Review and Herald, Vol. 40, No. 20. (10/29/1872)

Review and Herald

Oct 29, 1872

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 29, 1872

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION

By Peter Vogel

BETWEEN ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE, AND ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST.

SECOND PROPOSITION.

“Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh day was made a Sabbath after the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt?”

ELD. VOGEL, affirms; ELD. WAGGONER, denies.

ELD. PETER VOGEL’S THIRD AFFIRMATIVE.

THAT my charge of Bro. W.’s “begging the question” is just, is simply a matter of fact which every reader has the means to verify. And Eld. W.’s verdict, “he [I] most signally failed,” does not in the least disturb me. I write for the masses; yet I am not without hope, faint though it be, that, when the heat of battle is over and he takes a calm survey of the field, he may conclude differently. It is easy to say “he draws on his imagination” for facts, but the proof of this would be in better taste, and perhaps not so cheap. Understand, however, gentle reader, Eld. W. does not write for effect! But Mr. V., who is but a young man, knows no better than to do just so naughty a thing. His untamed blood makes him accept a system of such “lawless tendency” as to make killing no crime; and in his crudity he does things that “no scholar will claim!”

1. Ex. 16.—(1) The section which Eld. W. quotes from Crosby, with reference to the article, that author printed in small type to show that it figures but little in the case. (2) Ex. 16 does not come under that section, since it is neither poetry nor impassioned prose, but legal information, which demands “perspicuity.” (3) The fact that the last mention of the Sabbath in this chapter, the only instance of “renewed mention” in it, has the article, shows that the rules I quoted apply, and are strictly followed. (4) The Hebrew, concerning which Eld. W. maintains a respectful silence, has no such exceptions as he would force on the Greek text, and this places my position beyond all dispute. I rather think this “mine” is still (a) mine.

That I have not drawn upon my imagination for facts as to “mutual understanding” or “general notoriety,” is clear from the facts adduced at the close of my first affirmative. I know not how to account for Eld. W.’s charge of manufacturing facts.

So also his assertion that the yearly sabbaths “were never mentioned in any other manner” than indefinitely was made without sufficient attention to facts. (1) Nearly every mention of them by Moses was either a first mention or a re-mention, for the purpose of additional legislation, which is nearly an equivalent. (2) If this were even not the case, the absence of the article would be adequately accounted for, by the weekly Sabbaths taking it by “emphatic distinction.” (3) But in this matter of fact, Gesenius, whose ability Eld. W. has pronounced as “beyond dispute,” testifies against his universal negation and in my favor. “The Sabbath is a name for the great day of atonement in the seventh month. Lev. 23:32.” Lex. under Sab. (4) See also Isa. 1:13. What “an element of weakness” my statement is!

Eld. W. “appeals to the reader whether it is reasonable to suppose that the people gathered a double portion of manna on the sixth day according to the order of the Lord, see verse 5, and ‘all the rulers’ were entirely ignorant of the reason of their so doing.” This appeal will be in order whenever I say that the rulers knew nothing of the command in verse 5. I simply said that they were ignorant of a Sabbath to follow, as is clear from the manner in which Moses introduced it to their notice. “Is it not rather reasonable,” continues Eld. W., “that the rulers, as faithful overseers, reported to Moses that the will of the Lord had been done?” That is to say, every time the people turned round in obedience to a command, “all the rulers” put off, post haste, to inform Moses! How reasonable! But what is conjecture as compared with facts?

To say that “the rulers were informed the day before” the seventh, and the people on the seventh, is not equivalent to saying that the people were not informed till “Sabbath morning.” The day began with the evening among the Jews (Lev. 23:32), and orders for the day are usually issued when the day begins. There is no limit to absurd conclusions that can be drawn for an opponent by manufacturing premises for him.

“How long refuse ye to keep my commandments” by no means necessarily “implies a continued desecration of the Sabbath.” Is the Sabbath commandments? That it is one of many, I grant; and this new and test commandment was no better kept than others had “long” been. That’s all.

2. Eld. W. thinks that “the passover was given to Israel expressly to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt,” and that therefore the Sabbath cannot be commemorative of that event. But, strictly speaking, the passover commemorated only one item of their deliverance, the passing-over of the death-angel, while the Sabbath covered their deliverance in general. So baptism commemorates the death, burial, and resurrection, of Christ, in general (Rom. 6), and the Lord’s Supper, his death in particular.

Notwithstanding Bro. W.’s labored efforts to show that Deut. 5:15 was not written on the two tables of stone, Moses still insists that it was (Deut. 5:22), and I am inclined to believe him. “Forgive me this wrong.” Nor is Ex. 20:3–17 the original copy, Eld. W.’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, since Deut. 5 testifies that it is defective. The original was written on tables of stone.

The rest of Deut. 12:9 was a promise, and is the rest of Canaan; it has nothing to do with the rest of Deut. 5:12–15, which is a command, and refers to the seventh day. “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

Now let us see how my “therefore” “must fail” me. “Every moral obligation,” says Eld. W., “was enforced upon them [the Israelites] by the same special reason—with the same ‘therefore’” as the Sabbath in Deut. 5:15; and this, he thinks, proves too much for me. Compare Lev. 19:35–37.

God deals with the human race somewhat as parents have to deal with their children. A son old enough to grasp it needs only to be told that it is morally wrong to steal, and it suffices; but it is a waste of words to endeavor to impress the immorality of such a deed upon a five-year-old. He obeys, either simply because it is forbidden by the authority of the parent, or because he fears the penalty. A moral basis is too abstract for him; he needs to have it given in a concrete or tangible form, i. e., as a positive command. Now before the fall, man’s ability to grasp moral relations was all that God made it; after the fall, it was somewhat blunted, but not yet so degraded by a course of sin as to be incapable of receiving moral relations on their proper basis; hence God annexed no temporal penalties, not even to murder. I know well what use some make of Gen. 4:14, and 23, 24, but know also that a proper construction of those passages establishes no temporal penalty for murder.

After the race had shown itself unfit to be governed in this way, God swept it from the earth, and gave to the survivors some moral relations, as the unlawfulness to kill, Gen. 9:5, 6, in a kind of positive form.

Finding this still insufficient, or rather, mankind in general failing to regard much as sin which stood merely on a moral basis, God took Israel, and placed for them moral obligations generally on a positive basis (see Deut. 28. et al.), that in this school they might be prepared for the gospel (Gal. 3:24) which governs by general principles (Phil. 4:8), restoring all moral obligations to their moral basis simply. (Here is my prohibition of killing without “direct enforcement.”) Hence Paul says, The law “was added [to the promises made to the fathers] because of transgression, till the seed should come” (Gal. 3:19); and (Rom. 5:20), “The law entered, that the offense might ABOUND;” not that mankind might sin more, but that they might see sin where before they did not; nor that the law disclosed new moral principles, but that it put old ones on a legal basis, i. e., gave them in a concrete or positive form, as to children. Hence we find moral obligations enforced under Moses as if they were new, because they were new in that form, “the law entered,” “was added;” and in this form other nations did not have these principles.

Where, then, is the absurdity of Eld. W.’s 1st and 2d conclusions from my premises, when fairly understood? And how does my “therefore” fail me? If the Sabbath were a moral institution it would always have existed, and then Deut. 5:15 would only have placed it upon a new or legal basis “till the Seed should come.” But it is, as has been shown, a commemorative, and therefore positive, institution; hence the word, “therefore,” points to its origin. Here I feel the ground so solid under me, that I would be willing to risk both the first and second propositions on this single text, Deut. 5:15.

The “therefore” of Lev. 19:37 does not make commemorative institutions of moral precepts, but only places them on a positive basis, since no moral principle can ever be commemorative; but the “therefore” of Deut. 5:15 makes the Sabbath commemorative of deliverance from Egypt, because it is a positive institution, just as the paschal feast is made commemorative by the “therefore” of Ex. 12:17, according to my brother’s own reasoning.

3. Neh. 9:13–15. (1) I did not say that “madest known” is a full equivalent for “gavest” or “commandedst,” but that it is “a kind of equivalent;” i. e., it means all that they do with the additional thought of giving or commanding for the first time. Let the reader remember this, also, when Eld. W.’s strictures on John 7 are read.

(2) But, says my brother, the Lord “came down on Mt. Sinai, &c.,” and I have the Sabbath made known in the wilderness. Are you sure, brother, that the text says He made known the Sabbath on Sinai? By the same course that you prove this, I engage to prove that He then and there gave them the manna in “the Wilderness of Sin,” and water from the rock “in Rephidim!” Do you see how “Eld. Vogel undermines his own theory?”

(3) Eze. 39:7 (and he might have added 20:5–9), “So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel,” does not in the least disturb me. (a) Grant, for argument’s sake, that “make known” here denotes a recalling attention to things formerly known. Have I not admitted that it sometimes has this force? And did I not prove that in Neh. 9 it cannot have this meaning? But suppose I had not, is the first meaning of a word to be rejected for a secondary one without an imperative necessity? (b) But even in these instances, “make known” is used in its primary sense. “The Lord is known by the judgments which he executeth.” Ps. 9:16. And did he not, as I have shown, make pre-existent moral principles (his judgments) known in a legal or new form? Consider also the import of Ex. 6:3–7. “I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my new name, Jehovah [i. e., in my new character] was I not known to them. . . . I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God, and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God.”

4. Let us now look after those “colored sentences” respecting John 7:22, 23. I have somewhere seen a quotation from the king’s translators to the effect that parallels (||) denote parallel marginal readings, and a dagger (†), an equivalent reading, i. e., a reading in different words but the same sense. If it becomes necessary, I will seek and produce their own language. That my statement is true, any reader can satisfy himself by examining a common reference Bible. The substance of my statement is found in the following quotation from the preface of Dr. Geo. Campbell to his Gospels, as an apology for a new translation: “Has the margin in the English Bible, which in a very great number of passages gives the reader his choice of different translations, ever been found to endanger the faith of the people?”

Eld. W. quotes from various translators in favor of the reading in the body of the Bible; but they all hold the Sabbath to be a moral institution, and so, when there was a choice of rendering, so far as the mere words were concerned, they translated in harmony with their convictions, and left it for commentators to harmonize the context. Many commentators come to this passage with the same prepossession and labor to explain; but such explanations! I do not deny that hina mee ordinarily signifies that not, but it is also true that hina is often used for other particles, and by no N. T. writer more freely than by John, and at times it is even redundant, or so nearly so that its force cannot be readily indicated in English. If its use were simple and uniform, why should the best N. T. lexicographers devote a page or more to its discussion? The marginal reading cannot, therefore, be condemned, if the connection demands it. And that it does this, I attempted

to show in my last paper. I invite Eld. W.’s attention to my argument.

That there is a contrast between circumcision and the Sabbath cannot be evaded in view of the expression, “not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers.” It implies that one is of Moses and the other not. True, they are both of God, he spoke them both into existence—in this sense there is no contrast. But one originated before the time of Moses, and the other—when? Here is a contrast, and one fatal to my brother’s theory.

It makes no practical difference on what day Jericho was spoiled; there was marching or work for a whole week, and of course on the Sabbath. But did Eld. W. ever consider that by adopting his reasoning I could show that he cannot tell what day of true time the Jews observed as a Sabbath? It was the seventh day after the first falling of the manna, but on what day did the manna first fall? Here the record is silent, just as silent as on what day the march about Jericho began.

Tholuck’s paraphrase, Eld. W. says, “was evidently used for effect—not for its relevancy.” This is equivalent to saying that I designedly deal dishonestly. Did you see my heart, Bro. W.? I regret that so unchristian an expression should stain your piece. I recommend to your perusal Matt. 7:1, 2. But so far as the paraphrase is concerned, you will, upon repentance, allow me to think it in accordance with the marginal reading. “Ye transgress the law,” in Tholuck’s view, means that they transgressed in the same sense that Jesus did, which was simply no transgression, i. e., “without breaking the law of Moses.” But Eld. W. will hear from this passage again.

5. The Sabbath a type. That heortee (“holy day”) may refer to a feast which has no Sabbaths connected with it, is true, but does it refer exclusively or even mainly to such feasts in Col. 2:16? As certainly as it there refers to those feasts which had Sabbaths connected with them, so certainly does it include the yearly sabbaths, and the expression, “Sabbath days,” the weekly Sabbaths. And so often as the 27 N. T. occurrences of heortee refer to such feasts as had yearly sabbaths connected with them, just so often is it an instance confirmatory of my position. Suppose, then, that Acts 18:21 refers to the passover feast rather than to Pentecost, how does this help Bro. W.? Or suppose the passage is spurious, does it not show the use of heortee? In this connection, I also said something concerning Lev. 23; let Eld. W. remember it, for it stands sadly in his way.

When I said that the Sabbath’s being a type stripped Eld. W. of the last vestige of difference between the weekly and annual sabbaths, I, of course, did not mean that I had proved the weekly Sabbaths to be annual, and the annual sabbaths to be weekly; these are mere accidents. But that it destroys every vestige of moral basis for the Sabbath, and places it in the category of positive institutions, I meant and still insist upon. Moral institutions are not typical, nor typical institutions moral.

But, says Eld. W., the Sabbath pointed back, and therefore cannot point forward! The passover also pointed back, and yet was a type. 1 Cor. 5:7.

6. The Sabbath pre-eminently Jewish. Much under this head needing a reply has been considered while speaking of Deut. 5:15.

That the Sabbath is a sign “between God and the children of Israel” is expressly asserted. Nor is it a sign of creation. Ex. 31:17, when fairly construed, simply refers to the facts of creation for the frequency of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a sign of God’s having singled out the Israelites as his special people: “It is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.” Verse 13; see also Eze. 20:12, 20. This fixes the matter, and forbids Bro. W.’s construction of verse 17.

And here I must notice the wrong use made of “peculiar.” In Scripture, this word is not used in the sense now popular, but as Webster defines it, “Belonging solely or especially to an individual.” This did not prevent other people as individuals from becoming Jews, but it demanded of them a renunciation of their nationality and naturalization as Israelites.

7. The Sabbath not given to the Gentiles. That Isa. 56 predicts a new day under the name of Sabbath, will be shown in its proper place. Until then, I have not a word of reply to what Eld. W. says on this head. But his attempt to annihilate the distinction I showed to exist between Jews and Gentiles, as such, respecting the keeping of the Sabbath, fails in this, that it does not distinguish between a naturalized stranger, i. e., one made and treated as if by nature a Jew, and an unnaturalized one. The former was under every obligation which rested upon a Jew, but not the latter. The former, e. g., kept the passover (Ex. 12:48, 49), but not the latter (verse 43); the one might not eat that which died of itself (Lev. 17:15), while the other might (Deut. 14:21) whether he was “within” or without the gates of Israel. This last reference will also show that I was right in my construction of “within” in Ex. 20:10, and Eld. W. slightly in the dark.

The stranger who was not so naturalized as to be “as one that is born in the land,” was not distinguished from others by being an idolater; for many of them kept up the patriarchal worship, as Jethro, the Ninevites, Cornelius, and Justus. They were those “other sheep,” of whom the Saviour spoke, who were “not of this [Jewish] fold.” John 10:16.

SLEEP

“So He giveth his beloved sleep.”—Ps. 127 : 2.

He sees when their footsteps falter, when their hearts grow weak and faint, He marks when their strength is failing, and listens to each complaint; He bids them rest for a season, for the pathway has grown too steep; And folded in fair green pastures, He giveth His loved ones sleep.

Like weary and worn-out children, that sigh for the daylight’s close, He knows that they oft are longing for home and its sweet repose; So he calls them in from their labors ere the shadows around them creep, And silently watching o’er them, He giveth His loved ones sleep.

He giveth it, oh! so gently, as a mother will hush to rest The babe that she softly pillows so tenderly on her breast; Forgotten are now the trials and sorrows that made them weep; For with many a soothing promise He giveth His loved ones sleep.

He giveth it! friends the dearest can never this boon bestow; But he touches the drooping eyelids, and placid the features grow; Their foes may gather about them, and storms may round them sweep, But, guarding them safe from danger, He giveth His loved ones sleep.

All dread of the distant future, all fears that oppressed to-day, Like mists that clear in the sunlight, have noiselessly passed away; Nor call nor clamor can rouse them from slumber so pure and deep, For only His voice can reach them Who giveth His loved ones sleep.

Weep not that their toils are over, weep not that their race is run; God grant we may rest as calmly when our work, like theirs, is done! Till then we would yield with gladness our treasures to Him to keep, And rejoice in the sweet assurance, He giveth His loved ones sleep.

—Golden Hours.

ELD. J. H. WAGGONER'S THIRD NEGATIVE.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

The reader will bear in mind that a discussion is different from an essay or an independent argument; it is not to be expected that every point involved in the subject should be noticed, but those contested. The identity of days and the bearing of the word sanctify are often matters of earnest dispute; but they are not with us. Eld. Vogel and myself agree on these. Also, where time is so limited, it is impossible to notice everything which might in strict justice demand attention.

1. Eld. Vogel says the section I quoted from Crosby was put “in small type to show that it figures but little in the case.” It is explanatory, and necessary to an understanding of the subject. Its being put in small type does not indicate that it is not truth! Nor does he speak of “impassioned prose”—“even in prose” are his words; and they will stand.

I did not maintain silence concerning the Hebrew. I said the exceptions were numerous in both Testaments. Gesenius says of the article, its use is “nearly the same as in Greek and German.” He also makes the same exception that Crosby does in regard to poetry, though Green does not; and this shows that Green's not noticing the exceptions, is not evidence that no exceptions exist. Let us notice a few of them.

a. Eld. V. says the Sabbath was so well known on that morning when the manna was first withheld, that the article was demanded. Yet when they had kept the Sabbath about five months longer, having witnessed the constantly recurring miracles which pointed it out, and made its observance a necessity; having heard the voice of Jehovah, in his terrible majesty, defining and enforcing it on Mt. Sinai; and Moses had received two copies written by the finger of God; after this lapse of time, with all this evidence of its being well known, the same form is used in Ex. 35:2, that was used in Ex. 16:23; the article is wanting. And this is “legal information” also; not poetry nor “impassioned prose.”

b. Lev. 23:3 was spoken a number of months later, yet the article is omitted. Surely, it was not then lacking in “general notoriety,” “emphatic distinction,” or in anything that would insure the presence of the article, if there were no exceptions to the rules.

c. A striking instance is found in Ex. 20:10, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” It cannot be said that this is indefinite, for the article is inserted in verses 8 and 11, on either side of this. Did the translators turn commentators on this text? No; nor did they on Ex. 16:23. Facts of history and usage of the language justify their course.

d. Gen. 1:1: “In a beginning.”—Heb. Who can find fault with the translators for here inserting the article? It is a faithful translation, i. e., gives the true idea of the text.

e. Ps. 21:1: “A king shall joy in thy strength,” &c. Read the connection, and see if the translators have not done justice to the text by inserting the article. I am at a loss to comprehend Eld. Vogel's remark, “The Hebrew . . . has no such exceptions as he would force on the Greek text.” If he means that the Grammar which he uses does not notice exceptions, it does not meet the case; for others do; and his expression is unfortunate, liable to mislead. But if he means that the Hebrew of the Old Testament has no such exceptions, then his “mine” is easily exploded. I did not use the phrase, “no scholar,” in an invidious sense, as his italicising the last word infers; but I now think perhaps he was right in his emphasis.

f. I repeat, that his reference to the expression, “a holy convocation,” is “an element of weakness in his argument.” It is invariably without the article. It is as if he should attempt to show that a certain man might be distinguished from certain others because his name is John, when John is the name of every one of them! Compare on the passover, Ex. 12:16, with Lev. 23:7, though a year intervened between their mentions.

But Bro. Vogel is confessedly ingenious and fruitful of expedients. When the fallacy of his argument on this point is shown, he answers: “Nearly every mention by Moses was either a first mention, or a re-mention, for the purpose of additional legislation, which is nearly an equivalent.” “A kind of equivalent,” and “nearly an equivalent,” are “a kind of” cushion which he prepares on which to fall easily when compelled to fall from his assumed position; and in case of necessity, as on Neh. 9, he can hide behind their ambiguity. The prefix “re” signifies again. A “re-mention” is simply a mentioning again. Does he mean that these “re-mentions” are additional instances of the first mention? And may there be a second, third, or fourth occurrence, at long intervals, of the first mention? If not, what does he mean? I would like to know how many months or years must intervene to distinguish between a first and second mention, or between the second mention and merely a “re-mention”? Or if it is only “nearly equivalent,” what proportion belongs to the first mention; and how much of it shall we pass over to the second? If this is not bending language to help a failing theory I never knew an instance.

Yet again, he says the yearly sabbaths might be mentioned indefinitely because the weekly Sabbath had taken the article by “emphatic distinction.” If so, why is it that the weekly Sabbath wants the article so long after its mention in Ex. 16? And how can it take the article by “emphatic distinction,” if there is not a “vestige of difference” between it and the others, and if it belongs to “the same category,” as he has said?

Gesenius, as quoted by Eld. Vogel, was evidently referring to the term Sabbath, without regard to its being definite or indefinite, for, in the next article, he renders the text cited, “a Sabbath of sabbatism.” But inasmuch as Eld. V. offers it in proof, he indorses the giving of the article to Sabbath, Lev. 23:32, and thus he furnishes another exception to the rule which he says has no exceptions!

2. At first, he said the rulers were “surprised,” yet now he says they knew of the order for gathering a double rate of manna. But they came and told Moses before he spoke to them of the Sabbath, as in verse 23. Yet again he says it is “absurd” to suppose they went to let Moses know the order was obeyed. Well, why did they go? Can he give another reason? Is their “surprise” a matter of “conjecture,” or of revelation? One thing is beyond conjecture—Eld. V. is befogged over Ex. 16.

3. He says the passover commemorated only “one thing,” namely, the passing over of the death-angel, in Egypt. Why did he make this assertion so contrary to the express reading of Ex. 12:15–17? I leave it to the reader if some of his assumed “facts” are not “imaginary.” All that I said in regard to the passover and the Sabbath is fully confirmed by the Scriptures.

4. He does not notice the proof I gave that Deut. 5 has not the original copy of the Decalogue. “These words,” in Deut. 5:22, is the equivalent of these commandments. Compare Ex. 34:28, where Moses says the Lord wrote “the ten words” (Heb.) on the tables of stone. Eld. V. might with equal propriety assert that there were only ten words on the tables of stone. “Words,” in these texts, has a technical or special significance. His remark concerning the rest of Deut. 12:9, &c., is without point. I did not disregard the distinction between the command and the promise. I distinguished, also, between the rest of Deut. 12, and the Sabbath of Deut. 5. His words convey an erroneous impression. I said, and I repeat, that the rest which was promised to them in contrast with their bondage in Egypt, was not the Sabbath, but the inheritance of Canaan. The Lord's words to Paul will far more aptly refer to himself.

5. His remarks on “make known” do not better his case; his quotations are irrelevant. To quote Ps. 9:16, to show that “make known” is used in its “primary sense,” is truly strange, for the words are not there! “Make known,” and “is known,” are not synonymous. Nor does Eze. 39:7 speak of making known his “new name,” as Ex. 6:3–7, quoted by Eld. Vogel. I shall not try to account for his passing off such random statements for arguments on the case; I have given him credit for sufficient discrimination to perceive their irrelevancy.

6. On John 7. (1) He says the authors I quoted “all held the Sabbath to be a moral institution,” and translated according to their prepossessions. I do not wish to arouse his “righteous indignation” a second time over this passage, but I am compelled in justice to say his statement is not correct. (2) Who are those “best N. T. lexicographers” who devote a page or more to the discussion of the Greek word, hina? It is true, they give a variety of combinations in which it is used; but what lexicographer gives a different rendering of hina mee from that I gave from Parkhurst, Robinson, Liddell and Scott, Greenfield, Groves, and Donnegan? That is confirmed by the renderings I quoted from the Diaglott, and from Olshausen; and I notice also by the grammars of McClintock and Crooks, and Crosby. (3) I must repeat, and every reader can see, that “Tholuck's paraphrase” of John 7:23 does not agree with the marginal reading, notwithstanding the effort of Bro. V. to harmonize them. If “Ye transgress the law,” and “Without breaking the law,” are synonymous in his vocabulary, I have but to say they are not in mine. There is plausibility in Bro. Vogel's softening of the terms, to wit, it was “no transgression at all;” but Tholuck does not say that! but the very opposite. Why, then, did he quote Tholuck, seeing there is a contradiction between them? After accusing me at the very outset of the discussion, and without any reason, of “begging the question,” and afterward, of “perverting facts,” he is now very indignant because I can assign no other reason for his use of Tholuck than “for effect.” He asks if I saw his heart, and refers to Matt. 7:1, 2. I answer, No; but I saw what proceeded from it, and refer him to verse 20 of the same chapter. Had he acted up to Matt. 6:12, from the first, his complainings would come with better grace. But the evidences are before the readers, and they can judge between us. (4) His quotation from Dr. Campbell's preface does not favor his view. It simply says the reader has a “choice of different translations,” but not on which side that choice should fall. I never saw a man catch at smaller straws than does Eld. V. The marginal reading in this case is inadmissible, and his argument on it a non sequitur.

7. My view of the record of the spoiling of Jericho he thinks would enable him to show that I cannot prove what day of true time the Jews observed as a Sabbath. Let him try it and see. He cannot show by Ex. 16 that it was the seventh day after six days' falling of the manna; nor can he prove that it was the day of their deliverance from Egypt. But I can abundantly show that it was the day on which God rested when he made heaven and earth; the seventh day from “the beginning,” and of course the true seventh day of the week. This truth cannot be hid by any means.

8. “Ex. 31:17, when fairly construed,” says Eld. V., “simply refers to the facts of creation for the frequency of the Sabbath.” This is certainly assuming much, considering that the idea is so foreign to every statement concerning the blessing and sanctification of the day. Let the reader turn to my last article, and see my paraphrase of the fourth commandment. The definitions of terms there given cannot be disputed, and they sustain all that I claim, or have claimed, for the seventh day as the creation Sabbath. Creation is referred to, not merely to point out relation or frequency, which could be done without it, but to show that it is the Lord's rest day; a day of holiness; a sign that Jehovah is the true God—the Creator of all things.

9. All that he says about a “naturalized stranger” has no force. According to his

view, he cannot prove that the Gentile, as such, had any law at all. So evidently is this the outgrowth of his theory, that I have known prominent men of his denomination to openly take the position that they had none. The blessings of the gospel are also only for “naturalized strangers,” for Gentiles as such are not partakers of the promises to Israel in the new covenant. Compare Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:1–5; Heb. 8:6–10; Eph. 2:11–19. His theory of abstract law, and “moral law on a positive basis,” is fanciful and dangerous, as will be fully shown in due time. According to his explanations, there is no difference between the “concrete or tangible form, i. e., as a positive command,” and revealed law. Outside of this positive moral law, or tangible, there could be no express or “tangible” rules of obligation! Of course, man's only rule of action was his own “intuitions,” as spiritualists now have it. And when the “concrete,” the “tangible,” or the “direct enforcement,” was abolished, the whole world was turned back to the blessedness of heathenism; restored to those “general principles” which had so completely failed as a guide in the past, leaving each one to supply the “tangible,” or the “direct,” according to his prepossessions, feelings, intuitions, or what-not; but no more to be guided by the direct, the specific, the tangible, or in other words, the revealed! If this does not set aside the word of God as a rule of life, and open the door for “liberty” large enough to suit the “carnal mind” (see Rom. 8:7), I cannot imagine how that might be done. May the Lord save us from the legitimate results of such a theory.

I will briefly notice a few points, passed hitherto for want of space. I am willing to leave it with the reader if a duty cannot be “directly enforced” at different times. To deny it is preposterous. A contrast may exist between the direct and indirect, but it was not implied in my language, and he knew I did not have any such contrast in view. To my reference to Cornelius, he replies: “The enforcement at the house of Cornelius has no direct reference to baptism, but to Cornelius.” What was enforced there? Baptism, and nothing else. Therefore the enforcement of baptism has no direct reference to baptism! The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, that he might tell him what he ought to do. To this, his mission had “direct reference,” and he “commanded them to be baptized.” Was this a direct or indirect, “tangible” or intangible enforcement of baptism? He drew a contrast between the direct and indirect enforcement of the Sabbath. Well, if to Cornelius there was but an indirect enforcement of baptism, we are satisfied with just such an indirect enforcement of the Sabbath! But what, then, does he gain by his hypercriticism?

I deny that I perverted facts in my remarks on Genesis. Not a text that he quoted in the Old Testament presents an instance of anachronism. His position, as I now understand it, is as absurd as the one I examined, to wit, that Adam did not name his wife until long after he received her—until after her children were born. Very many names in the Old Testament were given by prophetic foresight, as every reader knows, and the naming of Eve is one of the most evident instances of this kind. The tense, emphasized by him, argues nothing in the case. The Lord said to Abraham, “A father of many nations have I made thee,” while the son of promise was not yet born.

Eld. Vogel said the reader would inquire whether the word “constitute” as used by him, was not borrowed as a quotation from me, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of showing up the fallacy of my reasoning. I can answer the inquiry; it was not in a quotation, either directly or indirectly, but in his own direct argument that he used it. These are his words, “It is at least possible for God to rest without making it thereby a sacred rest; and while his resting on any day would constitute that day a rest day (Sabbath) i. e., day in which he had rested, it would not constitute it a sacred rest day.” If, as he claimed, “constitute” can be only properly used in the sense of “appoint,” what is the force of his argument? His pretended explanation is not fair; it does not present the matter in its true light. And his assertion, that I confess that there is force in his strictures by my saying that he has made the same distinction, is only frivolous. His remarks and quotations, to show that God is still working in upholding, &c., are irrelevant, and being so, would require no notice were they not calculated to mislead. The Sabbath institution has no reference whatever to the work of upholding or preserving, but only to the work of creating. This has been so often placed before the reader, that it might seem unnecessary to repeat it. But it is truth, that in a discussion the prejudices of many are easily excited, and it is justifiable to meet whatever tends to divert the readers from the truth in issue. Were their minds always directed to those truths of revelation at issue, and never diverted from them, discussions might be more pleasant and profitable than is generally the case.

Having now passed through the first two propositions, I submit the subject to the reader, confident that it has been established that,

1. The Sabbath is a memorial of creation; it was blessed and set apart by Jehovah at the conclusion of his work; the Lord himself gave the facts of creation as its basis, and the only reason of its being blessed and sanctified; and when its sanctification is spoken of, it is never connected with any other events.

2. A great and manifest difference is shown between the seventh day, or weekly Sabbath, and the yearly sabbaths, in that it was based on the facts of creation; it was the rest day of the Almighty; God spoke it with his own voice; he wrote it in the tables of stone; it was deposited in the ark with only moral precepts, over which atonement was made before God. Not one of these facts can be applied to the yearly sabbaths, which were parts of a system growing, not out of the acts of the Creator, but out of the necessities of man arising from his own rebellion.

3. There is neither express statement, nor necessary inference, to invalidate any of these truths.

And, again, I pray that God may, by his Spirit, guide us into all truth; that through faith in his Son, who died “to put away sin,” we may so “keep his commandments, which is the whole duty of man,” that we may be able to stand in that day when “God shall bring every work into Judgment.”

Continue reading: Pride and Its Dangers to the Church