Of a Series of Lectures on the Sabbath Question, delivered in Battle Creek, March 31st-April 4th, 1857.
(Continued)
F. "We need rest, but the seventh day does not meet man's wants. Man must rest when he needs it."
Man must keep the Sabbath holy whether he needs rest or not. It is not only to meet his physical wants, but it is to be a "delight," because it is "the holy of the Lord, and honorable." Isa. lviii, 23. His physical wants would be met by a rest that was not holy or sanctified, and upon which no special honor was placed.
F. "Proof is wanted that the church secures blessings by observing the seventh day. These are secured by walking in the truth."
F. "Blessings would be secured as well by observing any other day."
Yes, if God had sanctified and commanded the observance of another day, and thus placed us in the same relation to it. But here is the great difficulty; some "other day" will do as well. All agree to keep a day, but they seem averse to having God choose for them. Many are the pretexts for sliding on to another day. The celebrated Dr. Justin Edwards gives the following: "The primary and essential idea in the numbers "six" and "seven," as used in the command, is that of proportion. . . . Men who call their first working day the second day of the week, and who, on the seventh day from that keep the Christian Sabbath, do as really comply with the spirit and letter of the fourth commandment." &c. As many seem to rely on this position, I here take occasion to notice it.
The fallacy of this is easily seen, (1.) The word "seven" is not used in the commandment, but "seventh," which is ordinal, and does not convey the idea of proportion. His theory, the seventh part of time, would introduce confusion, should the days vary in length, as was the case in the days of Joshua. But when an ordinal number is used the reckoning is not disturbed by one day's being protracted to twice the length of the others. It is "the seventh," without regard to length or proportion. (2.) The scripture says that "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions;" [Eccl. vii, 29] but this invention of "turning things upside down," calling the second the first, and the first the seventh, thus robbing God of his own and rendering as a substitute that which he has never required, while yet professing to obey his requirements, is about as ingenious as it would be to call Baal by the name of Jehovah and worship him according to the first commandment. (3.) It is hard to conceive how the first day can be kept according to the letter of a commandment which says the seventh day.
F. "It is claimed that the Sabbath was made for man, to meet his necessities. Adam did not need rest. He could not be weary. Weariness or fatigue is a proper result of transgression."
The duty to rest, as laid down in the commandment, is based on the well-known fact that "God rested;" and to show the fallacy of the above declaration, it is only necessary to say that God's resting was not the result of weariness or sin. He says: "It is claimed that the Sabbath was made for man;" and mark! the Saviour makes the claim; for these are his words, and we are willing to let candid, reasoning people judge whether that which was "made for man," before the fall, was necessary or unnecessary. When people array themselves against the truth they expose their weakness by the inconsistent positions they take. He endeavors to show that,
1. The Sabbath was Jewish, and made for the Jews alone.
2. It did not meet man's necessities; for Adam did not need rest! and weariness is a consequence of sin.
That is to say, if those for whom the Sabbath was made were sinners and did need rest, it would have met their necessities. But the Jews, for whom he says it was made, were sinners and liable to fatigue; hence we might conclude it was founded on their necessities. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that it might likewise have met the wants of other nations similarly situated?
Mr. Fillio summed up this part of the argument by asserting that it amounts to a demonstration that the Sabbath was a positive institution. His next effort was to find a positive enactment to suit the institution. He proceeds:
F. "The history of the world for 2513 years says not a word for the Sabbath. Not a word about Sabbath-breaking when the world was filled with crime; hence, there was no such law."
Of all deception, that is most unfair and dangerous which conceals and covers up the truth. Where a direct untruth is uttered there is comparative safety; as the mind will most readily detect it; but when a person professes to tell the truth, and covers it up in part, the error is not so readily detected. This may be set down as the stronghold of the enemy of truth. In the above declaration there is an appearance of truth, because the Sabbath is not mentioned in a certain place; but the deception is at once exposed by examining the scripture, and seeing what sins were, and what were not mentioned. The time referred to when the world was filled with crime was in the days of Noah. The Bible record is as follows:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The earth also was corrupt before God; and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt: for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." Gen. vi, 5, 11-13.
What this "wickedness" consisted of we are not told; neither are we told what their evil thoughts tended to. Perhaps to blasphemy, perhaps to Sabbath-breaking, perhaps to adultery; and most likely to all together. Violence may be traced to a violation of the sixth commandment, but there is no probability that the world was filled with murder, and no other crime. But notice how he draws his conclusion. He says, There was no mention of Sabbath-breaking charged on antediluvians; hence117there was no such law. He might have gone further and said, No mention of blasphemy was made at that time, (nor in any other place in Genesis,) hence there was no law forbidding it. No mention of theft, idolatry, dishonoring parents, &c.; hence, there were no such laws as the second, third, fifth, sixth, or eighth commandments. This argument was designed to show that the fourth commandment is not a rule of morality, but we see that it would prove the same in regard to the other commandments. And we shall see as we proceed, that every position taken against the Sabbath applies with equal force against the whole decalogue.
F. "Ex. xvi, 5-23. Here the law of the Sabbath is first revealed, or enjoined on man. Here we find positive law, and that only. Ex. xx, 8-11. Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy, that is, according to the former enactment."
Let these remarks be noticed in connection. According to this we find a positive enactment in chap. xvi, and a reference to it as to "a former enactment" in chap. xx. But in what he claims to be the enactment there is no reason given why the seventh day was chosen; no facts on which the institution is based; it does not bear the form of an enactment, and all the circumstances show that the Sabbath was referred to as an existing institution. In chap. xx there is an enactment, but it has no reference to anything in chap. xvi; no mention of the manna, nor of any of the circumstances connected with its being given. But facts and reasons are there given for the observance of the Sabbath, every one dating back to creation. If any reference is made in chap. xx, to a former enactment, it must be to an enactment at creation, for it refers to that only.
F. "Ex. xxxi, 13-18. The Sabbath was peculiarly Jewish; it was a sign between God and the children of Israel."
What Sabbath was Jewish? The seventh-day Sabbath, says Mr. F. What is it called in the Scriptures? The Sabbath of the Lord God. What other name does it have in the Bible? None. Why was it constituted a sign? The reason is given in Ex. xxxi, 17. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever, FOR in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." This makes it peculiarly Jewish! Reader, compare this scripture with its parallels in Eze. xx, 12, 19, 20, and with Ex. xx, 8-11, and Gen. ii, 1-3, and candor must compel you to admit that he who calls it Jewish does violence to scripture and to reason.
F. "Gen. ii, 2, 3. There is nothing in this passage that partakes of the nature of law—nothing to explain relative action, neither moral nor positive. No command to do, or not to do. A simple history of what God done, [did?] He rested: if any reference to law it must be by anticipation; and such construction is forced."
We copy all this, not because there is any appearance of argument in it, but to show with what dexterity a man can change his position when the light is like to shine in his face. To maintain the position which he has attempted to prove, something more is required of him than to assert that no law is found in Gen. ii, 2, 3. Are not the facts presented there upon which the law is based? Is there anything Jewish there? Why did he not try to show that no reference is made to the institution in Gen. ii? Would it not be singular if, after all this effort, it should yet be made to appear that the Jewish Sabbath was instituted in Paradise? "Nothing to explain relative action" there. But "relative action" is presented in Ex. xx, 8-11. Why should man work just six days? Because God made all things in six days. Why should man rest the seventh day? Because God rested the seventh day, nearly 2500 years before the distinction of Jews and Gentiles was known. How plain these scripture facts are. Why will man blindly cling to tradition when the truth is so clear? Jewish Sabbath, indeed! O that man would believe God's word, and cease to "reason with unprofitable talk." Job xv, 3.
He next endeavored to show that it would have been improper to give a Sabbath law to Adam. Listen to the reason:
F. "It is an impeachment of divine wisdom to suppose that God would give two tests of obedience to effect the same purpose; it is charging God with folly—it is impious."
A test of obedience is a precept, or a law; and it may be expressed either in a positive or negative form, i. e., as a command or prohibition. The fifth commandment is positive, the sixth negative or prohibitory. Behold the position of Mr. F. God prohibited the eating of the fruit of a certain tree, therefore he could not consistently command to keep the Sabbath! If it is impious in us to assert our belief that God gave two precepts to Adam, of what gross impiety was Moses guilty, for he said that God gave to Israel ten at once! It needs not the wisdom of Solomon to see that "all is vanity" in such arguments as these.
F. "The law of the seventh-day Sabbath was a prominent part of the law of Moses, and partook of the same ceremonial nature. Its classification with other ceremonies proves it."
In proof of this he read Ex. xxiii, 12-20; Lev. xxiii; Eze. xlvi, 1-7; Hos. ii, 11; Matt. xii, 1-9. But on this point he was at fault in every respect, for (1.) he declared in another place that the fact that the fourth commandment was graven with moral precepts on stone did not prove its morality. Thus he contradicted his argument by denying the evidence of classification. And (2.) the scriptures quoted do not prove what they were quoted to prove, but the opposite.
In Ex. xxiii there are certain ceremonies mentioned which were peculiar to that dispensation, such as keeping the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest, &c., in verses 14-19; and the Sabbath is mentioned in verse 12; hence he says it is ceremonial, Jewish, and positive, because written in the same chapter with ceremonies. That is to say, that because some things written in this chapter are ceremonial, all are. Read the following: "Thou shalt not take a false report." Verse 1. "Keep thee far from a false matter, and the innocent and righteous slay thou not." Verse 7. "Six days shalt thou do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest." Verse 12. "Make no mention of the name of other gods." Verse 13. "Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them." Verse 24. "Let the candid judge" of that matter.
Next is Lev. xxiii. In this chapter several yearly sabbaths, and one weekly Sabbath, are mentioned. The weekly Sabbath is the seventh day. The yearly sabbaths are the fourteenth day of the first month, the twenty-first of the same, the first, tenth, and fifteenth days of the seventh month, &c. These yearly sabbaths are also called feasts and to be observed as specified, "every thing upon his day; BESIDES the Sabbaths of the Lord." Verses 27, 28. Here the distinction is as plain as language could possibly make it. The seventh day or weekly Sabbath was the Lord's.
Eze. xlvi. This scripture makes a distinction between the Sabbath and "the six working days." Whatever view is taken of this part of the prophecy, it is very hard to see wherein it favors the assertion, of Mr. F. That offerings were made on the Sabbath, is well known, but this fact does not sustain his cause or favor it in the least. This will be clearly seen when we come to examine his position on "after enactments."
Hos. ii, 11. In this prophecy the Lord said he would "cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel." Chap. i, 4. Then in the text he says, "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." In Lev. xxiii, 27-32, direction is given to Israel how to celebrate the sabbath of the tenth day of the seventh month, and there the Lord says, "your sabbath." In Hos. ii, 11, he predicts the cessation of all their sabbaths; but this will avail the opponents of the Lord's Sabbath nothing at all, unless they can show at least one passage of scripture where the seventh-day Sabbath is called by another name than "the Sabbath of the Lord God." This text [Hos. ii] is a stronghold for the lovers of God's holy Sabbath, as it clearly recognizes the distinction that we claim. As Matt. xii is presented in a more pointed manner in another place, we waive an examination of it for the present. The next point is second to the one just examined, and intended to prove the same thing, as follows:
F. "Again, its penalty was the same as for transgressing other positive laws."
This has been so often asserted, and so often shown to avail nothing in their behalf, that it truly seems as if any lecturer presumed on the ignorance of his audience in reiterating it. It is well known that the Sabbath-breaker was stoned, or put to death. Look at the following scriptures on the subject.
Ex. xxi, 12. "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
Verse 15. "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."
Lev. xxiv, 10-25. Here is the first case of stoning to death recorded; but, alas, for Mr. Fillio's position, it was for blasphemy! In this scripture the Lord says that blasphemy and murder shall be punished with death. See 1 Kings xxi, 10-13.
Num. xv, 32-36. This was the next instance of stoning, and it was for Sabbath-breaking. The punishment was the same as for murder and blasphemy. Chap. xx, 31. "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death. . . . Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death."
Deut. xiii, 6-11. Those who tempt to idolatry, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," were not to be pitied nor spared in Israel, but the Lord said, "Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
Chap. xvii, 2-5. Here again idolaters were to be punished in the same manner. The Lord said they should "stone them with stones, till they die."
Chap. xxii, 18-21. This refers to the fifth commandment. If one was found who would not obey or hearken to his parents, the Lord said, "All the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die."
Josh. vii, 10-25. The people stoned Achan, as the Lord commanded, because he had coveted, stolen, and dissembled.
Here we have quoted nine scriptures showing some of the crimes to which this penalty was attached, and we find it was for murder, smiting of parents, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, disobedience to parents, covetousness and theft. We know not what motive could induce a public lecturer on such an important subject, to make such reckless statements. May the Lord open the eyes of those who have been blinded and misled.
F. "There is a disparity between this and moral laws. There is a moral fitness in the sixth commandment. That was as unchangeable and eternal as the throne of Jehovah; and so of all parts of the Decalogue except the Sabbath. We find no trace of it till Israel left Egypt. We then have its origin, penalty, history, and cessation."
To the first of the above declarations we say, that disparity has not been, and cannot be shown. Second. The strongest and most plausible arguments put forth in all these lectures will be shown to apply with especial force against the sixth commandment! Third. No process of reasoning can be instituted which will show that nine precepts of the decalogue are unchangeable, and make the fourth commandment an exception. Every just law must be based upon facts or reasons. If there are any truths of an eternal and unchangeable nature, these upon which the fourth commandment is based certainly are so. God made the world. True, even to this day. God rested the seventh day. True, still. He sanctified it. All eternal truths. "How readest thou," Mr. Fillio? Do you find the opposite of this in God's word? Fourth. If he means that we find no Sabbath commandment recorded till Israel left Egypt, we reply, that it is not alone in this respect; the others were not written before that time. So his argument fails by proving more than he would allow, if it proves any thing at all. But if he means that we find no trace of the institution till Israel left Egypt, this argument then fails in two respects. (1.) It would still be on a118level with other commandments of the Decalogue, if his assertion was true; for the third, fifth, ninth, and tenth, are not mentioned till after Israel left Egypt. But the assertion would not be true, as it stands contradicted by the scriptures, which trace the institution to creation. Gen. ii, 1-3; Ex. xx, 11; xxxi, 17. Thus the truth, like the "flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life," meets him in every direction. And fifth, it is not true that we find its origin after Israel left Egypt. Its penalty has been shown to be the same as that of all moral precepts. Its history is found in all the history of God's people, where we have any inspired record, from the writings of Moses to those of Luke the evangelist. Its cessation we shall look for in Mr. Fillio's argument. J. H. W.
(To be Continued.)