Christianity and the Sabbath.
By Editor
[We give this article because of the many good things said in it. What is said about the Gentile converts not observing the day observed by the Jews is yet to be proved. Neither do we fancy the expressions, "immortal souls," and "the seventh part of his time." Neither are Bible terms.—ED.] AN inquiring correspondent has "been considerably exercised in mind" as to what are the teachings of the New Testament in reference to the Sabbath. The subject seems, to him, to be enveloped in gloom. He cannot see clearly that under the gospel, we are required to hallow the Sabbath, and wants to know what we are to do with such and such passages of scripture. "Can it be shown," he asks, "that we are required to dedicate the seventh portion of our time to the divine Being? Does not the Sabbath belong to the Mosaic dispensation entirely? and was not that dispensation, with all its peculiarities, done away by the cross of Christ?" We have neither time nor space for a lengthy discussion of this subject, but we have appended a few remarks which, we hope, will assist our correspondent to discern what is the truth in this matter. In our study of divine truth, we have not discovered, as some pretend to have done, that license is given under the gospel dispensation to secularize the Sabbath. We read there that Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; and he has himself emphatically declared— "Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle of the law shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." Great latitude of meaning has indeed been allowed the passage—"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath;" but a proper interpretation will only add weight to the command: "Hallow my Sabbaths." The Sabbath, was indeed made for man—to use, not to abuse; to sanctify, not to desecrate. The powers of his body were made for him; but not that he might do despite to his fellows. His hands were made for him; but not that he might have the means to execute the beheats of imperious passion. The Sabbath was made for man as a spiritual being—that he might worship his Creator and attend to the yearnings of his immortal soul. Was Jesus guilty of self-contradiction? Yet, he would have been, had he taught at one time the perpetual validity of the law; and at another declared the fourth commandment a dead letter! Other passages also claim attention from their having been used to prove that it is a matter of mere choice and personal opinion, whether the Sabbath is to be observed or not; as for instance, Galatians iv, 10, and 11—"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, that I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." If the Lord's day is included among the days which they are condemned for observing, it follows that it is wrong for us to observe it. Paul says to those who observe days: "I am afraid of you." Paul evidently here refers to those days, and months, and times, and years which were a part of the ceremonial law, which had waxed old and vanished away; the observance of which had been enjoined upon the Galatian church by Judaizing teachers. Can we for a moment imagine that the Apostle (if he were now living) would be afraid of the christian church of this country, which is careful to sanctify the Sabbath, lest labor had been bestowed upon it in vain? The thing is too ridiculous to be entertained for a moment by any sensible man. Those men are the most regardful of the Lord's day, who are most anxious for the spread of religion, and most jealous for the glory of the divine Being. There is a passage in Col. ii, 16, 17, which also has reference to these ceremonial observances, but which is quoted in support of the anti-Sabbatarian doctrines. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moons, or of the Sabbath days," In the context to these verses, Christ is said to have blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances which is against us, nailing it to his cross. But did he blot out that which was written upon the tables of stone, or nail them to his cross? Did he blot out the law—Thou shalt not commit adultery, and render polygamy a righteous institution? There were many days and Sabbaths—that is, days and years of rest from secular business, which the Almighty required the Jews to observe besides that weekly Sabbath, or holy rest which, in the beginning, he enjoined upon Adam and his sons. These Sabbaths were shadows of which Christ is the body or substance; and these were the holy days and the Sabbaths to which the Apostle refers. Now because the Gentile converts did not observe the same day of the week which had been observed by the Jews, nor eat of the paschal lamb, or practice the rite of circumcision, but kept holy the first day of the week, and ate of the Lord's supper, they were by the unbelieving Jews judged and condemned. Hence the Apostle's argument in his epistle to the Colossians. But the passage upon which the greatest stress is laid by Sabbath abolitionists, is Rom. xiv, 5: "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Now we defy the most sapient reasoner among their ranks to prove that Paul had the slightest reference to the weekly Sabbath! Distinct passages of scripture must be examined in the light of their connections; so, in this case, it is our business to inquire, What is the Apostle's meaning? and not to interpret it in any way which may chance to suit our method of thinking, or the theory we advocate. The Devil himself quoted scripture to prove that Christ could legally yield to his solicitations, and this wily theologian has a great many pupils in the world's school. In one place the Apostle, speaking of the judgment, says: "Then every man shall have praise of God." Yet the same Paul teaches that many will at that decisive day be condemned of God. It is, therefore, clear to the most feeble genius, that "every man" who is to have praise of God, must mean every good man. So in the passage now under consideration, he is not speaking of all days, but of all ceremonial days. In this same argument he says: "For one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not." There was no Christian who did not eat; there were none who did not believe they had a right to eat something besides herbs, for the Creator had expressly given the Jews liberty to eat flesh; but in the Levitical law he had restricted them to certain animals. Among the primitive Christians the dispute must have been about the eating of the animals which by the law were considered unclean. Some whose faith and whose insight into Christianity were weak, would sooner confine themselves to vegetables than to eat of the meats which they esteemed unclean. As the dispute was not about all meats, so it was not about all days. It was only about the days distinguished by the ceremonial law. Some still viewed the new moon, the feast of the passover, the day of pentecost, the day of atonement, &c., as holy days—as better than other days; so others viewed these days as now reduced to a level with common days. But, as the ceremonial law, at its first establishment, found one distinguished day already existing—the Sabbath—which the creating God ordained and sanctified before the entrance of sin, neither the institution of that ceremonial law, which came by sin, nor its abolition could affect that day, or, to say the least, could release man from his obligation to devote the seventh part of his time to the especial service of the divine Being. Therefore, we say that we as well as the Jews, being the sons of Adam, to whom the Sabbath was first given, are required to listen to Jehovah's50voice when he says, "Ye shall hallow my Sabbaths."