DON'T BREAK THE SABBATH.
By Uriah Smith
WHEN, on the subject of the Sabbath, which occupies so prominent a place in the creeds of almost all denominations, we see publications written by doctors of divinity, and issued by such associations as the American Tract Society, we are bound to consider them standard works, and the best that can be produced for their respective positions. Whatever admissions they make, and whatever positions they assume, we must regard as the voice of all those who practically adopt their sentiments. We have a Tract before us, the leading title of which is expressed in the above heading. It was written (although we do not sanction giving titles to mortal men, which belong to God alone, see Ps. cxi, 9) by Rev. William Nevins, D. D., and published by the American Tract Society. Having said this, it is hardly necessary to state, that like all other writings on this subject which have the approval of popular theology, it goes on to assume that the first day of the week is the Sabbath for this dispensation. It is to the manner in which it does this, that we wish to call attention. That a treatise holding such a position in regard to Sunday-keeping, should make the admissions which we here find, is not a little singular. It may be interesting to notice a few of its statements. It contains some good reasoning on the obligation and perpetuity of the law; but it has positions which we wish to compare with the word of God; if by this unerring standard they shall be disproved, neither the authority of doctors of divinity, nor the sanction and patronage of the American Tract Society should shield them from just condemnation. It opens as follows: "Some people consider that this caution [don't break the Sabbath] is quite unnecessary; that we have no Sabbath now which we are under any particular obligation to keep, and therefore no Sabbath to break; that it is a privilege of the new dispensation over the old, that it has no day of rest, but now they are all working days; that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution, and is done away. "It is very true, that the Sabbath is done away in the practice of many, but I know of no precept doing it away. The subject may have done it away, but the Lawgiver has not. Now, I very much question the right of the subject to do away a law. I can show any one, who wishes to see it, the enactment of the law of the Sabbath. I can tell him when it was enacted, under what circumstances, and in what language. But can any one point me to the repeal of the law? When was it repealed? Where is the account of it?" Again, in disproving the idea that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution, the writer says: "Are not all mankind equally interested in the creation of the world? Do not all alike need a memorial of it? Or, if that was a reason why the Sabbath should be in force 4,000 years, is it not equally a reason why it should be in force 6,000 years? Should the creation of the world be forgotten, and cease to be commemorated, at the end of 4,000 years? It is strange that since the reason of the Sabbath is not exclusively Jewish, the obligation of it should be supposed to be. It seems surprising that God should derive the reason of a particular law from a general event—an event in which the whole race are equally interested, and which it is equally important all should remember." Two beautiful facts are here admitted, viz., that the Sabbath has been in force since the creation of the world, and that it is a memorial of that work; and, says the writer, "Do not all alike need a memorial of it?" and, "Should the creation of the world be forgotten, and cease to be commemorated, at the end of 4,000 years?" "But why need we spend time in showing that the Sabbath was not exclusively a Jewish institution? Our Saviour, it seems to me, settles that point. He says, 'The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.' Now, he would not be the Lord of it, if there was to be no Sabbath under his dispensation, unless some one will say that he was the Lord of it just to do it away, in opposition to his own declaration that he came not to destroy any part of the law: and in defect of any precept repealing it; and in contrariety to his own practice, which was a strict observance of it." It is here admitted that for Christ to destroy any part of the law would be in direct opposition to his own declaration; that there is no precept repealing it; and that the practice of our Lord was a strict observance of it. "There is another remark of Christ which, it seems to me, decides, beyond all question, that the Sabbath was not exclusively a Jewish institution. He says, 'The Sabbath was made for MAN,' employing the most unrestricted and universal term he could select. It was made, not for this or that man—the Jewish man, the man86of past centuries—but for man in all his universality and perpetuity—in all his generations and dispersions. It is a law for the whole race, and for all time; an institution adapted to human nature, and intended for the human family. The Sabbath was made for man. I stand upon this passage, and proclaim the institution universal and perpetual, and challenge confutation. It belongs as much to the American of the 19th century, as it did to the Jew before the Christian era." "I am aware that some persons are not entirely satisfied when we show them that there is no repeal of the law of the Sabbath in the New Testament. They would have had it re-enacted; they wonder why it was not. But do laws require to be re-enacted in order to remain in force? Who ever heard of such a thing as re-enacting unrepealed laws? Do human legislatures so? and should the divine Lawgiver resort to that novelty, that trifling?" A just and fitting rebuke for those who foolishly insist upon a re-enactment of the Sabbath law. But he proceeds:— "I do not at all like some of the CONSEQUENCES which follow from the doctrine that the Sabbath is done away. Then we have but nine commandments left us: only nine of the ten written by the finger of God on the tables of stone are in force. We do as bad as some others; they erase the second, and we the fourth. Now, the second was not re-enacted by Christ any more than was the fourth; he left them all just as he found them." In treating still further upon the view that the Sabbath is done away, our author says: "Another consequence of this doctrine is, that we have no day now which is a memorial of the great works of God. There used to be a day to remind men of the work of creation; but, according to this view, there is none now." He shortly adds, however, "Reader it must be that we have a Sabbath—a consecrated seventh of time. Yes we have a Sabbath; the ten commandments are all obligatory. We have a memorial of the creation of God, and a pledge of the heavenly rest. There is something to break; and the caution with which this tract commences is not superfluous." Thus far if we rightly apprehend he has reasoned correctly. With the exception of one declaration that the early christians observed the "Lord's day" in commemoration of the "new creation," we find nothing that militates against the word of God; nothing which deviates from its plain teaching that the Sabbath was instituted at creation and that the claims of this holy institution are universal and perpetual. But the teaching of the Bible must not be left in its simplicity; for from this alone no one would ever mistrust that he must observe the Sunday: something must be said to justify the prevailing practice of the present day. This Mr. Nevins now endeavors to do; and in his very first attempt he runs off upon an unqualified assumption. He exclaims, "But why was the DAY CHANGED?" Now why does he ask this question? Where has he received any intimation that the day has been changed? has he found it in the Scriptures? He has not yet produced it. It must be on account of the practice of christendom. And this is considered sufficient ground (!) for assuming absolutely a point without producing the first shadow of evidence in its favor! Thus at the very outset of his First-day theory, we find him taking for granted what he should have proved; following tradition, not truth. But, still speaking of the change, he continues, "Why was that liberty taken with the Sabbath? If that might be taken, why not another and still another?" We repeat, Why not? and were the writer now among the accountable inhabitants of earth, we would submit the question to him, and we doubt seriously whether he could answer it, though it be one of his own asking. It is well said, "Why was that liberty taken." To take the liberty to do anything, is, according to Webster, to use freedom not specially granted. In speaking of a law or an institution, this expression could not apply to its author; and to apply it to any one else is to admit that they used freedom not granted; therefore those who changed the Sabbath, did what they had no warrant for doing—a truth which all should admit. Why this liberty was taken, at first, and by whom, is told us by the prophet Daniel, chap. vii. 25. Why it would not be just as proper to take any and every other liberty with the Sabbath, is a question for Sunday-keepers yet to answer; we contend that it would. But it might be expected that he would endeavor to make some defense of the position he has taken. Hear then what he says: "The change is not material; the substance of the law is retained; only a circumstance of it is altered. Now, does a change in a mere circumstance of a law authorize a taking away of the entire substance of it? The Sabbath is still a seventh portion of our time. The week is no longer, and the day is as long, and it comes as the other did, a day of rest after six days of labor. Where is the very great change? It is true, we call our Sabbath the first day of the week, but it is the seventh with reference to the preceding six of labor." A poor plea for the palliation of the outrage committed against God's holy law. No attempt is made to offer the shadow of reason for the change but to justify the deed an attempt is made to gloss the matter over, and make it appear not so great a change after all. On the claims of his reasoning we need not comment. Again he says, "We hallow the first day of the week, because the apostles observed that day, and doubtless it was by the authority of their Master, who being the Lord of the Sabbath, had of course a right to change the day on which it should be kept, and call it after himself, 'the Lord's day.'" Here then we have fairly laid out the foundation of Sunday-keeping. He says, "We hallow the first day of the week," &c. That is true so far as the day is hallowed; for God, at the beginning, hallowed a different day, even the seventh, from which he has never taken his blessing; and he has never hallowed any other. How then will this man-sanctified day meet the demands of the Sabbath law. As a reason for this act he says it is because the apostles observed that day (a pure assumption) and doubtless (!) it was by the authority of their divine Master who being Lord of the Sabbath, had, of course, a right to change the day on which it should be kept, and call it after himself, the Lord's day. If ever a man could be said to be building on sand, it might be said of him who would attempt to build a theory upon such a foundation. That the apostles observed the day is an unscriptural assertion; but admitting that they did, had they any direction for so doing from the great Teacher? According to Mr. N.'s own admission, even this is all a matter of uncertainty; though "doubtless!" they had. But how does this agree with some statements which we have already noticed? There are but two ways in which our Lord could have made known to his apostles their duty to observe Sunday: that is either by precept or practice; but Mr. N. has already admitted that the practice of our Saviour was a "strict observance of it." What day did he observe? The seventh of course; for no one claims that during his ministry the time had come for any change. So far then as our Lord's practice is concerned, it sanctions the seventh not the first day. But what in regard to precept? As the Sabbath is embraced in the law, the declaration of our Saviour that he came not to destroy it, embraces that also; and here we find it admitted that there is no precept repealing it. Neither is there any, changing it; and God cannot change it and be true to himself; for he has declared that he would not alter what has gone out of his lips. Ps. lxxxix, 34. What has gone out of his lips? Amid the thunders of Sinai we hear him declare, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." But another declaration demands more special attention. Speaking of the commandments we have heard him say, "Now the second was not re-enacted by Christ any more than was the fourth; he left them all just as he found them." How did he find them? He found them as they were uttered by Jehovah from Mt. Sinai. He found the fourth commandment requiring the observance of the seventh day which God had specified. He found a people observing that day, and he himself observed it. Did he leave it as he found it? So says this statement; but not so the other which says that the apostles observed the first day, doubtless by the authority of their divine Master, who being Lord of the Sabbath, had a right to change the day on which it should be kept. Here then we find at least one palpable contradiction in the Doctor's theory. Considerable stress is laid upon the fact that the Sabbath is a memorial of the creation. He says, "The ten commandments are all obligatory. We have a memorial of the creation of God." We ask now, Will the first day answer these conditions. It will be readily admitted that an event which requires for its commemoration the observance of some day, cannot be commemorated by observing any other day than that on which it occurred. Therefore we cannot commemorate God's rest on the seventh day, by observing the first; for that is not the day on which it occurred. The fourth commandment enjoins the observance of a day which will commemorate the rest of Jehovah; if the first day will not do this, it will not satisfy the requirements of that command; and hence it will be seen that by observing it, the commandment is disregarded, and the Sabbath institution totally destroyed. Mr. Nevins then does in reality what he denounces when done openly. He claims that if we should deny the existence of the Sabbath, we should do as bad as some others; for while they erase the second, we should the fourth. While therefore Mr. N. does this in effect, we can but regard him and his adherents as "as bad as some others." Still further we read, "If we have no recorded precept, directing us to keep our Sabbath on the first day of the week, yet we have what is as satisfactory, the practice of men, who, in matters of religion, acted never without divine direction." In the first place we deny that we have any such practice as is here spoken of; but even if we had, should this be as satisfactory as a plain command of God? But did this reason originate with Mr. N.? We think not. There is another class of people who have long urged this in defense of the institution of Sunday-keeping. We will hear their testimony: "Question. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath which was the Saturday?" "Ans. We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition." "Q. Does the Scriptures anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?" "A. The Scripture commands us to hear the church [Matt. xviii. 17; Luke x. 16.] and to hold fast the traditions of the Apostles. 2 Thess. ii. 15. But the Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath."—Catholic Christian Instructed. "Question. By whom was it changed?" "Answer. By the Governors of the church, the Apostles, who also kept it; for St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, (which was Sunday,) Apoc. i. 10."—Abridgment of Christian Doctrine. (Catholic.) "Question. Had the church power to make such a change?" "Answer. Certainly, since the Spirit of God is her guide, the change is inspired by that Holy Spirit."—Catholic Catechism of the Christian Religion. The fact that this reasoning for Sunday-keeping is drawn from the Papacy, is sufficient comment. He next asks, "How are we to spend this seventh portion of time?" This question we will let those answer who instituted this seventh portion of time. "Question. Which are the chief duties of religion, in which we should spend the Sundays?" "Ans. Hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, or evening prayers; reading moral and pious books; and going to communion."—Butler's Catechism. He asks again, "Have we any rule to direct us how to observe it? It would seem as if we ought to have one. But we have none unless the fourth commandment is that rule; and if the fourth commandment is still obligatory, it must, since it relates to the manner of observing a day, be designed to instruct how we are to keep our Sabbath, or Lord's day. The inference is irresistible." This is the extremity to which all First-day observers are driven. They find no precept enjoining the observance of that day; they find no direction how it should be observed; but they must have something of the kind to give it sanctity; therefore they rob the true Sabbath of the law which God gave to sustain it, and with that stolen command endeavor to enforce the observance of the next day. "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me." Mal. iii, 8.87Thus they make void the fourth commandment, and directly violate the eighth, in their attempts to sustain this offspring of Paganism. There is one more singular admission which we can but notice. It is this: "The law proceeds, 'but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' Sabbath means rest. The seventh is the rest of the Lord and therefore should be ours." This is a true statement, and in harmony with Scripture; but it is directly contrary to other statements which as we have seen he has previously made. Is he so blind, or does he think his readers so blind as to perceive no contradiction to think that when a person says the seventh, he means the first? or to think that any other day than that which God has commanded will answer his requirements? And will the plea that the first is the seventh with regard to the preceding six, avail him anything? What if it is? So is any day; and thus in a summary manner we might make the commandment of God void and of none effect. Or does he think that the people of the present age are in possession of that faith which has been described as "—a lazy, corpulent,
And over-credulous faith, that leaned on all
It met, nor asked if 'twas a reed or oak;
Stepped on, but never earnestly inquired
Whether to heaven or hell the journey led?" If so they may rest upon the arguments here presented for Sunday-keeping as perfectly satisfactory, and never once inquire on what they are based; otherwise they will not. Had the tract been written for a priest-ridden people who take his word for their gospel and receive unquestioned, whatever comes from his lips, as sacred truth, we had not wondered at it; but when a man in an enlightened land cautions his fellowmen not to break the Sabbath, we are surprised to see him endeavor, by a few baseless inferences, to destroy the institution, and turn men to the observance of another day which will not answer the requirements of the Sabbath law.
U. S.