In the above we have the embodiment of a view of the Sabbath question which is rapidly on the increase. So far as the first day of the week is concerned, it is certainly more consistent to disconnect it from the fourth commandment, and consider it a merely conventional institution of the church, than it is to endeavor to enforce it from any divine command. But when our friends affirm the abolition of the Sabbath to make room for this institution which, comparatively speaking, has come "newly up," [Deut. xxxii, 17], they make a serious, and we fear they will find at last, a fatal mistake. The secret of our zeal on the Sabbath question (and we think we can speak for every Sabbath-keeper in the land) is this: We know that all acceptable worship must be performed in spirit and in truth. Jno. iv, 24. It must not only be done in spirit, but it must be in accordance with the truth. Hence, if it be a fact that the original Sabbath is still binding on the world; if the command which enforces it is still a living oracle, as vital as any other precept which enters into the constitution of God's government, wo unto those persons who, with the statute-book in their hands, are found living in its constant and determined violation! And believing it to be thus binding, as we desire to heed the Lord's injunction, "He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully;" and as we love our fellow-men, it is our object and aim, by all means in our power, to hold up the light of truth before the people, and persuade as many as possible to turn and live by obeying the commandments of God, and adopting that course of action which will find acceptance in the great and final day; for action must
go with our belief; works must accompany our faith.
A word as to the statement of the question. It is a misapprehension to suppose that we occupy affirmative ground in any particular in this matter. The institution for which we contend is certainly more ancient than that for which the writer of the above and people generally, at the present day, contend; and in such a case it is an acknowledged principle that "the burden of proof lies upon the more modern, and the presumption lies in favor of the more ancient institution." (Tappan, p. 428.) The original Sabbath, the seventh day of each week, may therefore, independently of any other argument, be presumed to be still binding, until it shall be shown to have been either changed or abolished. Of our opponents, one class affirms that it has been changed, and another class affirms that it has been abolished. It will therefore be seen that our position is negative; for in both cases we deny their affirmation.
Eld. S.'s second proposition is that "the New Testament teaches that on the first day of the week the disciples should meet together," &c. Here he says truly that he affirms. And here we meet emphatically deny; for the New Testament teaches no such doctrine either by its precepts, or by the practice it records. On this point we need not dwell; for all can here, having the record in their hands, decide the question for themselves; and if any one doubts our negation, let him search and see if he can find anything of the kind.
Third. "The Holy Scriptures teach that the law of Moses was abolished at the crucifixion of Christ." Here the writer says, "I affirm." Here it so happens that we also affirm. Our friend has simply mistaken as a contested point, that upon which there is no issue. We believe that the law of Moses was abolished at the cross; understanding by the law of Moses everything distinctive of Judaism. But the Sabbath was not an institution of this kind. Being made for our first parents in Eden, designed for the whole race, and in force ages before a Jew existed, it cannot be considered a distinctive feature of the religion of that people.
As to the mark of the beast, it no doubt seems a very singular charge, to those unacquainted with the ground on which we make it. But this point is very simple, as a few considerations will show. If that power, represented by the symbol of a beast [Dan. vii, 25], has changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week, as history shows, and as Catholics themselves claim, then the first-day Sabbath becomes an institution of the papacy; and whoever then, with these facts in view, pays homage to that institution, to the neglect of the ordinances of Jehovah, becomes a worshiper of the beast. That is all. It is a plain point, and cannot be evaded.
"Let not your flight be on the Sabbath day." Whether or not this proves the existence of the Sabbath in this dispensation, it is a fact that the Sabbath is many times acknowledged this side the cross, by the sacred writers as an existing institution. One instance is found in Luke xxiii, 56. "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." This was the day following the crucifixion where our friend thinks that the Sabbath was abolished. The force of this scripture will be apparent to all without comment from us; as all will at once perceive that it would be impossible to keep an institution according to a commandment after the institution and the commandment which enforces it, were abolished. Yet Luke tells us, this side of the cross, that the disciples did keep the Sabbath, and that too according to the commandment. See also the book of Acts throughout.
Again: "End of the Sabbaths." We need only remark181here that the word sabbaton [Matt. xxviii, 1], does not refer to any class of sabbaths, but to the space marked off by the regularly recurring weekly Sabbath—the week. See Greenfield and Robinson.
Again he says: "The antitype of the Sabbath is the future rest. Heb. iv." From some cases which we are unable to explain, our opponents almost universally overlook the singular anomaly which this position involves. The Sabbath is a type, say they, of the heavenly rest; and yet the Sabbath was "done away" at the cross, and still the rest is yet future! Did any one ever hear of a type's ceasing before it reached its antitype? Whoever regards the Sabbath as a type must admit that it has been binding without interruption to the present time, and will be till that antitype is reached. But we rest its perpetuity on other ground, since, as it was instituted before the fall, there can be nothing typical about it. And as to the exhortation, "Let us labor to enter into that rest," if he thinks that it is manual labor—"our own work"—such as we are required to cease from on the Sabbath, that is here meant, he is welcome to his theory and all the consolation he can draw from it.
Again, he speaks of the first day of the week as the day "set apart by Jesus," as the day on which he "ascended up on high," and the day upon which the disciples should meet to pray, read, exhort, &c., "according to the present appointment of the Lord;" in all which we reply, Pure assumption: Jesus never set apart the first day of the week for any purpose; he never even mentioned it in all his teaching; and it is certain that he did not ascend on that day; and he has never given any "appointment" for the observance of that day. If any wish to see an example of wisdom above what is written, they have it here.
We are further told that Christ "appeared for six successive first-days to his disciples." This would involve a period of forty-two days; but inspiration informs us that he was seen of them but forty days in all. Acts i, 3. And as to his appearing on the first day particularly while he stayed, we answer that he appeared to them every day; for he could not be seen of them forty days as Acts i, 3, informs us, unless he was seen of them daily; hence there is nothing very significant in his appearing on the first day. We might as well endeavor to distinguish any other day of the week by saying that he appeared to his disciples several successive Mondays, or Tuesdays, or Wednesdays, or any other day.
Finally the writer concedes the advantage which we possess over all others in this respect; for he admits that he does not see any immorality in resting on the seventh day. All must concede as much as this. But if our position be correct, we cannot concede as much to them; for we do behold an alarming immorality in violating one of the commandments of God. It must not be thought strange therefore if, in things which may concern our eternal destiny, we choose to be on the safe side.