p. 68 | THE SABBATH

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 20, 1859

THE SABBATH.

MR. EDITOR, DEAR BRO.: A short time ago, a small pamphlet was put into my hands, with a request that I would read it. Said pamphlet is entitled, "The Truth Found; A Short Argument for the Sabbath, by J. H. Waggoner."

Well, sir, I have read the pamphlet without conviction, although the author says, "ten men, or ten thousand, must come to the same conclusion, if they reason legitimately;" i. e., must come to his conclusion. But, sir, I arrive at very different conclusions on this subject, and it will be for you and your readers to judge, whether I reason legitimately.

Our author says:

"1. God made the world in six days. "2. He rested the seventh day. "3. He blessed, sanctified, or hallowed the seventh day. "4. He commanded that the seventh day be kept holy."

True, sir, I admit it all. But here permit me to interrogate you: To whom, when, and where, was this said? Answer. To Israel, after their deliverance from Egypt, and while encamped on the plains of Sinai. Thus, we see, that this Sabbath law was given to Israel, God's peculiar people, and formed a part of their national code; a code which was peculiar to that nation only.

I would like to know by what authority Mr. Waggoner, and all others of the Sabbatarian School select one precept from the law given to Israel, and enjoin its observance upon their fellow-men, and reject all the rest. If they enjoin it because God commanded it, then, for the same reason, they are bound to observe all the rest; the offerings, sacrifices, new moons, circumcision, the redemption of the first-born, &c., &c., because they are all equally his commands.

Again, I would ask Mr. Waggoner, or any one else of his faith, how they make it appear that precepts contained in a law given to a nation 3500 years ago, are binding upon people or nations to whom they were not given, neither were required by Jehovah to keep them; but who are of that class whom the apostle Paul styled, "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise?" If Mr. Waggoner can show that the nations who existed prior to the giving of the law on Sinai, whether before, or subsequent to the flood; and if he can show a command requiring all nations, whether contemporary with Israel, or subsequent, to obey it, then he can establish his point. But if he cannot do so, then all his arguments are futile and vain, and not worth a straw; for apostolic teaching has settled the matter, that "where there is no law, there is no transgression."

He has no more right to require men to obey the "law of Moses," than he has to call upon American citizens to obey the code of Napoleon III. He may say, he does not do so; but he does in part; and he has no more authority to enjoin that part, than he has to enjoin the whole. If Jesus or his apostles had said to the disciples, "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy," &c., then it would have been binding upon disciples but upon none else; not because Moses had commanded it, but because Jesus had incorporated it among his precepts.

These arguments are sufficient to settle the matter, with every reasoning, reflecting mind.

I will now quote his closing argument, and inference, by which he supposes he has clenched the matter. He says:

"The commandment enjoining the observance of the seventh day, like the other parts of God's law, is as definitely and clearly expressed as language can be made to express ideas. But no repeal can be produced. Hence we can have no hesitation in adopting the following conclusion: The requirement to remember the seventh day or Sabbath to keep it holy, is still as binding on man as are the other precepts of God's holy law."

The reader will perceive that the gist of this argument is, that as no repeal can be shown, therefore, the law is in full force. But does he not see that the nation to whom the law was given has gone out of existence? therefore it did not require a formal repeal of the law, to annul its obligations. Would not the man be justly considered a simpleton, who would contend that the laws by which Nabuchadnezzar governed the Babylonish empire are still in full force because he cannot find a repeal of them? But is not the man equally so, who contends that a law which belonged to a people whose nationality ceased 1800 years ago is still in full force. It is strange how obtuse some men are on certain points, though they may be able to reason correctly on other subjects.

Again, supposing that the Sabbath law is in force, where is the Sabbatarian who keeps it? For if the law is in force, it is in force in all its requirements. Therefore, the man who regards it as the law of the Lord, is bound to keep it inviolate on pain of death. Hence, he must not kindle a fire in his dwelling on that day, whatever be the inclemency of the weather. Neither must he cook victuals on that day, nor do any kind of labor, neither he nor his family, nor his cattle, nor any one who may be sojourning with him. Death is the penalty enjoined by the law upon the transgressors. Neither is he allowed to travel beyond a Sabbath-day's journey, which is 720 paces, or about two-thirds of a mile. Therefore it is a very serious matter for a man to place himself under a law so strict in its requirements, one breach of which is a capital offence, and which can only be satisfied with the life of the offender.

These people say there is no repeal of the law. Well, let us see. The law was designed to give life to those who kept it inviolate. Hence it is written, "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments; which if a man do he shall live in them." Lev. xviii, 5; Eze. xx, 11. And the apostle Paul testifies that it "was ordained to life; and that it was holy, just and good;" and yet he found it to be unto death, because of the weakness of the flesh. Rom. vii, 10-12. But what the law could not do, because it was weak through the flesh, God has done by his Son, who fulfilled the law and made it honorable, and opened a new way to life, through which the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us by walking according to the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, who hath made us free from the law of sin and death. Rom. viii. The law then failed to accomplish the purpose for which it was given, so far as Israel was concerned; but Jesus having attained to the righteousness which is by the law, and the life it promised, he has abolished it—taken it out of the way. Hence Paul says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath." Why? Because these observances were only "a shadow of good things to come." Col. ii, 14-17. And in Gal. iii, 19, the Apostle shows that the law was only intended to last "until the seed should come to whom the promises were made." Here, then, it is clear that the law is repealed, the Sabbatarians to the contrary notwithstanding; and that it was repealed, as Paul says, "because of the unprofitableness thereof."

Therefore, I would say to every believer in Christ Jesus, in the language of the Apostle, "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty—wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Z.

REPLY.

MR. EDITOR: A friend has furnished me the October No. of your paper, in which an anonymous writer (Z) has made some comments on a small pamphlet written by me on the Sabbath. He says:

"I have read the pamphlet without conviction, although the writer says, 'ten men, or ten thousand, must come to the same conclusion if they reason legitimately; i. e., must come to his conclusion.'"

This remark is so manifestly unjust and unfair, that if your readers had the privilege of reading my tract I would not need to notice it. The paragraph from which the above sentence is extracted does not refer to the Sabbath, but to truth in the abstract. My remark is, "Ten men, or ten thousand men, must come to the same conclusion if they reason legitimately and from established or evident truths. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that opposite conclusions can be drawn from the same truth, which is absurd." This proposition is so fair and so evident that all reasonable men must admit it. Whether I have reasoned legitimately and arrived at correct conclusions is another question, though "Z" may not comprehend the difference.

Your correspondent writes as follows:

"Our author says: '1. God made the world in six days. 2. He rested the seventh day. 3. He blessed, sanctified, or hallowed the seventh day. 4. He commanded that the seventh day be kept holy,' &c. True, sir, I admit it all. But here permit me to interrogate you. To whom, when, and where, was this said? Answer. To Israel after their deliverance from Egypt," &c.

When I am interrogated I object to having another answer for me, unless he answers correctly according to my mind. The three facts first stated above may be read in the second chapter of Genesis. I was not aware that it had become custom to give all history as well as all law to the Jews. My design was to show, what is indeed easily shown, that the commandment was based on these facts, as old as creation, and was not peculiar to the Jews. That it was given to the Jews does not disprove my position, for all "the oracles of God" were also—both the old and new covenants. See Heb. viii, 8; Rom. ix, 4; iii, 1, 2; and especially Acts vii, 38. Christ says, "Salvation is of the Jews." Will Z. reject it for that reason? I shall not.

Again your correspondent says: "If Jesus or his apostles had said to the disciples, 'Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy,' &c., &c., then it would have been binding upon disciples, but upon none else."

This is worthy of note; it is the position to which all objections really tend, and amounts to this: The Sabbath, and all the law of the Old Testament, is not now binding, because Jesus and his apostles did not enforce it. But if they had enforced it, it would have been binding on none but disciples; that is to say, there is nothing binding but what they enforced, and what they enforced is binding only on disciples, and of course, there is nothing binding on them who are not disciples! Then they are not subjects of redemption or of judgment! After coming to such a conclusion it seems strange that he should add, "These arguments are sufficient to settle the matter with every reasoning reflecting mind."

There might be force in the illustration of the passing away of the laws of Babylon, if it could be shown that Jesus subverted and overthrew the government of his Father, as the Persians did that of Babylon. Or there would be a parallel if Cyrus had gone to Babylon, not to do his will, but the will of Belshazzar! If I am "obtuse" in this matter your correspondent has taken a singular course to prove it.

Again he says, "Death is the penalty enjoined by the law upon the transgressors. . . . Therefore it is a very serious matter for a man to place himself under a law so strict in its requirements, one breach of which is a capital offence, and which can only be satisfied with the life of the offender."

Permit me in turn to interrogate Mr. Z. You probably believe in obeying the precepts of the gospel, or the "law of faith." Do you think that disobedience to this law is anything less than a capital offence? Is the gospel less strict in its requirements than the law? Is laxity in a law any recommendation to it or to the lawgiver? And is it not a very, very serious matter to place yourself under a system or law so strict that its despisers are counted worthy of sorer punishment than they who despised Moses' law! A careful consideration of these questions may lead you to discover some of the errors into which you have fallen; or at least convince you that if your position has any show of strength and reason, it has nothing more.

I think that you, Mr. Z., misapprehend the nature and design of the gospel, as much as you appear to think I misapprehend the law. You well remark, that "the law was designed to give life to those who kept it inviolate." Why then was it found to be unto death? Because it was not kept; hence the necessity of the gospel, which would not have been necessary if the law had not been broken. I would like, then, to inquire, What has the gospel done for you? Were you ever under the condemnation of the law? If not, from what does the gospel redeem you? Or does the redemption of the gospel extend beyond the jurisdiction of the law? If so, from what curse is the redemption? I think, from your remarks, that there are many points in this subject that you have not considered: and it would be well for you to consider them in their relations before you insinuate that I am a "simpleton" for taking the opposite of your position.

J. H. WAGGONER.

Burlington, Mich., Nov. 8th, 1858.