THE SABBATH, by James White

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 13, 1856

THE SABBATH,

By James White

TESTIMONY OF UNINSPIRED MEN.

A late writer has truthfully remarked, "When man sets at naught a divine arrangement made expressly for his benefit, he always has, and always will make full proof of his folly." This is shown to be true in regard to the Sabbath institution, though the writer had no reference to this question. "The Sabbath was made for man," and the wisdom of the world proves to be folly when endeavoring to evade the force of this plain truth. But universal practice, or common consent has so strong a hold on the minds of some, that argument loses half its force when arrayed against the popular will. Whatever exists amongst apparently well-meaning people is sacred in their esteem, without an inquiry being raised in regard to its origin. And though it be shown that the keeping of the first day of the week is not enjoined in the Bible, it seems to answer so good a purpose in the Christian world, being devoted to such a pious use, that it cannot be dispensed with. To such I would recommend the following remarks of Dr. Scott:

"The use of things indifferent in religion, without command from God, leads men's minds to gross conceptions of him, as if he delighted in that outward splendor, or those external forms which excite in them lively but false affections that are often mistaken for devotion; and it is commonly connected with a false dependence; it substitutes something else in the place of the appointment of God, and tends to the usurpation of authority over men's consciences."

These remarks are just, even of "things indifferent," but the substitution of "something else in the place of the appointment of God," cannot be called an indifferent thing. But others will point with confidence to past centuries during which Sunday has been observed, as if a sin were sanctified by age. The following remarks by Dr. Carson are to the point:

"With respect to existing religious institutions, there is no presumption in their favor, in any sense of the term. Their present existence is a presumption that they were agreeable to the wisdom of the institutor, but not that they are of divine origin. He who holds them must prove them. He who assails them has only to refute what is alleged from scripture in their support. The question is not whether the institution is useful or injurious, but whether it is founded in scripture. Had an institution existed from the time of Noah, it has not the smallest authority from its age. It must prove its origin to be from God. "With respect to religious doctrines, there is no antecedent probability that those in existence at any time are actually in scripture. The vast majority of religious rites used under the Christian name are the mere inventions of man; and not a single institution of the Lord Jesus, as it is recorded in the New Testament, has been left unchanged; and it is no injustice to put each of them to the proof, because if they are in scripture, proof is at all times accessible."

Of the law of which the Sabbath commandment is a part, Dr. Scott speaks as follows:

"Though we neither hear the thunders nor see the lightnings, nor witness the awful circumstances with which the holy law was given, and though we are not appalled by the voice of God himself, speaking to us from the top of blazing Sinai, yet if we attend to the things spoken, we shall perceive that we have as much occasion to tremble as the Israelites had, when they stood at the foot of the mountain. This law, which is so extensive that we cannot measure it, so spiritual that we cannot evade it, and so reasonable that we cannot find fault with it, will be the rule of the future judgment of God, as it is of the present conduct of man. Nor would it consist with the glory of the Lord's perfections, the honor of his government, the interests of his universal and everlasting kingdom, or even with the felicity of his rational creatures, to reverse, repeat, or relax one precept of it, for it is all perfectly 'holy, just and good.' . . . But can it be imagined, if the law is so holy and excellent, and such honor has been put upon it by the obedience and sufferings of the incarnate Son of God, that any redeemed sinner should be allowed to disobey it? It is absurdity, impossibility, blasphemy! The knowledge of the Law shows our need of repentance; the knowledge of Christ crucified is inseparably connected with repentance."

All who have endeavored to prove the change of the Sabbath have but multiplied "words without knowledge," and shown the weakness of their cause by the fallacies of their arguments. In contrast with their vain reasonings I present the following extract from Eld. H. Grew's review of Phelps:

"To affirm the 'perpetuity' of the original Sabbath and also a 'change of the day,' is a contradiction. . . . "The particular day enters into the very essence of the original Sabbath. Any change of the day annihilates it. Another day is another institution. Now for the proof. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Gen. ii, 3. The reason, and the only reason assigned for the original institution of the Sabbath-day is, that God rested on the seventh day, and no other, from all his work. Now as God's resting on that particular day constitutes the entire ground of its sanctification as the Sabbath-day, it necessarily follows that a change of the day involves a modification of the original institution. Bro. P.'s own reasoning confirms this; (p. 87,) he remarks, manente ratione, manet ipsa lex—the reason of the law remaining, the law itself remains. But the reason of the law was God's resting on the seventh day, a fact which certainly remains; consequently the law requiring the observance of that particular day must remain so long as the institution itself remains. The fourth of July is observed as a memorial of American Independence, because that on that day it was declared. Can you change the day, and then talk of the 'perpetuity' of your original memorial? Moreover, the day is not only changed, but the reason for observing your new Sabbath-day is changed. The first day of the week is not kept because IN IT God rested from the works of creation, but because our blessed Lord rose from the dead. Suppose we were to abandon the observance of the fourth of July, and say we will keep the eighth of January instead, because of Jackson's victory, could we in truth declare that we are maintaining the perpetuity of the original instituted memorial of independence?"