BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
By Uriah Smith
Preble.—"REASONS FOR MY GIVING UP THE SEVENTH DAY. During the whole period of the three years that I observed the seventh day as the Sabbath, no one was ever able, that I met with, to meet my arguments, and no argument adduced by others ever affected my mind in the least degree, until in a correspondence with Eld. Joseph Marsh in the 'Voice of Truth,' in answer to questions I proposed to him on this subject, he, among other things, proposed to me this question: 'Are the Gentiles a typical people?' This question opened to me a new door of thought; and after full three weeks of careful review of this whole question, I became satisfied that I was wrong, and then I confessed my error. And from that day to this, not a shadow of a doubt has passed my mind in regard to my present position." REPLY.—The question as to whether or not the Gentiles are a typical people, is not difficult to answer. Of course they are not. But what of that! We should have been glad had Eld. P. led us through his "door of thought" that we also might have explored the hidden mysteries of the new apartment that was opened to him. As it is, we are left to make the following inference: The Gentiles are not a typical people, hence have nothing to do with types: the Sabbath is a type, hence they have nothing to do with that. The whole objection, then, resolves itself into this one assumption, that the Sabbath is a type. And is this his reason for "giving up the seventh day?" Was he so feebly grounded in his position that a paper sailing under the false title of the 'Voice of Truth,' could, by merely making a suggestion based on this assumption, overthrow him? Was he so weak in the truth as to be unable to stand before this, one of the flimsiest objections against the Sabbath that ever issued from the realm of darkness? That the Sabbath is not a type, will be shown in its proper place. Preble.—"ThE SABBATH A 'SIGN' UNTO THE 'CHILDREN OF ISRAEL,' AND UNTO THEM ONLY. I know that Sabbatarians deny this, but I shall prove it, their denial to the contrary notwithstanding. Proof:
"'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you. Every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord; whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.' Ex. xxxi, 13–17.
"For the sake of brevity, and for emphasis or greater force, the reader will notice that I have taken the liberty to italicize a few words in my quotations from the Scriptures. I shall be pardoned in this, I trust. But still more proof:
"'Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man do he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.' Eze. xx, 10–12.
"The passage just quoted from Eze. xx, proves positively that the Sabbath referred to is 'the seventh-day Sabbath,' 'the Sabbath of rest,' the one called 'holy to the Lord;' and yet the LORD JEHOVAH says, 'It is a sign between him and 'the children of Israel.' How long? 'Throughout their generations.' And let all God's people say, Amen. How long did the generations of the children of Israel continue? See Matt. i, 1, 17. 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.'
"Let any one find the generations of the children of Israel to continue any longer than 'until John,' or until Christ, if they can. Let God be true, though 'the seventh-day Sabbath' perish!" REPLY.—It is a characteristic of truth that it can always afford to be fair, and not unfrequently can concede the greater portion of the claims of its opponents, without compromising its position. And for our own part, we always like to get as near to an opponent as possible, agreeing with his positions as far as we can, and differing only where we are compelled to differ by the plain testimony of the case. We can thus make the reasons for that difference the more apparent. We shall not therefore deny that the Sabbath was a sign unto the children of Israel. We will take as literally as any of our opponents could wish, everything that the Bible says about the Sabbath's being a sign between God and Israel, or, if they like it any better, between God and the Jews. But when Eld. P. adds, "and them only," we would remind him that that is an interpolation of his own! the Bible says nothing of the kind. Take the very strongest testimony which declares that the Sabbath was given to Israel to be a sign between God and them, a sign throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant, &c., and even in that we find no evidence either expressed or implied, that the Sabbath could not be a sign between God and anybody else, at that time, or before, or since.
Here Eld. P. is guilty of Fallacy No. 3, by assuming that a fact cannot have a general application, because it is only stated to be true in a particular instance. But as the opponents of the Sabbath uniformly try to make great capital out of this fact, that the Sabbath was a sign to the Hebrews, we will notice it more at length. 1. Why were Israel set apart as they were from all nations? It was not the Sabbath that set them apart, but God set them apart because all other nations had given themselves to idolatry. Finding the family of Abraham faithful, he took this means to preserve his truth, a knowledge of himself, and his worship in the earth. Thus they were made for a time the depositaries and guardians not of the Sabbath only, but of all divine truth. 2. As the most expressive sign that could exist between God and his people, he gave them his Sabbath. But what were the reasons on which that sign was based? Was it to signify their deliverance from Egypt? It was not. Was it based on any reason peculiarly Jewish? It was not. But it pointed back to the beginning for its origin; and the reason given for it was, because God in six days made heaven and earth, and rested on the seventh. The Sabbath, therefore, on the part of the people signified that they were worshipers of the true God; and on the part of God, it signified that he who sanctified them was the great Jehovah, the maker of heaven and earth. It was a sign, therefore, because God in six days made heaven and earth. Aside from this fact it could not have been a sign even to Israel; but in the great events of creation week, other nations have an equal interest with the Jews; and when a Gentile, in the former dispensation, joined himself to that people, did not the Sabbath become a sign to him just as much as to the Jews? No one will deny it. And when, finally, the middle wall of partition was broken down, and the Gentiles were taken in to be fellow-heirs with them of the promises of God, would it not be equally a sign to them? We see, then, that the Sabbath had nothing Jewish in its nature. It is God's great memorial, and the only memorial of himself ever given to man. It is the great bulwark against atheism and idolatry. In view of these facts, it is no less than absurd to say that it was not designed for all nations, or not to be observed by all who owe allegiance to God. The Jews were for a while its only observers, just as they were the only observers of other146of God's commandments; because all other nations had apostatized from him. 3. But, it may be urged, the Sabbath is said to have been given to the Jews, hence it became Jewish, and limited to that people. Will the objector take the ground that whatever was given to the Jews, became Jewish, and was to cease with the existence of that people as a nation? This is the position he must take to make his objection against the Sabbath valid; but if he takes it, it will not take long to land him in the deepest bogs of atheism; for God gave himself to that people to the same extent, and even more emphatically than he did his Sabbath. He declared that he brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt to be their God. Lev. xi, 45. He styled himself the God of the Hebrews, and the God of Israel. Gen. xvii, 7, 8; Ex. iii, 18; Isa. xliv, 2. Did he thus become Jewish, and cease 1800 years ago? If such expressions as these could be found relative to the Sabbath; if we could read that God brought them up out of Egypt to give them the Sabbath; that he gave it to them to be their Sabbath, or find where it is called the Sabbath of the Hebrews, and the Sabbath of Israel, there would be more plausibility in the position of our opponents; but even then, their claim would not be proved; because God, who applies all these expressions to himself, is not the God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also. Rom. iii, 29. 4. It is still objected that the giving of the Sabbath to Israel shows that it was not before known, but had its origin with that people. Too fast again; for the children of Israel had the Sabbath at least a month previous to coming to Sinai, where Nehemiah says it was made known to them. This expression can therefore only signify its more complete unfolding. A striking illustration of this point is found in Eze. xx, 5, where God is said to have made himself known unto Israel in Egypt; yet they were not ignorant of the true God up to that time; for they had been his peculiar people since the days of Abraham. The language in both cases would rather imply the prior existence of the true God and of the Sabbath. This objection is again shown to be groundless by the Saviour's language respecting circumcision: John vii, 22: "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;" yet God had enjoined that ordinance upon Abraham and his family four hundred years previous, and it had been retained by them. The conclusion is therefore apparent that if the declaration that Moses gave them circumcision does not show that it had its origin at that time, neither does the statement that God gave to Israel his Sabbath, prove that it originated with them. 5. But it was only to last through their generations. Who says that? Not the Bible, by any means. But how long a time is meant by their generations? Eld. P., by a peculiar process, attempts to cut it short at John or Christ, seemingly in doubt which. The testimony he quotes, however, to prove the length of "the generations of the children of Israel," unfortunately for him only reads, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ!" Are Jesus Christ and the children of Israel synonymous terms? The only definition that can be given to the word generation as applied to the existence of a particular class of people or a nation, is, the regular succession of descendants, from father to son. To make good his position, therefore, that the generations of Israel ceased with Christ, he must show that not a single Jew has been born since the birth of Christ, but that through the agency of some stupendous miracle the vitality of the nation suddenly ceased, and the race expired with the generation then living! The generations of Israel have assuredly not yet ceased; and if the Sabbath is not now binding, it must be accounted for on other ground than this. But not to press this point, suppose we admit that the generations of the Jews, in a scriptural sense, did cease at the cross. What then? Would this contain anything to show that the Sabbath must then cease, or that it could not be a sign between God and any other people who should become his worshipers after that? Nothing at all; for it would still be true that the Sabbath was to them a sign throughout their generations, even though it continued to exist after their generations ceased. 6. The expression, "throughout your generations," even allowing the generations to be literal, and to cease at the cross, does not of itself limit the existence of any institution or ordinance. Proof. Lev. iii, 17. It was a perpetual statute for Israel throughout their generations, to eat no blood; yet the same prohibition rested upon Noah, before Israel had an existence; Gen. ix, 4; and after, as it is claimed, the generations of Israel ceased, the same prohibition was still obligatory upon the Gentiles. Acts xv, 20. Can any man living show why it may not be exactly thus with the Sabbath? 7. But the Sabbath by being a sign became a shadow, and hence was to cease with the typical dispensation. And who says this? There is certainly no Bible statement for it. There is nothing in the meaning of the word sign, to show that it is a type or shadow. A sign is one thing, a type or shadow, is entirely another and a different thing. A sign is simply that by which a certain relation or state is signified; a type is that which foreshadows, or points forward to, something. Types always point forward, but the Sabbath as a sign between God and Israel, pointed back to the works of creation, and signified that the author of those works, the maker of heaven and earth, was their God. To still more utterly demolish this objection, we introduce the following from the History of the Sabbath, pp. 56, 57: "As a sign it [the Sabbath] did not thereby become a shadow and a ceremony; for the Lord of the Sabbath was himself a sign. 'Behold I, and the children whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts which dwelleth in mount Zion.' Isa. viii, 18. In Heb. ii, 13, this language is referred to Christ. 'And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary, his mother, Behold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.' Luke ii, 34. That the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, throughout their generations, that is, for the time they were his peculiar people, no more proves that it is now abolished, than the fact that Jesus is now a sign that is spoken against, proves that he will cease to exist when he shall no longer be such a sign." 8. Do the scriptures that speak of the Sabbath as a sign between God and Israel, teach that it was made for Israel? Nothing of the kind. 9. Do they teach that it was made after Israel came out of Egypt? No intimation of any such thing. 10. Do they even seem to contradict those other scriptures which place the origin of the Sabbath at creation? Not at all. Therefore, allowing the generations to be exclusively literal, and allowing that they ceased with Christ, we submit, that it does not in the least degree affect the origin of the Sabbath, or the perpetuity of that divine institution. And if an argument was ever produced, more thoroughly futile than this against the Sabbath, we should be happy to see it. For our own part, we rejoice that the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel. We rejoice that God conferred upon it such a signal honor as to take it, in preference to any of his other commandments, to be the badge of his loyal people in the midst of a world of apostates and rebels. Preble.—"Of WHAT IS THE SABBATH A SIGN OR TYPE? Should the inquiry be raised by the objector, whether I do not believe the seventh-day Sabbath of the Old Testament is a type of the seventh millennium, or thousand years; I answer, yes. Then, says the objector, How can you make out that the type will cease to be observed until the antitype is reached? I answer, the same as other types ceased to be observed, or kept, before the antitypes were reached: as for example, look at the 'high priest' who went into 'the holy place' once every year:—
"'The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing; which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.' Heb. ix, 8–12.
"This says,—'Having obtained eternal redemption for us.' But we have not really obtained this redemption yet; neither can we, until Christ comes 'the second time without sin unto salvation.'
"'For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear, the second time, without sin unto salvation.' Heb. ix, 24–28.
"Thus, we see, that the Levitical priesthood was a type of the priesthood of Christ; but the Levitical priesthood has been 'changed,' and, hence, the type has ceased to be observed; as we read in Heb. vii, 11, 12:—
"'If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.'
"But let us examine this still more, and see how147clearly we can establish the fact, that the priesthood of Christ is the antitype of the Levitical priesthood; and although the type has ceased to be observed, yet the antitype is not yet reached in its completion:—
"'For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.' Heb. vii, 13–16.
"Mark this last expression:—Our 'priest' is made 'not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an ENDLESS LIFE.' But again:—
"'By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.' And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.' Heb. vii, 22–24.
"Yes, praise God:—'By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.' (Verse 22.)
"And so it is with the Sabbath, it was a sign or type of that 'rest'—or 'keeping of a Sabbath,' (margin)—which 'remaineth' 'to the people of God' (Heb. iv, 9); but as 'the body is of Christ' (Col. ii, 16, 17), we cannot trace the 'shadow' beyond the 'body;' but Christ has become our 'surety' of that 'rest' the same as he was made 'a surety of a better testament.' And as Christ does not fulfill the type of the priesthood until he comes out of the holy of holies, or out of 'heaven itself,' to give 'the people of God' 'an endless life;' so the type of the Sabbath will not be fulfilled until Christ comes out 'heaven itself' to give 'the people of God' that 'rest' which 'remaineth' for them.' And as the apostle says:—
"'Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle; for see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.' Heb. viii, 1–6." REPLY.—Of what, asks Eld. P., is the Sabbath a sign or type? Mark the expression, "a sign or type!" Here he is guilty of Fallacy No. 4, by connecting the word type with the word sign, thereby covertly insinuating that they mean one and the same thing. We have already alluded to the distinction between a sign and a type. The word used for sign, where the Sabbath is called a sign, is semeion, which is defined thus:
"A sign; i. e., a mark, token, by which anything is known or distinguished; a token, pledge, assurance; a proof, evidence, convincing token;" &c. The word for type, is a very different word, namely, typos, which is defined, "A mark, impression, print of a stroke or blow; a form, image, effigy, i. e., a statue; pattern, model; a type, figure, emblem, that which exhibits a representation or likeness of anything," &c. The word for shadow, as in the expression, "A shadow of things to come," Col. ii, 17, is still another word, namely, skia, and is defined as follows: "A shade, a shadow; metaphorically, a shadow, i. e., a shadowing forth, adumbration, in distinction from the perfect image or delineation, and the reality." From these definitions the reader will see the plain distinction there is between a sign, and a type or shadow, and how utterly erroneous it is to confound the one with the other.
But nevertheless Eld. P. has announced his belief that the Sabbath is a type. He considers it a type of the seventh millennium; though from some oversight, or perhaps from necessity, he has omitted to give us any evidence for that position. We do not believe the Sabbath is a type pointing forward to our future rest, but a memorial looking back to creation; for the Scriptures uniformly and expressly so represent it. Could he have given as good a reason for his position, would he not have produced it? There is an insuperable objection that lies against his view, which he has mentioned, but not removed. It is that if the Sabbath is a type of the future millennium, it reaches up to that time, and should be observed till then. No man can avoid this conclusion. Yet Eld. P.'s position that148the Sabbath is abolished, obliges him to take the view that the type has ceased, before the antitype is reached. He endeavors, however, to extricate himself from this dilemma by the assertion that other types have ceased before reaching their antitypes, and that this is of the same nature with them. Here we meet his assertion with a universal and unqualified denial. No type can cease until its antitype is reached. Common sense forbids the idea. His lengthy quotation from Scripture to show that the priesthood of Christ is the antitype of the Levitical priesthood, so far as our belief in that doctrine is concerned, might have been omitted. There is no controversy on that. But how, then, shall we account for the fact that there are events in Christ's ministration, still future, which were typified by especial ceremonies under the former dispensation? Easily enough. Paul has furnished us a key to this subject, and not to use it, is to inexcusably expose ourselves to confusion and error. He makes two plain and distinct statements, which set the matter in its true light. One of them occurs in Hebrews, and reads as follows: 'For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.' Heb. x, 1. Paul shows by this language that the system of types and shadows is to be taken together as a whole. 'The law,' he says, as a whole, 'having a shadow of good things to come.' Hence we cannot take each individual type and consider it as something complete and distinct in itself, and trace it down till we reach the particular event in this dispensation which it typifies. But the law as a system, that whole dispensation with its typical work, foreshadowed the good things of the gospel. The dividing line then must come between the dispensations. No part of the former dispensation can lap over into this. None of the shadows which went to make up that system, can continue when that dispensation has given place to the new. The shadows there cease because the particular economy which gave them existence there closed; but in their appropriate places in this dispensation will be found the antitypes of all those shadows which composed that system, by which this, taken collectively, was foreshadowed.
The other statement referred to is Col. ii, 16, 17: '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 days; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.' It is the little word, of, which is important in this testimony for our present purpose, 'The body is of Christ;' that is to say, the body or antitype of all these ceremonies is connected with the work of Christ, and will be found in something pertaining to his ministration. As in the text first quoted, Paul shows that it was the law system taken as a whole, that contained the shadow, he here shows that it is the ministration of Christ, taken as a whole, that contains the substance. And when the ministration of Christ commences, the typical dispensation has given place to the real, the shadow to the substance, and all things pertaining to the former must cease, or we should have two ministrations going on at the same time; which would be inadmissible.
The illustration often used on this subject, is, that the shadow of a tree can be traced up to the tree itself. And this illustration is a good one; for we must remember that every branch, or each individual ceremony was not a separate and independent shadow of itself, to be traced to a distinct tree in this dispensation, but that that dispensation as a whole was the shadow, and this as a whole the tree which cast it; and the shadow did reach down without interruption to the introduction of this dispensation, where the tree commenced. It is here that Eld. P. falls into Fallacy No. 5, by making the types of that dispensation, instead of component parts of one great whole, separate and independent types of themselves.
But was not the Sabbath also a component part of that typical whole? By no means. And here Eld. P. is guilty of another Fallacy, No. 6, by making the weekly Sabbath the same in nature, and a part of the same system, as the typical sabbaths of the Jews. The Sabbath was instituted, as we shall presently show, before ever the typical dispensation was ordained; it was never incorporated into that dispensation in such a manner as to be dependent on it for existence; and its supposed antitype, the glorious seventh thousand years, is no part of the antitypical ministration of Christ. There is nothing in the antitypical work of the Saviour of which the weekly Sabbath can be shown to be typical; hence it does not belong to that class of feasts and sabbaths, the body of which is 'of' Christ. If therefore the Sabbath is a type, it stands out by itself, independent of everything else, and must consequently exist till its direct antitype is reached. Thus Eld. P. will find the laboring oar on this point still in his own hands. He will find the burden of proof resting down more heavily than ever upon his shoulders. We would that he had been prudent enough to avoid such a yoke which no man is able to bear; but we would remind him that he may yet cast it off by turning again to the truth; for the truth is long-suffering, and will still receive those who seek her presence, notwithstanding they may have often unaccountably shut their eyes to her gracious light. Preble.—"ORIGIN OF THE SABBATH. If my position be right in regard to the design of the Sabbath; that is, that it was a 'sign' to 'the children of Israel throughout their generations;' then the origin of the Sabbath has nothing to do with the particular point now under consideration, and we need not multiply words about the question whether it had its origin at the creation, or at the time of the Israelites coming out of Egypt. For be it remembered, that my point is this: that the seventh-day Sabbath being a sign, or type, it was only to be observed by a people under types and shadows; and the Gentiles not being a typical people, they are not required to keep the typical Sabbath; although it is their duty, as the duty of all Christians, to keep a Sabbath, as I have already stated. Before I close I intend fully to prove that the day for us to observe is 'the first day of the week.'" REPLY.—In relation to the Sabbath as a sign, also of the difference between a sign and a type, we have already spoken. A word now in reference to its origin. The question of the origin of the Sabbath presents perhaps a more formidable objection to Eld. P.'s position, than any other portion of the subject. We can all see therefore how fortunate it would be for him, could he by any means avoid meeting the issue here. He attempts this in a very novel and summary way, and one which would be vastly convenient, if it was only lawful. If the Sabbath be a sign or type, he says, here again confounding the word sign with type, then no matter about its origin. But hold, friend P.; for the origin of the Sabbath is the very point that determines whether the Sabbath is a type or not; and to ignore this, is begging the whole question. If the Sabbath originated with types, and rests on the same basis, and belongs to the same system with them, then it is a type, the controversy is ended, and we will never more take up our pen to argue its obligation upon gospel Christians. But if the Sabbath originated far back of all types and shadows, if it rests on a different basis altogether, and is infinitely higher in its nature, and sustains a universal relation to all the inhabitants of this earth, then verily it is not a type, and no man can rightfully attempt to degrade it into a typical office. In examining the claims of any institution, its origin is the first, if not the main, question to be considered. We are the more surprised, therefore, that so thorough a controversialist as Eld. P., in efforts apparently so sincere to spread light on the Sabbath question, should entirely pass by this division of the subject.
When, then, and how, did the Sabbath originate? We answer, it originated in Paradise, before man had fallen, and before sin had entered into the world. It will be unnecessary to 'multiply words' to prove this point. We need do scarcely more than quote the plain language of the inspired record. In the first chapter of Genesis, we have a plain, unvarnished narrative of the events of the first six days of time. It tells what was done on each successive day. The narrative goes right on, in the following chapter, in the same spirit, and same construction, and gives the events of the seventh day. Can we then on any ground claim that what is said of the seventh day is not a record of what then took place on that day, but of what was done to it 2500 years afterward in the days of Moses? The idea is unnatural, uncalled for, unreasonable, preposterous. Yet this is the only loop-hole of escape from the position149that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise. Set this down, then, as an indisputable fact, that what is said of the seventh day in Gen. ii, is a record of what was done on, and to, the seventh day in the beginning, and not at any subsequent period.
And what were those events? First God rested upon the day. Sabbath means rest; and any day to be a Sabbath, or rest day, must be a day on which some one has rested. The Sabbath of the Lord must be the day on which he rested. He did rest upon the seventh day. We have no record of his ever resting upon any other day. No other day therefore ever has been, or can be at the present time, the Sabbath of the Lord. But God does more than this to make it a Sabbath for man. He added his blessing. 'And God blessed the seventh day.' We have no account of his ever blessing any other day. No other day therefore ever has been, or can be at the present time, the blessed or holy Sabbath of the Lord. He then sanctified it, that is, set it apart to a holy or sacred use. No other day has ever been thus set apart for man, hence no other day ever has been, or can be at the present time, binding on man, as a divine institution. This blessing and sanctification were placed upon it after the first seventh day had passed. Hence this action had no reference to the day that had passed, but to the seventh days that were to come in the future. And the fact that the day was sanctified or set apart, clothes the institution with a divine command at the very beginning, and sends it forth with all the authority of Jehovah so long as that sanctification shall last.
The fact that the day was sanctified is the record that a command was given for its observance. This is at once apparent when we consider that it is utterly impossible to sanctify or set apart to a religious use, any institution without plainly giving directions or a command how it should be used. See instances in Ex. xix, 12, 23; Josh. xx, 7; Joel i, 14; ii, 15; 2 Kings x, 20, 21; Zeph. iii, 7, margin. And when God in giving his law on Sinai, spoke of his rest-day, he declared it to be the Sabbath day at the time it was blessed of God. 'Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.' But it was blessed in the very beginning as we have seen, and hence was the Sabbath day at that time. We have no record that the blessing has ever been removed, or the sanctification taken off; hence it is the blessed and sanctified rest-day of Jehovah still.
We are now prepared to consider the bearing of this argument upon the question whether or not the Sabbath is a type. All types point forward to something connected with the work of redemption. They have no other design than this. Hence no type would ever have been introduced had not man fallen and needed a redemption. They all originate therefore this side of the fall. But the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, before man needed redemption, and before anything was, or could have been, reasonably, given to foreshadow that work. All the types that were ever instituted had no meaning except as they recognized the work of Christ in redemption; but the seventh-day Sabbath was from creation a holy day, and every fact to which the fourth commandment points would have been just as true as they are now if Christ had never died. While the types, among which were the typical sabbaths of the Jews, recognized man's guilt, and signified God's willingness to save, the seventh-day Sabbath would have occupied the same place it now occupies, and ever has occupied, even if man had never sinned. The typical sabbaths were shadows of things to come; the seventh-day Sabbath was and is a memorial of things past. The two classes of sabbaths point in opposite directions, and hence cannot be classed together. The one pointed forward to redemption; the other points back to creation: '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.' The seventh-day Sabbath therefore is not a type, if reason and revelation may decide this question. Had Eld. P. more carefully considered this point, we think he would have saved himself from the assumption that the Sabbath is a type, and of so coolly passing by, on that assumption, the question of its origin as having no bearing on the subject. We request the reader to give special attention to the point now under consideration. Go back to the beginning. Behold Adam and Eve, in innocence and holiness in the garden of Eden. Behold God giving to them as the parents and representatives of the whole human family, his holy Sabbath, the memorial of his own great work, designed to ever keep in the mind of man his own origin, the knowledge of the true God, and the allegiance due from man to him. And who shall tell us which one of the descendants of Adam might first override this great memorial, and transgress this divine command? Are not all equally interested in the events of creation? Do not all the world need a memorial of the true God? Do they not all need the same great bulwark against atheism and idolatry? There was another holy institution given to man at the same time with the Sabbath, the institution of marriage. It is well that this guardian institution of our domestic peace should be sacredly cherished; but why should the golden link that binds us to our Maker be trampled in the dust? We cannot better close these brief allusions to the origin of the Sabbath than with the following impressive language of J. W. Morton: "Why is there now such bitter opposition to an institution that was once the delight of both God and man? Why do men hate with such perfect hatred what Jehovah made, and blessed, and sanctified, before sin had entered into the world? Why should this daughter of Innocence be spurned from every door, and loaded with the damning reproach of Judaism, while her twin sister, Marriage, sucks the breasts and is dandled upon the knees of Orthodoxy?"
(To be Continued.)