tradition, others with no other object than to destroy the fourth commandment. The subject of this review, is the report of a Bible class written out by C. in the "Harbinger" for Dec. 6; and in noticing it, we wish to trace out the effort made to show that "the Sabbath of the Lord" was a Jewish ordinance, instituted at, or near Sinai for them, (the Jews,) and nailed to the cross at the death of the Lord Jesus; also to notice the effort to erect, as far as the thing is possible, a first-day apostolic institution, on the ruins of Jehovah's ancient Sabbath. He writes thus: "1. When was the Sabbath instituted? Gen. ii, 1—3 was read as evidence that the Sabbath was instituted at the creation. But it was replied, that this passage only tells what God did at that time, and says nothing about men being required to imitate God in resting on the seventh day." It is very true that this text only tells us what God did on the seventh day, and to the seventh day.—But that is the very thing we wish to learn. What did he do on the seventh day? "And he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made," verse 2. This is the reason why the Bible calls the seventh day, "the Sabbath (Rest-day) of the Lord." This fact inseparably connects the Sabbath of the Lord with the first seventh day of time. What did he do to the seventh day? "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Verse 3. This is the reason why the seventh day is claimed by Jehovah in the Scriptures as HIS HOLY SABBATH. If the word sanctify be used in its most obvious sense, then we may affirm that God blessed and hallowed the seventh day at Creation. If it be used in the sense of setting apart for sacred purposes, then no one can deny that God hallowed and set apart the seventh day in the beginning. The sense is the same either way. How, and when, then, did Jehovah make the Sabbath? Ans. By resting from his work of creation, upon the seventh day, and sanctifying and hallowing it. Those who are able to show ANY OTHER ACT OF MAKING THE SABBATH are requested to do it. The sixteenth of Exodus treats the Sabbath as an existing institution, as we will presently notice. The Decalogue, points us back to Creation for the origin of the Sabbath. Ex. xx, 8—11. For whom, then, did Jehovah make the Sabbath? For himself? No, verily. He made it "for man."—Mark ii, 27. In the absence of direct testimony either way, it is by no means certain that "holy men of old" did not regard the Sabbath. We read of their reckoning time, by weeks and by sevens of days. Gen. xxix, 27, 28; viii, 10, 12. The reckoning of time by weeks is not derived from any thing in nature, and can be traced to but one source, viz: the six days work of creation, and the rest of the Sabbath. It is not very likely that the week of creation should be remembered and commemorated, and the rest and sanctification of the holy Sabbath should be forgotten. But were it possible to show a violation of the Sabbath institution in the Patriarchal age, it would no more destroy the sacred character of that institution, than a plain violation of the institution of marriage on the part of some of the Patriarchs, effects the sacredness of the marriage institution. Mal. ii, 14, 15. Gen. ii, 21—24; Matt. xix, 4—8; Mark x, 6—8, compared with Gen. xvi; xxv, 6; xxix; xxx.—Both of these institutions were made for man before the fall. Mark ii, 27; Gen. ii, 1—3; 1 Cor. xi, 1—12; Gen. ii, 18. Their sanctity is not derived from the Decalogue; but the fourth commandment guards the sacredness of one, the seventh, the other. Ex. xx, 8—11, 14. But he adds: "As an explanation of this text, Heb. iv, 1—9 was read. All, I believe, conceded that this passage states the primary object of God's resting on the seventh day and sanctifying it; that it was to pre-figure the future "rest" that "remaineth to the people of God," into which they will enter when the Lord comes." Those who read carefully the text referred to, will observe that it does not even mention God's act of sanctifying the seventh day! Much less does it state his "primary object" in sanctifying the day.—Paul asserts in verse 3, that the works of God "WERE FINISHED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD." He proves the point in verse 4 by quoting Gen. ii, 2. "God did rest the seventh day FROM ALL HIS WORKS." Whatever allusion this may be supposed to make to the future rest of God's people, it is certainly a mere inference to state from this text, that God's "primary object" in sanctifying the Sabbath, (before the fall of man,) was to typify the rest into which the redeemed should enter after the Second Advent! With as much propriety at least, might it be said that God's primary object in the creation of Eve, and in the institution of marriage, was to typify the union between Christ and the church. For the same Apostle in Eph. v, 22—33 speaks much more in favor of such a view than he does in favor of the view of C. in Heb. iv. Particularly notice verses 30—33 where the language of Gen. ii, IS QUOTED AND APPLIED, yet no one who reads Gen. ii, with care, can believe that God's PRIMARY design in the institution of marriage was to typify the union of Christ and the church. Neither should they on less evidence, in reading the same chapter, conclude that God's primary object in sanctifying the day of his rest was to "sanctify it as a type." A type of future redemption when man had not yet fallen!! How much more natural the reason assigned by the Lord Jesus for the sanctification of the Sabbath, than the reason inferred by C., which he declares is the only reason in the New Testament! "The Sabbath was made for man," says the Lord, "not man for the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27. The same expression that is used by Paul respecting the creation of Eve. 1 Cor. xi, 9.—"The primary objects" of both institutions are stated in these two texts, whatever they may be elsewhere used to illustrate. The language in each case carries the mind back to the beginning; and there we find the creation of Adam, of Eve, and of the Sabbath. Gen. ii, 1—3, 7, 18—24. Col. ii, 16, 17, was then adduced to prove still stronger that the Sabbath of the Lord is a shadow. Those who will take pains to read the two verses preceding the ones quoted, will notice the manifest impropriety of this application. "Blotting out," says Paul, "THE HAND-WRITING OF ORDINANCES THAT WAS AGAINST US, WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO US" &c.—"Let no man THEREFORE," (that is for the reason he has named) "judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." ["sabbaths" says Macknight and Whiting; "sabbath days" says Wesley.] "The hand-writing of ordinances" which Paul affirms is abolished, is certainly distinct from "the royal law" which James teaches us, is yet in force. Chap. ii, 8—12. That this law includes the ten commandments, cannot be denied by those who will read James' testimony with care. (We shall notice the distinction again.) But some will object that "the hand-writing of ordinances" embraced "sabbaths," and therefore "the SABBATH OF THE LORD," embraced in the fourth commandment, was abolished by the death of Christ. But do you not in this "greatly err, not knowing (for at least not heeding) the Scriptures?" If you will turn to Lev. xxiii, 24, 32, 39, you will find connected with the feasts, and meats, and drinks, and new moons of the Jews, four distinct "sabbaths," "beside the Sabbath of the Lord." See verse 38. "The Sabbath of the Lord" was not one of the "carnal ordinances," [Heb. ix, 10; Col. ii, 14,] but it is one of "the lively oracles" of God. Rom. iii, 1, 2; Acts vii, 3, 8; 1 Pet. iv, 11. Notice that the things abolished in Col. ii, are things "against us," "contrary to us" &c. But the Sabbath of the Lord "WAS MADE FOR MAN." So saith "the faithful and true Witness. Amen.—The use of Col. ii, noticed above, looks too much like the acts of those, who have, says God, "violated my law" and have "PUT NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOLY AND PROFANE," and HAVE HID THEIR EYES FROM MY SABBATHS. Eze. xxii, 26. "TAKE HEED that no man deceive you." Those who will reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem gloriously with the Lord are such as keep his commandments. Isa. xxiv, 23; Ps. cxxxii, 13, 14; Rev. xxii, 14, 15.82Ex. xvi, is next introduced by C.—In order (apparently) to darken as far as possible, the testimony of this chapter, that the Sabbath existed before the Israelites came to Sinai, he asserts "that the Testimony (the tables of stone) was spoken of, even more familiarly than the Sabbath. Verses 33, 34. And yet "the Testimony was not given till more than a month after this; [See Ex. xxv, 16, 21; xxxi, 18,] and it was not put into the ark, so that the pot of manna could be laid up before it till the first day of the next first month, nine months and a half afterwards. Ex. xl, 1—3, 17—21." This argument will probably deceive some; but I marvel how that C. as an honest man could use it. Moses said on the sixth day, [verse 23,] "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Hence there is no chance to deny that the Sabbath did then exist, and was distinctly rehearsed as such. But does he speak in that manner respecting the Testimony which did not then exist? C. asserts that it is "spoken of even more familiarly than the Sabbath," and the assertion will be received by many for "plain Bible testimony." Moses did indeed say to Aaron, "Take a pot and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to be kept for your generations. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony to be kept." Verses 33, 34. But the next verse accounts for the mention of the Testimony. It says: "And the children of Israel did eat manna FORTY YEARS, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan," Verse 35. Therefore the record of events in Exodus xvi could not have been written until about forty years after the departure from Egypt. Now look at the record carefully. It does not say that the Testimony existed at the time of the fall of the manna. It does not say that Aaron then laid up the pot of manna before the Testimony. But it is said by Moses, "This is the thing which the Lord commandeth, Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations." Verse 32. And the narrative being written forty years afterward, we have an account of what was done with it; it was placed in the ark of the Testimony. Verse 34; Heb. ix, 4.— If C. has not handled the Word deceitfully in this part of his subject, then an instance of the act does not often occur. 2 Cor. iv, 2. The writer next asserts that the Sabbath was "something entirely new to the people." His reasons for this assumption he offers in another place; they will be examined in their order. On the assumption just stated, he infers that they neither kept the Sabbath in Egypt, nor before their going thither. Of course this deduction amounts to nothing until the premise assumed, is made good. But we will notice the deduction in a brief manner. Please turn to Josh. v. It will there be seen that the ordinance of circumcision, though solemnly enforced by God, [Gen. xvii, 9—14; Lev. xii, 3; John vii, 23,] was neglected by the people while in the wilderness. See verses 5—7. Now if in a forty years sojourn in the wilderness, the ordinance of circumcision fell into total disuse, and was introduced the "SECOND TIME" by Joshua, it is possible that a CENTURY of "cruel bondage" in the "iron furnace" of Egyptian servitude, [Ex. i, 13, 14; Deut. iv, 20; 1 Kings viii, 51; Jer. xi, 4,] might render it necessary that the holy Sabbath, (which it is difficult, if not impossible, to observe in abject servitude,) should be solemnly set forth and enforced. But this is proceeding on the assertion of C., that the Israelites knew nothing of the Sabbath. We will now see if he be able to prove it. In order to show the entire ignorance of the people relative to the Sabbath, it is necessary to explain away the fact, that, on the sixth day, they, without any direction from Moses, as he admits, "gathered twice as much bread" as the daily rate. Verse 22. To evade the Testimony that this act bears to their regard for the Sabbath, he introduces miraculous interposition. Notice the first miracle described by him: "Then they gathered, the stout ones more and the weak ones (who were probably crowded away by the stouter ones) less, but when they came to measure it, God wrought a miracle, so that each one had just an omer full and no more." Such is the view entertained by C. respecting Ex. xvi, 18. Now let us look at the view taken of it by the apostle Paul. See 2 Cor. viii, 14, 15. "But by an EQUALITY, that now at this time YOUR ABUNDANCE MAY BE A SUPPLY FOR THEIR WANT, THAT THEIR ABUNDANCE ALSO MAY BE A SUPPLY FOR YOUR WANT, THAT THERE MAY BE EQUALITY. AS IT IS WRITTEN, HE THAT HAD GATHERED MUCH HAD NOTHING OVER; AND HE THAT HAD GATHERED LITTLE HAD NO LACK." C. declares that God wrought a miracle to diminish the portion of some, and to increase the portion of others. (As well might he claim that God would make the paschal lamb to increase or diminish according to the number of persons; but that was not so. Ex. xii, 3, 4.) But Paul shows us that there was an equality, the abundance of one supplying the lack of another. The first miracle, therefore, described by C. ceases to be a miracle. Having introduced, as we have noticed, miraculous interposition to make the daily receipts of manna alike, C. is now prepared to account for the double quantity of manna obtained on the sixth day. Hear him again: "The rulers did not know why, on measuring the manna the sixth day, each person should have twice as much as on other days; for Moses had not told them any thing about the Sabbath; therefore neither they nor the people knew any thing about it. But now he makes that known to them. Verses 23—26." It will be noticed that C., (in order to reconcile this act of the people, with the idea of their entire ignorance of the Sabbath) proceeds on the assumption that there was still another miracle wrought by God; the miracle this time being to double the manna found in the vessels of the people.—We think however, that this miracle if examined, will turn out very much like the first; for neither instance presents any necessity for a miracle. It would seem that when God had provided food from heaven by a direct miracle, that the people who had "not one feeble person among their tribes," [Ps. cv. 37, 40,] might gather it without miraculous aid.—But we inquire, was it the act of the people, or a miracle from God, that a double quantity was obtained on the sixth day? "To the law and to the testimony." "On the sixth day THEY GATHERED TWICE AS MUCH BREAD, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses." Verse 22. There is no higher testimony than this; we believe it and rest upon it. It was the act of the people in gathering, NOT the act of God in doubling what they had gathered, that accounts for the double portion of manna on the sixth day. And this PLAIN TESTIMONY refutes the assertion of C. that "the rulers did not know why" the people had a double quantity on that day. But it will be asked, "Why then did the rulers come and mention this matter to Moses? Verses 19, 20 present a reasonable answer, and one that involves no absurdity. They had been directed to leave none of the manna till another day, and how could their act of preparation for the morrow (the seventh day) be reconciled with that direction?—Moses in his answer to the rulers, sanctions the act of the people. "This" says he, "is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord: take that which ye will bake to-day and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over, lay up for you, to be kept until the morning." Verse 23. They laid it up, and it did not corrupt as on the preceding days, but was preserved. Take notice. The preparation on the sixth day named by God to Moses in verse 5, was not embraced by him to the people until AFTER they had gathered the manna on the sixth day. Verse 23.—This fact shows that the gathering of a double portion, was the voluntary act of the people, facilitated doubtless, by a more plentiful supply on that day.—Verse 20. This act of the people, therefore, directly refutes the assertion of C. that they were "perfectly ignorant" of the Sabbath. Whether the two miracles which he introduces to sustain the point, are entitled to any weight, others must judge. C. having denied the institution of the holy Sabbath at the time when God rested upon, sanctified, and blessed, the seventh day, we look with no little interest for what he will show to be the act of instituting the Sabbath. After quoting verses 23—26, he remarks that "This is the first time the Sabbath is mentioned in the Bible, and Moses speaks of it as though he had just received it from God, and on which the people were perfectly ignorant." Had C. stated that this is the first place in the Bible where THE TERM SABBATH occurs, he would not have made a false statement. Those who will read the fourth commandment, will notice that the seventh day is called the Sabbath even before God blessed and sanctified it. It reads thus: "The Lord blessed THE SABBATH-DAY, and hallowed it." And this act of blessing the Sabbath-day and sanctifying it, is recorded in Gen. ii, 2, 3. As well might he affirm that Jehovah was not spoken of before the days of Moses; for in making himself known to Moses, he says, Ex. vi, 3, "By my name Jehovah was I not known unto them," (the Patriarchs.) For the word Jehovah refers to a personage, not merely to a name; and the word Sabbath, refers to an institution, not merely to a term. We have shown from the narrative that the people could not have been "perfectly ignorant" of the Sabbath, (how could any people be, that know as much of God as this, that he created heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh?) but as C. asserts that the holy Sabbath dates from Ex. xvi, and that the people were entirely ignorant of the institution, we feel no small interest to read an account of God's act of instituting the Sabbath, and also the institution and explanation of it given to the people. What account, then, does the record contain of any act of instituting the Sabbath in the wilderness? The first sentence reads thus: "And he (Moses) said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow, is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord;" then follows directions respecting the disposal of the manna. We ask then in candor, Did the statement given by Moses, constitute the seventh day "the holy Sabbath unto the Lord?" Was it not by that language confessed to be such already? If the latter question be answered in the negative, then we will look at the matter further. To constitute it his Sabbath (Rest-day) did God rest upon the seventh day in the wilderness of Sin? No. He did this at Creation. Did he sanctify and hallow the day in the wilderness? Nothing of the kind is claimed. He did that at Creation, even the enemies of the Sabbath "being judges." How then was it instituted? Was it by Moses giving express direction that it should be observed? The record is searched in vain between that, until after at least one Sabbath had been in part observed in the wilderness. Perhaps it can be proved by what some would call "plain Bible testimony," that the Sabbath was instituted in the wilderness of Sin, but we would be glad to have THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED. Or shall we conclude that the children of Israel observed the Sabbath without having it instituted ?(!) As the memorials of the Bible begin with the events commemorated by them, (witness the Passover, Ex. xii, 11—14; the feast of Tabernacles, Lev. xxiii, 39—43; Baptism, Rom. vi, 3—5; the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. xi, 25, 26; see also Ex. xvii, 8—14; Num. xvi, 39, 40; Josh. iv, 7—9; Matt. xxvi, 13,) it is not a little remarkable, that the Sabbath, commemorating as it does the events of Creation, (See Ex. xx, 8—11,) and not the events of the Exode from Egypt, should be instituted, not at Creation, but in the wilderness of Sin. (We greatly fear that those who teach this doctrine, are in that wilderness themselves, 1 John iii, 4.) But if it be true that "the Sabbath was MADE" in the wilderness of Sin, it is still, more remarkable that NO ACCOUNT OF THE ACT should have been recorded! The writer argues that because it is said "the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days," that the Sabbath must then for the first time have been communicated to Israel. For surely he did not "give them what they already had"?—A text in the New Testament may help the mind of C. Please to read John vii, 22, and then answer me. How could Moses give them circumcision when they already had that ordinance, even from the days of Abraham? Gen. xvii, 9—14; Josh. v, 5. If you answer that the subject was still further set forth and impressed upon them, then we say, just so was it with the holy Sabbath.83He proceeds to quote Neh. ix, 13—15, which testifies that Thou (God) "madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath." "Certainly God did not make known to them what they already knew"?—We answer how could GOD MAKE HIMSELF KNOWN unto Israel in the land of Egypt, [Eze. xx, 5,] when he chose them, and lifted up his hand unto them, saying, "I am the Lord your God;" when they already knew the true God? (For they were the only church of God on the earth at that time.) Ex. ii, 23—25; iii, 4; iv, 31. If you answer he revealed Himself to them more fully, and made known their duty to him more clearly, we add even so was it with his holy Sabbath. And we request the reader's attention to the point a moment longer. The testimony of Nehemiah is directly against C. God did not make his Sabbath for the Jews. No! No! It was already in existence, as well as himself, and he made it known to them. Amen. We have rested nothing upon "the use of the past tense in verses 23 and 29," and therefore do not stop to argue the point. He next proceeds to explain the text. "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws." Verses 18, 29. As the text now stands, it clearly indicates a continuance in the neglect of the Sabbath. He proceeds to enumerate what he terms, "several commandments and laws." Look at his list. "1. That they should gather a certain quantity every day; 2. That they should leave none of it till the morning; 3. That they should gather twice as much on the sixth day as on any other; 4. That they should lay up that which remained on the sixth day to eat on the seventh, and 5. That they should not go out on the seventh day to get any." This catalogue is worthy of attention. Whether it was made out for the purpose of "making out a case," or not, is not our province to decide, though it looks strongly that way.—The third "law" or "commandment" here enumerated had never, so far as we can read, been given to the people! But if it had been given, then it directly contradicts the view of C. that the double portion of manna on the sixth day, had been miraculously provided for them. It also contradicts the statement made by him, that the elders did not understand how the people came by a double portion of manna on the sixth day! For if any beside Moses and Aaron would know of the existence of such a precept, surely they would. What is quite as remarkable, the fifth "law" enumerated by C. was not given further than by implication until AFTER God had uttered the rebuke. See verses 28, 29. Of the three remaining laws not one was directly violated by the recorded trespass of the people on the Sabbath! But it is manifest that it was the violation of the Sabbath of Jehovah, that called forth from him this cutting reproof, and led him to give IN THE NEXT VERSE, what C. enumerates as the fifth law of his series?—By turning to verses 4 and 5, it will be seen that God's reason for giving the manna in the manner that he did, was that he might "prove them whether they will walk in MY LAW or no." (Then he had something that he called his "law" before any of the precepts enumerated by C. existed.) Notice therefore, that every thing was so adjusted with reference to the Sabbath, in the giving of the manna, that it could be observed without being in the smallest degree burdensome. When therefore, some of the people persisted in disobedience and in violation of God's Rest-day, he utters this solemn reproof, and by express statute forbids the repetition of the act. One fact that seems to have been generally overlooked, deserves, at least, a passing notice. God gave the manna to the people to prove them, whether they would walk in his law or no. Hence they were left without any direction to provide for the seventh day. But this they proceeded to do voluntarily on the sixth day. Thus their regard for his law was made manifest. But when some of them went out to gather the manna on the seventh day, the pointed rebuke of Jehovah was uttered, though they had not by express precept been forbidden so to do. Thus God, by placing them where they could act freely, proved them, and let each manifest what was in his heart. The expressions of this chapter respecting the Sabbath should not be forgotten: "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." "To-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord;" "The seventh day which is the Sabbath." Verses 23—26. With a single question to the candid reader, we submit the chapter: Is there any ACT of instituting the Sabbath recorded in Ex. xvi, or does it treat the Sabbath as an INSTITUTION ALREADY IN EXISTENCE? "We then passed to the Decalogue, Ex. xx, 8—11. Some thought this passage proved the Sabbath to be a primary institution, established at the creation. But it was replied, that it does not say any thing of the kind, hence that conclusion is only an inference, which is not sufficient to establish a truth or a religious duty. Because God commanded the Hebrews to rest on the seventh day, "for" he had rested on that day in creation, does not prove that men began immediately after that to rest on that day, any more than the text in the New Testament which says, We love God because he first loved us, proves that we began to love God just as soon as he loved us." Those who will look at the fourth commandment FOR THEMSELVES can judge of the truth of C.'s assertion that the Sabbath is not a primary institution, or that the proof of it at least, rests upon mere inference. Were does this text place the origin of the holy Sabbath? For this is the grand question before us. At the giving of the manna in the wilderness of Sin? Silent about that wilderness. Did God say then, (at Sinai,) "I now institute the Sabbath?" Verily, he does not! And it is very evident that he could not thus say. For C. is obliged to admit that some how or other it was in existence at least thirty days before the Hebrews came to Sinai. What does God say then as to the origin of his Sabbath. [Rest-day.] He states the reasons on which the fourth commandment rests in these words: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the SABBATH DAY, and hallowed it." Verse 11. Then the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord, prior to his act of sanctifying and hallowing it. And this act of blessing and sanctifying the day, immediately followed his act of resting upon it. [Gen. ii, 2, 3.] If these facts do not prove the origin of the Sabbath prior to man's fall, then they mean much less than they express. What made it Jehovah's Rest-day?—His act of resting upon it—not at Sinai, not in the wilderness of Sin,—but at Creation. What made it "holy unto the Lord"—his "holy day" &c? His own act of blessing and hallowing it in Eden. Since then it has been the holy Sabbath unto the Lord. It does not derive its sanctity from Sinai, no, no. But because of the sanctity it had already passed, it was placed in Jehovah's royal law. Let the fourth commandment speak for itself. We thank C. for his New Testament illustration. We could not have found so good a one in a long search, It is to the point. "We love him because he first loved us." 1 John iv, 19. Our love to him is BECAUSE he first loved us. This does not prove that we have loved God ever since he loved us; but it does prove that we ought to have so done. The fourth commandment requires the observance of the Sabbath BECAUSE of what God did at Creation: this does not prove that the Sabbath has been observed ever since that time; IT ONLY PROVES THAT IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SO OBSERVED.—He continues: "Special attention was called to the closing part of the passage quoted: God "rested the seventh day; WHEREFORE the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Why did God bless and hallow the seventh day? Not because he designed it to be a weekly rest for man, but because he himself had rested from the work of creation on that day: hence he sanctified it as a type. Heb iv." It is not a little remarkable that "special attention was called to the closing part of the passage," and yet they did not READ the fact that the Sabbath existed at the beginning. God blessed the SABBATH DAY, (a thing in existence) and hallowed it at creation! Notice the care with which in the next sentence, he changes the expressions, Sabbath day to seventh day. It would prove the existence of the Sabbath too early! Was Matt. xiii, 15, true in this case? We now appeal to the reader. Is not the expression God "rested the seventh day, WHEREFORE the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed84it," proof that he then constituted it a MEMORIAL of his rest from creation on that day? Especially when the fourth commandment reads, "REMEMBER the Sabbath day (REST-DAY) to keep it holy." Is it not sublime nonsense, to say that the Sabbath was made as a memorial of the departure of Israel from Egypt, or as a type of man's redemption and rest after the Second Advent, when as yet he had not fallen!—C. is willing to have the Sabbath instituted in Paradise as a type. But if it was "sanctified as a type" then, and never was any thing BUT A TYPE AFTERWARDS, why did it need to be instituted a second time in the wilderness of Sin, and (as we infer from C's words) a third time at mount Sinai! Surely if C. is correct in all this, there must be something very sacred about such a type as that! We are glad that he now (though inadvertently) confesses the truth that the Sabbath originated in Eden, before the fall. This is his position: God then "sanctified it as a type," and 2500 years afterward made it again as a type for the Jews! Does the reader—does C. himself "believe all this?" We suggest that obedience to the commandments of God is much more blessed, than, at least, a POOR EXCUSE for his breaking them! [Ps. xix, 7—11.] We digress for a moment from the point before the mind of the reader, in order to answer an objection. "Sabbath breaking was not forbidden by express precept until after the Exode." Very good. Neither was idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness. Yet it is certain they were heinous sins in the sight of Him who changeth not. [Mal. iii, 5, 6.] If we mistake not, no one of "the ten words" of Jehovah existed in the form of express precept in the Patriarchal age, save the sixth. [Gen. ix, 6.] But a moment's reflection upon the Decalogue will show that each of the principles therein embodied is as old as creation, and as broad as the family of man! "The Hebrews" indeed had the lively oracles committed to them, and thus had a great "advantage" over those nations not thus favored. Yet it is certain that the whole family of man were amenable to them. [Acts vii, 38; Rom. iii, 1, 2, 4—21.] God only embodied the moral precepts of his own government at Sinai; he did not create them there. The fourth commandment does not originate the duty contained therein, but gives the reasons for its observance, as old as creation, and alike applicable to all men. The wholesome restraint contained in the law of God would never have been deemed "a yoke of bondage," were it not for the carnal mind which dislikes the restraint. "As a direct and positive answer to the question, When was the Sabbath instituted? Deut. v, 12—15 was read. [The reader will turn to it; he continues.] This is as plain as any thing can be. "The Lord thy God brought thee out thence [from Egypt] through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: THEREFORE the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." Now as an effect does not precede its cause, so the Sabbath commandment did not exist before the departure from Egypt; because that event is distinctly stated as the cause of that commandment being given." I can hardly suppress a smile when I witness the eagerness with which C. grasps this text, which says not one word about the origin of the Sabbath, to prove that it was instituted after Israel left Egypt. The Decalogue, as uttered by the voice of the King Eternal, gives us the reasons on which the Sabbatic institution is based. Ex. xx, 8—11. These, as it has been already shown, are all against C.—Deut. v, does not give one of these reasons. And we submit this point to him, Can you tell from Deut. v, why the seventh day should have been preferred to the first, the second, or the fifth days as the Sabbath of the Lord? And further, can you tell from the same chapter how it happened that any day was called the Sabbath (Rest-day) of the Lord? And if you cannot answer, as most assuredly, you will not be able to do from Deut. v, then you must confess that we must look to Ex. xx, which explains the whole matter. For it is a rule (I think) to interpret that which is less particular, by that which is full and definite. Deut. v, is not the Decalogue as uttered by Jehovah. It is a rehearsal of it by Moses forty years afterward. Some things are added, and some things are omitted. Now look at its mention of the Sabbath. It begins [verse 12] as follows: "Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it AS the Lord thy God commanded thee." Now where had he commanded this act? In Ex. xx, where "God commanded the Hebrews to rest on the seventh day, for he had rested on that day at Creation." Then Deuteronomy itself, cites us to Exodus for the Sabbatic law, and Ex. xx, gives it, with reasons that base the institution on what was done at Creation. Nay it even calls the seventh day the Sabbath, as we have before shown, prior to the fall of man. Does Deut. v, contradict the testimony of Ex. xx, and tell us that the Sabbath was made after the departure from Egypt? Not an intimation of the kind is given. Does it tell us that the Sabbath commemorated the departure from Egypt? Not a word of that. Let the original commandment speak. "Remember (the day of the Exode? No! but remember) the Sabbath day." What day is the Sabbath day? Some day connected with their flight from Egypt? No! No! It is the day on which Jehovah rested from his work of creation! But does not Moses say "The Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: THEREFORE the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day?" Truth. But is there a word in all this, that tells us how there came to be a Sabbath-day? Not one. It does not give one word respecting its origin. But it does give the reason why God enforced it upon the children of Israel. He had brought them out of "the house of bondage" where they could not keep the Sabbath. [Proof Ex. i, 13, 14; iii, 7; v, 4—19; vi, 6,] and placed them in a situation where every thing was adjusted with reference to the Sabbath, that he might "prove them whether they would walk in his law or no."—But lest C. should say the fourth commandment originated the Sabbath, we find the Sabbath in existence BEFORE ANY express command to keep it had been given. [Ex. xvi, 23.] The reader will notice that it is not, When was the fourth commandment given? that has been the question before us; but, "When was the Sabbath itself instituted?" As C. speaks of cause and effect, we will try to state them distinctly: 1. THE CAUSE: "God BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY AND SANCTIFIED IT; because that in it he had rested from all his work." 2. THE EFFECT: "The Sabbath WAS MADE for man." Deut. v, which says not one word about the ORIGIN OF THE SABBATH, is presented as a "direct and positive answer to the question," and in the estimation of C. makes IT AS PLAIN AS ANY THING CAN BE! We sum up the question discussed as follows: 1. God sanctified the Sabbath at Creation. Ex. xx, 11. 2. He made it known to the Hebrews in the most solemn manner. Neh. ix, 13, 14. 3. The fourth commandment of the royal law, embodies the sacred institution, and renders it as immutable as that law. Rom. iii, 31; Luke xvi, 17. The first question is now submitted. "2. For whom was the Sabbath instituted? On this question Deut. v, 1—3 was read. The Sabbath was a part of that covenant which Moses said God made with the people in Horeb, and not with their fathers: hence it was made with, and for the Hebrews only, as also the commandment as it stands in the Decalogue clearly shows." To show the wicked perversion of this text so often made, we say to C. "Come now let us reason together:" 1. "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." 2. "The Sabbath was a part of that covenant which Moses said God made with the people in Horeb, and not with their fathers." 3. Hence the duty enjoined in the fourth commandment was not binding on the Patriarchs. Really, this disposes of the Sabbath in an admirable manner; but let us try it again: 1. "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." 2. The precepts "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet," were a "part of the covenant which Moses said, God made with the people in Horeb and not with their fathers." 3. Hence the duties enjoined in these nine commandments were not binding upon the Patriarchs!!85Such a freedom as that, is really the freedom for which the carnal mind has ever plead. Rom. viii, 7; 2 Pet. ii, 18—22.—C's syllogism proves that the Sabbath was not binding on the Patriarchs; mine, (constructed on the same foundation,) proves that none of the duties enjoined in the Decalogue were! But "that which proves too much, proves nothing to the point." Hence there is a defect somewhere.