Sabbath Discussion

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 15, 1864

Sabbath Discussion.

(Continued.)

Third Evening.

ELDER CORNELL'S SEVENTH SPEECH.

The investigation thus far has brought us to the turning point in the discussion. We are interested.

My friend thinks the "enmity" in Eph. ii, 15, is the prohibition of fires on the Sabbath day. But if we examine closely we shall find that the not kindling fires had reference only to the cooking of manna while they were in the wilderness of Arabia, a warm climate. It was a mere by-law for that time and place. They were commanded to offer burnt offerings on the Sabbath. See Num. xxviii, 9, 10. Of course, then, the "kindling of fires" is limited to certain objects and purposes. There is not a word in the fourth commandment about kindling fires. I will now show that in Judea, where the Sabbath was kept many years, they could not live without fires in the coldest winters. And surely, God never required men to freeze in a cold climate, in order to keep the Sabbath.

When Christ was crucified in the spring of the year, it was so cold that they needed fires to warm by. Jno. xviii. "And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was cold; and they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself." In the former part of the winter they needed fires also. See Jer. xxxvi, 22. "Now the king sat in the winter house, in the ninth month; and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him."

The psalmist David, in his address to Jerusalem, says: "He giveth snow like wool; he scattereth the hoar frost like ashes. He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?" Ps. cxlvii, 16, 17.

Dr. Clarke has the following note on this text: "At particular times the cold in the East is so very intense as to kill man and beast. Jacobus de Vitriaco, one of the writers in the Gesta Dei per Francos, says that in an expedition in which he was engaged against mount Tabor, on the 24th of December, the cold was so intense that many of the poor people, and the beasts of burthen, died by it."

My friend repeats the assertion that there is no love to God in the law. We still wonder whether he ever read the ten commandments. Let us read a few words of the second commandment: "Showing mercy unto thousands of them that L-O-V-E me and keep my commandments."

When Jesus was interrogated as to what was the great commandment (or principle) "in the law," he replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," &c. Matt. xxii, 36, 37.

I will now show that my friend is mistaken when he says that no scholar will deny that Col. ii, 16, embraces the weekly Sabbath. I will select witnesses, celebrated for learning, and those, too, who kept his first-day Sabbath.

Dr. Adam Clarke, on this text says, "There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was suspended by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, is a commandment of perpetual obligation, and can never be suspended but by the final termination of time." See Commentary.

Dr. Justin Edwards says, "The days referred to are those required to be observed in the ceremonial law; days associated by God with meats, drinks, and new moons. The passage does not refer to the Sabbath of the moral law, associated with the commands, forbidding theft, murder, and adultery. This weekly Sabbath was never against men, or contrary to them, but was always for them and promotion of their highest good." Notes on the New Testament.

Barnabas and Ignatius are quoted for the first day. Barnabas speaks of the eighth day, but an eighth-day Sabbath must be outside of the week. This witness does not say whether it is the eighth day of the month or of the year. My friend ought to know that both these are spurious testimonies. I affirm that they are both miserable frauds.

Of the epistle of Barnabas, Mosheim says: "As to what is suggested by some, of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself."

Neander says: "It is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul." Kitto says "The so-called epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century."

Eusebius declares it to be spurious. The Religious Encyclopedia, Milner, Domville, Coleman, Killen, Stuart, and many others, give substantially the same opinion of this epistle.

Of the Ignatian epistles, Prof. C. F. Hudson says: "Of the eight epistles ascribed to him, three are genuine, viz., those addressed to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans." The quotation of Bro. Grant was from the epistle to the Magnesians, which is universally admitted to be spurious.

Dr. Killen thus states the opinion of Calvin: "It is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin, that upwards of three hundred years ago he passed a sweeping sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles."

My friend promises to keep the Sabbath if I will show that it is taught in the New Testament. Now, I ask what kind of proof he will require to satisfy him. He has given a rule to work by, and I will use it. He says the nine commands are taught in the New Testament. Now, if I have shown or can show that the Sabbath is as plainly taught as several of his nine commands, he is bound to keep the Sabbath. Let us see. For his second commandment he quotes "Neither be ye idolaters," &c. 1 Cor. x, 7. But this does not define idolatry in the New Testament. It only refers back to the old dispensation. "Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them," i.e., Don't you break God's law, as they did. Go back to the second commandment and we learn what idolatry is. Now the Sabbath is brought over in the same manner, i.e., by recognizing it as an existing institution, and referring back to its origin to show why it exists. Mark ii, 27. "The Sabbath was made for man." We go back to find when it was made. We read the fourth commandment, and find it points back to creation for its origin, as well as for the reason for keeping it. The great Teacher says, The Sabbath was made for man. We are men, hence it is for us. Shall we reject it? The Sabbath is brought over in the most unqualified manner.

My friend has tried to destroy the force of the argument we made on James ii, 8, by saying that the royal law is Christ's precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Let us look at that again. "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," &c. The scripture [Lev. xix, 18] is one thing, and the royal law, which is to be fulfilled according to it, is quite another. We shall find what law is referred to by the connection, verses 10 and 11. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said, also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."

These commandments stand as a representation of the "whole law" from which they are taken, and unmistakably show that law to be the ten commandments.

I will now advance another proof that the law of God as a whole is brought into the New Testament. Matt. v, 17-19. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven."

Christ enforces every jot and tittle of the law, as obligatory till heaven and earth pass away. No man may violate one of the least of its precepts.

Thus Christ has magnified the law and made it honorable. Why should Bro. Grant, why should any man feel opposed to such a law? Nine of the commandments are admitted good for all mankind, and the Sabbath was made for man, for all mankind. Paul regarded the law as "holy, just and good." James calls it the "royal law." Now, we ask, Why have such a law, or any part of it, done away? If a man thought the decalogue had some very obnoxious precepts, that were revolting to his nature, then we could see some reason in opposing it. There is one instance of a man's feeling opposed to the decalogue when he was ignorant of its meaning. The London Advertiser has the following:

"A candidate for Parliament, at the recent election, in the course of an electioneering speech was asked, What do you think of the decalogue? Confounded with the inquiry, he turned to a friend and asked, in a whisper, What does that mean? The friend, whose acquaintance with divinity was on par with his own, replied by suggesting that it probably meant 'flogging in the army.' Whereupon, the candidate replied, 'I entirely disapprove of the decalogue, and will never rest until I see it abolished.'"

I do not wonder that a man should feel opposed to the decalogue, when he thought it meant "flogging in the army," but that any one should oppose it knowing that it means God's great moral law, is perfectly unaccountable.

ELDER GRANT'S SEVENTH SPEECH.

My friend does not advocate that the penalty of the Sabbath is still binding. Let him show how the penalty can be abolished and the law still remain in force.

He quotes authors to show that it is very cold in Judea, on Mt. Tabor. Of course the Jews did not live up there.

He quotes Prof. Hudson. Does Prof. Hudson keep the seventh day? He does not.

I will repeat again that if he will show that the fourth commandment has been brought into the new covenant, I will give up at once. I should think he might bring a text from the New Testament to prove it, if it is now binding. If he will prove it to be binding now, I will keep it, though it would be hard.

My friend quotes Matt. v, 17, That Christ came not to destroy the law. True, he came not to destroy it, but to fulfill it. He finished it in its old form, and remodeled it. The ceremonial part is now left out. I do not say that the ten were abolished and the nine re-enacted. It was like the remodeling of an old constitution. They examine it item by item, and say, This is to be brought into the new one, and that is not. Nine of the commands have been brought over; the fourth was not.

We refer again to Deut. v, 2, 3. "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." If it was not made before it was not binding before. This covenant was the ten commands. Paul calls the old covenant "Carnal ordinances imposed on them till the time of reformation." That which was in force till the reformation, is now no longer in force. Paul in 2 Cor. iii, has shown us what was abolished. It was the law written on stone. If it is done away, it is not binding now, surely.

ELDER CORNELL'S EIGHTH SPEECH.

I am called upon to show how a penalty can be abolished and the law remain in force. That is easy. Bro. Grant has given us a rule for it. He admits the nine commands are brought over without change. But several of these commands had the stoning penalty. Now, if he will think how he brought over the nine without the penalty, his difficulty in regard to the fourth will be solved.

He thinks I had no right to quote Prof. Hudson, because he does not keep the seventh day. But that is the very reason I did quote. All the better for us if his own men testify against him.

My argument on Matt. v, 17, is answered by asserting that Christ fulfilled it, i. e., he finished up the old form and remodeled it; that it has become Christ's now; for he has given us a new constitution. I will now test his new constitution by his own definition of the word "fulfill." Gal. vi, 2. "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."

The Galatian brethren did fulfill the law of Christ, i. e., says Bro. Grant's rule, They finished it up and remodeled it!!

The word fulfill signifies to keep, to perform, to obey. "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Matt. iii, 15.

My friend now finds that his position that all ten of the commands were abolished will not hold, so he takes it back and says the nine commands never were abolished; that these existed before the covenant was made on Sinai, and hence they are still binding. Now if I can show that the Sabbath existed before the Sinaitic covenant, he has lost the question again.

When the people were in the wilderness of Sin, between Elim and Sinai, about thirty days before the law was given on Sinai, they were reproved for breaking the Sabbath. Ex. xvi, 28, 29. "And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days: abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day."

Now, if Bro. Grant's argument is good, that the nine precepts are binding now because they existed before Sinai, then the Sabbath is now binding for the same reason.

But he has overthrown his position that the nine commands existed before given to Israel, by his quotation in Deut. v, 2, 3. "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers," &c., and remarks, If it was not made before, it was not binding before. But he admits the nine were binding before, therefore his argument on Deut. v, 2, is null and void.

My friend in his last speech, says that 2 Cor. iii, 7, shows what was abolished, even the law written on stone. So he now has all ten abolished again! They are abolished and they are not abolished, just as occasion requires. How difficult it is to get rid of that troublesome Sabbath.

"O, fourth command, what trouble hast thou been, Source of vexation to the sons of men! How have they tugged and toiled, with various plans, To break thy power, and shirk thy just demands!"

Our argument on the reason for the Sabbath is yet unanswered. Why keep the seventh day? Because God rested upon it and hallowed it. If this was a sufficient reason at Sinai, it was from creation, and it is sufficient still. I will now show that a commandment, or that which was equivalent, was given at creation for keeping the Sabbath. Gen. ii, 3. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

The Lord "sanctified it." What is the meaning of the word sanctify? Webster says, to sanctify is "to separate, set apart, or appoint to a holy, sacred or religious use." "Sanctify a fast." i. e., appoint a fast, call the people to observe a fast. God set apart the Sabbath by proclamation, that it should be kept holy.

ELDER GRANT'S EIGHTH SPEECH.

My friend admits the fourth command makes trouble, and that's just what we have been saying.

He has one text that seems to weigh heavily in his own mind. "The Sabbath was made for man." Now the fact that it was made for man, goes to show to my mind that it was ceremonial, or positive, and hence was done away with the rest of such laws.

French says, "Col. ii, 16 cannot be confined to the Sabbath alone. It must apply to the whole circle of outward ordinances." We view the Sabbath as a positive institution, and its observance being limited to the old covenant, has ceased.

This is the testimony of Bishop Whately, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Ignatius. "The Fathers," says Calvin, "frequently called the Sabbath a shadow." We find it classed among positive institutions and feasts, "made for man."

Baxter says, Col. ii, 16 means the weekly Sabbath.

My friend says, The Sabbath existed from creation because the reason for its observance existed from that time.

But we find that was only the reason why God chose that day for Israel. Let us see whether the Sabbath existed from creation all the way down.

Bangor says, "It was given to Israel and to Israel alone." He was also warranted in the expression "The Sabbath was done away." Again he says, "We find nothing of the imposing of the seventh day before the wilderness of Sin." Dr. Giles says, "In the wilderness of Sin was the time it was instituted." If it was made at creation why was it not mentioned before the exode.

Calvin says, "The fourth commandment was abolished at the resurrection of Christ." Erasmus says, "With Moses' law we have nothing to do." Chalmers says, "The former husband is taken away. The death of the law took effect at the death of Christ." Selden says, "The Talmudists (Jews) consider the Sabbath their own." Jonathan Edwards says, "The Jews were commanded to keep the Sabbath in commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt;" Mosheim says "The first Christians held meetings on different days." Justin Martyr says, "We meet on the day that Christ arose." Barnabas says, "We keep the eighth day."

ELDER CORNELL'S NINTH SPEECH.

If the testimony of men is reliable proof the question must be settled. The fathers are quoted to prove the Sabbath abolished; and many of these same fathers declare that the soul is immortal, the dead conscious, &c. If their say-so is to be taken on one point why not on another. Bro. Grant himself rejects their testimony on other points. Concerning such testimony Martin Luther says, "When God's word is by the fathers expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it is even like unto one that straineeth milk through a coal-sack; which must needs spoil the milk and make it black." Dr. Clarke says, "We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrine of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those subjects, they blow hot and cold."

My friend says, The expression "made for man" shows the Sabbath to be ceremonial and hence it is done away. He has once in the discussion discarded the term "ceremonial" but he has come now to use it as glibly as if he never even thought of its being objectionable.

But if the Sabbath was only a ceremonial ordinance why was it placed in the midst of nine perpetual and moral precepts? Was it not because the all-wise Lawgiver saw that it was worthy of their company. It has been said that a man is known by the company he keeps. So with the Sabbath. Its neighbors on both sides were very moral and respectable citizens. There is not a community in the world that can compare with it in morality. The Sabbath is like the commandments with which it was associated on the tables of stone. If one is abolished they all are. If none are in force they all are.

There are two institutions "for man" from the very beginning, the Sabbath and marriage. Paul says, 1 Cor. xi, 9, "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Both these institutions originated at creation before the fall of man. Both of them are holy and sacred. The fourth commandment guards the sacredness of the Sabbath, and the seventh commandment the sacredness of the marriage relation. Now if, as Elder Grant says, the expression, "The Sabbath was made for man," proves it only ceremonial and therefore abolished, then by the same rule the declaration, The woman was created for man, proves that she is only a positive institution, and that marriage is only a ceremonial ordinance, and hence is done away. That which proves too much proves nothing.

My friend inquires why there is no mention of the Sabbath during the first 2500 years, if it was binding. I answer, The history of that period is very brief. How short the account of so good a man as Enoch! He walked with God three hundred years, and was not, for God took him. There is no definite mention of the doctrine of the resurrection during the same period. Shall we therefore infer that the patriarchs did not believe in the resurrection? Future punishment, and Christ's second advent in flaming fire, and the Judgment of the great day, are not definitely mentioned in the book of Genesis. But there is a period of over five hundred years this side of Mt. Sinai, and the Sabbath is not mentioned in the history of it, and that, too, while the Sabbath was enforced by the death penalty. Shall we conclude that it was not binding during that time?

My friend goes back to the fathers again to prove that Col. ii, 16, embraces the weekly Sabbath. The fathers can be quoted to prove almost anything. They neither agree with themselves, nor the Bible. I appeal from the fathers up to the grand-fathers, Paul, Peter, James, John, and others. If Paul designed to embrace all Sabbaths in Col. ii, 16, why does he qualify it with "which are shadows of things to come?" The weekly Sabbath being instituted at creation before the fall, could not be a shadow of anything in redemption. The Sabbaths mentioned in Col. ii, were those "contrary to man and against him," but Jesus says of the weekly Sabbath, it "was made for man." Could it be "for man," and yet "against him?" Does Paul contradict Christ? If not, then he cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath.

I will now show that there were two distinct laws; that the word "law" does not always refer to the same thing.

David speaks of the moral law when he says, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Ps. xix, 7. In verse 11 he says that in keeping it "there is great reward."

Paul in Heb. vii, 18, speaks of the disannulling of the law "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." In chap. x, 1, he declares that it never could "make the comers thereunto perfect."

Paul speaking of the ten commandments in Rom. vii, says, "We know the law is spiritual." But in Heb. vii, 6, he mentions "the law of a carnal commandment."

Christ speaks of one law, that not a jot or tittle should pass from, till heaven and earth should pass away. Matt. v, 18.

Paul speaks of another law and says, "The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Heb. vii, 12.

Paul declares that Christ abolished "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Eph. ii, 15. But of another law Christ says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law." Matt. v, 17.

Nehemiah says that God gave on mount Sinai "right judgments, true laws, good statutes, and commandments." Neh. ix, 13; but in Eze. xx, 24, 25, God says, "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live."

Peter calls "the law of Moses" a yoke "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." Acts xv, 5, 10. But Paul on the ten commandments in Rom. vii, says, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man;" and, "with the mind I serve the law of God." Verses 22, 25.

God has carefully distinguished between the moral and the ceremonial laws: 1. He spoke the moral law in the hearing of all the people; but the ceremonial law he gave privately to Moses. 2. He wrote the moral law with his own finger on stone; but the ceremonial law was only written by the hand of Moses in a book. 3. The tables of the moral law were placed in the golden ark made for the express purpose; but the book of the ceremonial law was placed by the side of the ark. 4. The moral law was the rule of life, and showed what sin was; but the ceremonial law was given to point the mind of the sinner to the atonement for sin. It was added because of the transgressions of the moral law. God has made a distinction. What God does is significant. In the light of these facts I protest against jumbling all the laws of the Bible together, and then sweeping them all away together at the cross. The moral law cannot change with the change of dispensation. It is as immutable as God himself, and can no more be abolished or changed than God's eternal throne.

ELDER GRANT'S NINTH SPEECH.

My friend argues that there are two laws. We seem to be coming together. I have not denied that there are two laws. The first law was the old covenant of bondage, but the second law is the new law of liberty. Gal. v, 1. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Those who have kept the Sabbath have felt that they were in bondage. If we adopt one of the feast-days we should adopt them all. We think we are at liberty from that law of ordinances. We can now come to Christ without going around with a meat-offering.

I will now refer to some learned authors to show that the patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath. Peter Heylen, in the preface to his work, says, "When you give it out as a matter of fact that before Moses' time the Sabbath was observed, I will let you see that it was not so. It is all your diddling to show it was moral." In his work he says, "There was no Sabbath kept till the time of Moses, as I will show from the fathers. None were circumcised till the time of Moses, when the Sabbath was instituted." Irenæus and Eusebius declare that "the religion of the patriarchs was quite different from that of the Christians." Justin Martyr says, "There was no use for the Sabbath until Abraham's time, and Moses was the first lawgiver among the Jews." St. Augustine says, "The Sabbath is no part of the moral law." Athanasius says, "It was abolished at the resurrection of Christ." Clement of Alexandria says, "We keep the Lord's day, if we would glorify the Lord in his resurrection."

The Lord's day we now keep is kept in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. If the Jew does not keep the first day he virtually denies the resurrection.

The bondage of the old covenant was in the Sabbath. Were they not stoned to death for breaking the Sabbath?

(To be Continued.)