"THE LAW OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH."
But before we proceed with our argument, let us notice how the Tract under consideration, disposes of the difficulty—a task to which it now addresses itself in the following language. We head the paragraph, THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH.
'But here the objector may say, If the law of the Sabbath is to be strictly adhered to, let us observe the seventh day. It may be replied, Let us settle first principles, and understand what is the Sabbath law. Is it not this, that a certain portion of time, say a seventh, shall be separated from common to sacred uses, and consecrated to religious worship? Whether that day shall be the sixth, or the seventh, or the first, is a mere matter of external and positive appointment, which does not enter into the essence of the Sabbath at all. The institution may remain intact, though the day be varied. Hence the command is, 'Remember'—not the seventh—but 'the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' Now let us imagine that, in the history of revolving ages, new manifestations of the divine character are made to the sons of men, manifestations that exceed in glory that which the Sabbath was first appointed to commemorate; there would be no invasion of its essence, but an enhancing of its importance, were it to be constituted the memorial of these sublimer manifestations.' 'And this is what we affirm has actually been done. In that work of redemption, which was completed when our Lord arose from the dead, the character of God was displayed with a luster which threw the glories of creation into the shade. It was the grand manifestation of God's moral attributes; the creation of 'new heavens and a new earth.' The Sabbath was henceforth to be the memorial of both, and now, most prominently, of the last and greatest. The first day of the week that witnessed the completed redemption, thus became more appropriate than the seventh, and it was meet also that, in accordance with this, the sacred institute should receive a new name, and be called the Lord's day.' But while these changes took place in what might be called the externals and accidents of the day of holy rest, it was still, in its essence, the Sabbath that had existed for four thousand years. It was, like the ark of God, changing its place from the tabernacle of David to the temple of Solomon, the chosen symbol, as from the beginning, of God's presence and blessing. The ark was still the ark, although it changed its place; and the Sabbath is still the Sabbath, although it has changed its day. In the invitation to "settle first principles and understand what is the Sabbath law," we heartily join. But when it is asserted that all it requires is, "a certain portion of time, say a seventh;" that the day is a "mere matter of external or positive appointment, which does not enter into the essence of the Sabbath at all;" that "the institution may remain intact, though the day be varied;" and that the "command is to remember not the seventh" &c., we are obliged to take a stand of unqualified opposition to the position taken. If the fourth commandment does not according to every law of language, command the seventh day, and the seventh day only, to be kept holy, it means nothing. But since it has been called in question, let us examine its phraseology. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, . . . but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God" &c. God has here told us to keep the Sabbath, and he has told us what day of the week the Sabbath day is, namely, the seventh. Now in what respect would it have been different, if he had simply said, Remember the seventh day to keep it holy? None at all. We marvel that any one should ever have imagined a distinction. We are required to keep the Sabbath day, or the day of the Sabbath, or rest; God tells us that this is the seventh day of the week; therefore we are required to keep the seventh day of the week. It is assuming indeed a singular latitude to reason like this: God, to be sure says that the seventh day is the Sabbath; but as the direct command only says, Remember the Sabbath, &c., therefore we may remember and keep any day we please. But what if we did find the expression, Remember the seventh day, &c? The same rule of interpretation which would make us positive an expression as "the Sabbath day, [mark the definite article,] mean any day in the week, would also clothe such expressions as "the seventh day," in the same uncertainty; so that did the expression really occur, the writer would allow it to make not a whit of difference in his conclusions. We find him then engaged in the very questionable effort of endeavouring to raise an argument upon a distinction which does not exist, and which even if it did exist, would immediately be set aside by the same mode of reasoning as is actually used on other points. We are sorry to find on a subject of such importance as the Sabbath, anything which has so much the semblance of the merest quibbling. "The day," says the Tract, "does not enter into the essence of the Sabbath at all." The day, we contend, is itself the essence of the Sabbath institution, without which it would not exist. By the fourth commandment we are referred for the origin of the Sabbath to the creation. Let us turn to the record. We learn that God, having created the world and all things therein in six days, rested upon the seventh day. This became a great fact. Then after he had rested, God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it or set it apart for religious use, because that in it he had rested. Such is the record, as plain and simple as need be. Thus the Sabbath was made; and the Saviour responds four thousand years afterwards, that it was made for man. God says as recorded in Ex. xx, that he blessed the Sabbath day. There is no record of his blessing any day except the seventh day at the beginning. But it was the Sabbath day when he blessed it. Let this forever settle the fact therefore that the Sabbath has existed from the beginning. This is also proved by another consideration. Sabbath means rest. The Sabbath of the Lord is the rest-day of the Lord; and ever since God rested upon the seventh day from the works of creation, his rest-day has of course existed; and it will, of course, exist as long as it shall remain a fact that he then rested. From these considerations it must be evident to all, and we hardly see how any other idea could arise, that the Sabbath is a definite and particular day. God rested upon a particular day of the week, and only one. The day upon which he rested, he blessed. He did not bless every day in the week, or one day in seven and no day in particular, but a particular day; and the day which he blessed we are commanded to rest upon. Thus we see that the day of the Sabbath is not a mere "accident and external," which may be varied at pleasure, without affecting the institution; for we can no more render it vague and uncertain than we can roll back the tide of time six thousand years, and undo the works of creation. On this point we need not dwell: it will be seen by all. Let it be remembered that the Sabbath is a blest and sanctified day; and that man by resting cannot make and sanctify a Sabbath: even God's resting on the seventh day did not render it holy; but he imparted his blessing to it afterwards by a separate and special act; and thus it was set apart for man. God has never sanctified any other day; and he has never removed the sanctity from this. Having shown that the Sabbath is immovably fixed to a particular day of the week, it will be seen at once how futile it is to talk of its being changed to the first day. But the arguments for First-day keeping, besides standing in direct opposition to this great principle, are, also, we think, extremely defective in many other respects. Says the Tract, "Now let us imagine that in the history of revolving ages, new manifestations of the divine character are made to the sons of men, manifestations that exceed in glory that which the Sabbath was first appointed to commemorate; there would be no invasion of its essence, but an enhancing of its importance, were it to be constituted the memorial of these sublimer manifestations." As an imaginary scene this may do. But before we conclude that it can actually be so, let us look at another great principle, which must be universally acknowledged, having a direct bearing upon this point. It is this: An institution which is a memorial of any event having to do with time, must be kept on the same day of the week or year, [according as the memorial is designed to be weekly or yearly] in that on which the event took place. No one, in his right mind would think of celebrating the Declaration of Independence, in December, nor the Landing of the Pilgrims, in July. So we find that the Passover could not be kept but on the fourteenth day of the first month, except in cases of absolute necessity, when it was permitted to be observed on the fourteenth day of the second month. Neither can the rest of God after the six days work of creation, be commemorated on any other day of the week than the seventh or last, the day on which it occurred. Such is the universal law of memorials. Up to the days of Christ the seventh day was confessedly kept as the Sabbath. It is also acknowledged that it was then a memorial of creation. Indeed the only reason assigned in the Sabbath commandment for the institution, is to keep in remembrance the Creator, by celebrating his rest, and through that his work. Now suppose that in the days of the Saviour, as "imagined" above, new manifestations of the divine character are made to men, if these require to be commemorated by the observance of a day of rest, and that day coincides with the Sabbath, it may perhaps become the memorial of two events; but if they require another day, we see that it can have no connection whatever with the Sabbath; for we should then find ourselves celebrating another event than the creation, keeping another day than the Sabbath, and for another reason. Such is the conclusions to which we are held by the fact that the Sabbath is a memorial. "It would enhance its importance," says the Tract,93"should it be constituted a memorial of these sublimer manifestations." By this we are led to inquire, By whom could it be constituted such a memorial? Who has authority to deal thus with the Sabbath? Surely no one but its great Author, the Lord Jehovah, who first made it and afterwards proclaimed it from amidst the thunders of Sinai. Of course should he thus constitute it a memorial of a second order of events, and plainly reveal to us the fact, it would be ours to bow to his arrangement without question or complaint. But has he done it? We answer, No, and shall have occasion to repeat it hereafter. "This," says the writer, "is what we affirm has actually been done;" that is, that there have been manifestations exceeding in glory those which the Sabbath was first designed to commemorate. Reference is here made to the work of redemption. But we inquire, Who may decide in this matter? Is it for man, who as Pollok says, has but a speck of the universe to examine, and as it were but an hour to do it in; is it for man earth-born and short-sighted as he is, to set himself up as umpire to decide between the merits of creation and redemption—works which are both infinitely beyond his comprehension? If God has revealed that one surpasses in glory the other, well; if not, let man forever hold his peace upon this question. We appeal to the sacred oracles, and they are silent! Then let not man presume to determine what the Holy Ghost has not seen fit to reveal. "The work of redemption" says the quotation above, "was completed when our Lord arose from the dead." What! Redemption completed? What is the work of redemption? The work which Christ accomplishes for our salvation. Is that completed? Are the saints redeemed? Are their hosts yet marshaled on the banks of deliverance? Is Christ's work finished? Is he not yet pleading his blood in our behalf in the heavenly Sanctuary? And will not his ministration continue till this dispensation closes and probation ends? Then the work of redemption is not completed; and he who is keeping a Sabbath to commemorate it is endeavoring to hold in remembrance a work which is not yet accomplished! NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH.
This, it is said, was "the creation of a new heaven and a new earth." The Sabbath, (rest) is a memorial of creation. But the new Sabbath is instituted on the plea of redemption, which is erroneously thought to be finished before it is. This, therefore, to give a semblance of consistency and analogy to the view, is called the creation of the new heavens and new earth which God has promised. Let us bestow a thought upon this, as a thought only will be sufficient to show us the absurdity of spiritualizing away the glorious and substantial promises which God has given us in his word. Concerning the new heavens and new earth, Peter says, [2 Pet. iii,] that "the world that then was (before the flood) being overflowed with water perished; but the heavens and the earth which are now, (of course this literal earth and the heavens which surround it,) by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." But he says that when this present earth shall be melted with fervent heat, and the works therein burned up, "we according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." The only promise of this kind, to be found when Peter wrote, was in Isa. lxv, 17. What kind of an earth will this new one be? Literal and of course like the present, from the dissolution of which it rises; only it will be filled with righteousness and glory instead of wickedness and misery, and be restored to more than its Eden beauty. From this interpretation of the prophecy by Peter, we can at once see the enormity of the error of calling it a spiritual creation of new heavens and earth at the first advent of the Saviour. We can only wonder that any who profess any acquaintance with the Scriptures should suffer their minds to become so blinded, and their judgment so perverted, as thus to apply it, even if it was necessary to sustain a cherished theory. Having now got the heavens and the earth created anew, that is, spiritually, and being thus furnished with a second creation to be commemorated as well as the first, the writer says, "The Sabbath was henceforth to be the memorial of both." To this there are two objections: First, the new Sabbath being placed upon the first day of the week, forbids its being a memorial of the creation in the beginning; as that requires the seventh day. Second, repudiating the idea of a spiritual creation, a course which the Scriptures sustain us in, we find that the new creation of the heavens and the earth had not then taken place; so that there was no creation of this kind to commemorate; and no necessity consequently existed for "re-constituting" the Sabbath for this purpose. Even if the assertion should be true when the heavens and earth shall have been re-created, it could not be true then, as this had not then taken place; it cannot be true now, for the same reason. "The first day of the week thus became," continues the writer, "more appropriate than the seventh." This is an assertion that has often been made by many, and we inquire again, as we have frequently done, and been left unanswered, how it is that they know that that day is more appropriate than the seventh? Where is this revealed? If a writer upon a religious subject wishes to excite in our minds anything but contempt for the position he occupies and his manner of defending it, let him show us the Scripture for his support. Human assertions are poor currency among students of the Word, which only pass at a ruinous discount. We conclude then they are used only for want of something better—the present case being no exception. "And it was meet," our reasoner goes on to say, "that the sacred institute should receive a new name, and be called the Lord's day." We here renew our demand for the Scripture proof, renewing at the same time the declaration that Sunday is never called the Lord's day on the pages of inspiration. The instance cannot be found; and we shall be satisfied with nothing less. The authority of the priest may be sufficient for some, and his word foreclose all investigation; but he must not expect that all will be ready to receive unquestioned, with closed eyes and open mouth, every theological drug which he may be disposed to tender. The expression, Lord's day, occurs, it is true, in Rev. i, 10; but not a word is there said by which we can determine what day is meant. Is there any passage which tells us what day the Lord's day is? There is. It reads as follows: "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath"—not Sunday. Mark ii, 28.