Prof. Milligan on the Sabbath and Sunday Questions.
By B. F. Snook
THE following is part of a sermon preached by Prof. Milligan, of Bethany College, to the Disciple church of Bethany, Va., on Sunday, June 17, 1855. Mil. Herb. of July, 1855. It was highly recommended by A. Campbell, and a large number of their learned men. Mr. Campbell says, "We commend to the special attention and consideration of all our readers, the following discourse of Prof. Milligan's on the sanctification of the Lord's day." "The sanctification of the Lord's day. 'The Sabbath was made for man.' Mark ii, 27. Of course, then, he needed it. And if he needed it in Eden—if it was necessary to consummate his happiness even before sin had defiled the bowers of Paradise, does he not need it still? To answer this question in a manner satisfactory to all, it may be necessary to inquire into the objects for which the Sabbath was instituted. These are summarily stated in Gen. ii, 1–3. 'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created and made.' This language is very generic, but it is very clearly and fully illustrated by the subsequent facts, precepts, promises, and threatenings of the holy oracles. Omitting the occasional allusions to this hebdomadal division of time that occur in Genesis, the next direct reference to the Sabbath is in Ex. xvi, 22–30, a short time before the giving of the law from mount Sinai. A few references will suffice for our present purpose. 'Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it.' Ex. xx, 8–11. "From these premises it is obvious that the primary design of the Sabbath was commemorative. The fact that the world was not eternal, and that it was not the result of chance, that it was not the work of any finite order of beings, but that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, was forcibly suggested and clearly proved by this first moral-positive institution. For this purpose it was given to Adam and his posterity. But it was more than commemorative. It was designed for the physical, intellectual, and moral good of the entire race. The specifications of the fourth commandment are chiefly prohibitory: it tells us what we should not do. It enjoins that rest which experience has proved to be in harmony with the wants of man and beast. "But this day was not designed for slumber. The intellectual and moral powers of man were not to lie dormant during these hours of sacred rest. This is evident from the genius of the institution and its entire history. To sanctify it, or keep it holy, is not to keep it as we do the hours of unconscious repose. Hence on this day there was a holy convocation of the people. Hence on this day our Saviour was in the habit of instructing the people in the synagogues. And hence it is evident that the second, if not indeed the first, object of the Sabbath was, to give man the time, the means, and the opportunity, of cultivating, training, and molding his moral and religious powers and susceptibilities. As a commemorative institution, it reminded man of the origin of all things. As a moral institution, it enabled him to grow in knowledge and virtue. "I now repeat the question, Does not man still need a Sabbath? Does man's moral nature no longer need the sanctifying influence of the Sabbath? These are not questions of doubtful speculation. They are susceptible of a very definite and satisfactory answer. The history, as well as the philosophy, of Christianity, furnishes the reply. Indeed, we may challenge the world to produce an instance of a church, or even of an individual, eminent for piety and virtue, that has lived in the habitual neglect of a Sabbath. Would it not then be remarkable if the Christian institution were destitute of a Sabbath? Who could believe that he who gave man a Sabbath in Eden as well as in the patriarchal and Jewish ages, would in an institution specially designed for the moral education of mankind, omit an element the great importance of which has been demonstrated by the experience of age? Certainly it would be difficult to find a stronger analogical argument in support of any hypothesis than that which we legitimately deduce from our premises. Indeed, Christianity would be imperfect without it." 1. In the above the institution and sanctification of the Sabbath are clearly presented. 2. The fact that it was instituted in the garden of Eden is not only admitted, but proved. 3. The author, not like his former brethren, does not hint that the Sabbath was made only for the Jews, but maintains that it was given to Adam and his posterity. 4. He shows plainly that it is a moral institution, and as such is adapted to the moral requirements of the entire race. 5. The Sabbath was made for man because he needed it. He argues that he needs it yet, and hence admits that it is continued to him. 6. This is all true; but notwithstanding, he then says that the Sabbath was abolished! It is strange that such men cannot speak forth God's truth without in some way contradicting it or taking it back. This, however, they are constrained to do in order to save their Papal-headed festival of Sunday. But he contends that Sunday is a Sabbath, and by it the Lord's Sabbath is set aside. He knows, or ought to know, that the Bible nowhere recognizes Sunday as a Sabbath. This he cannot overthrow, that all the sanctity attached to Sunday came by authority of the popes and other wicked men. And he in refusing to keep the Lord's Sabbath after speaking so clearly of its divine obligations and moral nature, is most certainly liable to the solemn charge of making void the commandment of God by the traditions of men. He has given us good Scriptural reasons for keeping the Sabbath, but not one can he give for keeping Sunday which the Catholic may not as consistently give in favor of purgatory, prayer to the saints, image-worship, &c. Would he then have us give up the Lord's holy day, which he says he sanctified and gave to Adam and his posterity, and have us keep Sunday which he never sanctified, and which he did not give to any man to be observed as a holy day? As he has given reasons for the observance of the Sabbath, we will give some objections to his Sunday observance. 1. It is neither the Sabbath, Lord's day, nor a holy day. 3. Neither of them rested upon it, and hence we have no example for so doing. 4. Neither of them ever sanctified it. 5. No man is commanded to keep it in any other sense than as a laboring day. 6. No man is promised any blessing for keeping it otherwise than as a working day. 7. Neither God nor Christ ever denounced a single curse against any man for laboring upon it. 8. It was observed as a business day by the disciples, who kept the Sabbath. Luke xxiv, 1. 11. If it had been the Sabbath, Lord's day, or any kind of holy day, Paul would have said so. Acts xx, 21. 12. No man, nor follower of Christ, kept it in the apostolic age in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, and no man since that age has so kept it by divine authority. These reasons are sufficient to show that there is no divine authority for the religious custom of keeping Sunday for the Sabbath. Its highest authority is Daniel's little horn, Paul's man of sin, and John's blasphemous beast. O that men would be consistent and obey the truth when they see it. But this they will not do, because they love the praises of men more than they love God and his law.
B. F. SNOOK.