The Fourth Commandment and Sunday-Keepers.
By Editor
THE great desideratum with those who observe the first day of the week as a day of rest, is, by some means to make it appear that the observance of that day is enforced by the fourth commandment; for it is a fact, and an unfortunate one for them too, that there is no precept in the Bible, which commands the weekly observance of a day of rest, and defines the period of its recurrence, except the fourth commandment. Another unfortunate fact is, that this fourth commandment has no more to say about Sunday than it has about "Good Friday." The fourth commandment as plainly defines the day of the Sabbath, as language is capable of doing it; and it declares it to be the seventh day of each week. The world, that portion of it which flatters itself with the name of "christian," stands up and says that the day of rest is the first day of each week. Now as Protestants profess to regulate their practice, by the precepts of their Bible, it becomes necessary that these two declarations be harmonised, so that, consistent with their profession, while they practice according to the latter, they may not be violating the teachings of the former. To do this the wits and wisdom of theologians have been taxed to their utmost. Every quibble that sophistry could produce has been marshalled into the field, and the result has been a swarm of theories, each claiming to have settled the difficulty, none of them, however, attempting to do it by leading men from a false practice to the truth of God, but by perverting the meaning of the fourth commandment. A practice grown venerable in their eyes from its supposed antiquity, must not be given over; and they have endeavored to bend the teachings of the Bible to their practice, instead of their practice to the teachings of the Bible. They have propped up their own "Dagons" in their gilded temples, and thrust the ark of God out of their midst. In illustration of what we have said, we will present a few examples; not because we take pleasure in controversy as such, or in denouncing the course of those who differ with us; but that the power and harmony of truth may be more apparent, from the inconsistency of its opposers. In the Advent Herald of Nov. 24, 1855, we notice the conclusion of an article on the fourth commandment, by "Rev. Wm. S. Plumer, D. D.," in which he says: "1. The term Sabbath signifies rest; and that rest by divine appointment may, without at all changing its nature, be transferred from one day to another. Some other Jewish festivals were called Sabbaths, but never one of them called 'the Sabbath,' the rest." "2. There is nothing in the fourth commandment fixing this weekly rest to the seventh day of the week. The law in the decalogue does not point out any day of the week, but only a day succeeding six days of labor. It is said, 'God blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.'" Here we say is a most manifest perversion of the fourth commandment. If men could not once detach the commandment from the seventh day of the week and render it an indefinite expression, it would then be quite an easy matter to invent a very plausible theory for First-day keeping. But to destroy the definiteness of the fourth commandment is not so easy a matter. What did God bless in the beginning? He blessed something, or nothing. If he blessed anything, he blessed some definite object. We read that he blessed a day; then he blessed some definite day. What day was that? The seventh day and no other: or the Bible has failed to declare the truth on this subject. Here originates the Sabbath institution. The fourth commandment refers us back to the fact of God's resting on the seventh day, as the reason of this institution. This day it tells us to remember and keep holy. "In it thou shalt not do any work." Mr. Plumer says, "The term Sabbath signifies rest; and that rest by divine appointment may, without changing its nature be transferred from one day to another." Where does he find proof of this assertion? Where does the Bible tell us to rest "one day in seven," but that we may select the day to suit our own convenience? True, on whatever day we refrain from labor, it is a "rest" to us; but it is not the "rest-day" of the Lord. We are commanded to rest for some reason: we must take for this the reason that God has given us; and that reason confines us, and that absolutely, to the seventh day of the week. It will not do for us to take a reason of our own assuming and on that reason set apart another day for a weekly rest than that which God has appointed. This is not only to reject the observance of the day that God has given us, but the reason for that observance also. We say that the Sabbath institution is dependent for its existence on the fact that God rested from the work of creation on the seventh day of the first week of time. But who would think of urging that men must now observe the first day of each week because God rested on the seventh? This however, Mr. Plumer attempts to do in his next paragraph, when he says: "There is nothing in the fourth commandment fixing this weekly rest to the seventh day of the week. The law in the decalogue does not point out any day." We hardly know how to reply to so plain a contradiction of the word of God. As we have before said, if language is capable of doing it, the day of the Sabbath is plainly defined. It is certain that God did not bless every day of the week; but if the assertion above quoted be true, one man may observe the seventh day, his next neighbor may observe the first, another, the second, and so on till every day of the week is observed as holy time; they may each appeal to the fourth commandment in justification of their course, and if that commandment is as indefinite as the doctor would have us believe, they would be justified, each in keeping his separate day; for they would each fulfill the requirements of the command in keeping one day in seven; yet there is but one holy day in each week; for God has blessed and set apart one only for the use of man. The idea of God's blessing one day of the week and no day in particular, of his requiring us to remember the day of the Sabbath, without telling us when it comes; of his commanding us to keep a day that is not specified; is too manifestly absurd to need comment. It has become quite characteristic of man since his fall to suggest improvements on the doings of the Almighty. Perhaps Mr. Plumer could tell us what language the Lord should have used if he wished to point out the seventh day in the fourth commandment. But Eld. P. evidently thinks he has gained his point, and that people will believe after reading his article that the fourth commandment really does enjoin the observance of Sunday; for he says in conclusion, speaking of James ii, 10, 11, "Now if you do not kill or swear profanely, yet if you violate the fourth commandment, you are 'become a transgressor of the law.'" Before he reaches this point, however, he introduces another reason for keeping holy the first day of the week; namely, because Christ rose on that day; though he forgot to give us the teachings of the Bible that requires this at our hand. In the same Herald there is also an article on the history of the "Lord's day in Scotland and England," by another writer who believes that the fourth commandment is abolished, and that Sunday is no Sabbath only as made so by the civil and ecclesiastical power. These two articles in the same paper show that the Herald is ready to publish anything that militates against the views of those who keep the seventh day according to the commandment, whether it presents a harmonious system of truth or not. Our limits forbid our saying more on this point in this No. Next week we will make some further remarks bearing on the same subject. We will also, in connection, present our readers with a curious document: a letter purporting to be "written by God himself;" one of the instruments by which that power that instituted Sunday-keeping attempts to enforce its observance.