An argument for the perpetuity of the Sabbath

Introduction

The following Argument in defence of the Sabbath was called forth by the discussions of the late ** Church, Ministry, and Sabbath Convention," so termed, in this city. A wish has been repeatedly expressed that it should be written out for publication. This has been done — but amid a pressure of other duties which has subjected the author to frequent interruptions, much consequent delay, and some serious disadvantages in its accomplishment. In writing it out, some trains of thought have been introduced which were not presented in the Convention, and some, which were then merely hinted at, have been carried out. The Argument differs from the ordinary discussions of the subject, in that its strength is mainly expended on two points, which, in the author's judgment, are usually despatched

4 INTRODUCTION.

too summarily, and therefore not satisfactorily, but which, after all, are the strong points of the case on the part of our opponents. Those points are, first, their- argument to prove that the Sabbath was originally instituted in the wilderness ; and, second, our argument to prove a divine warrant for the change of the day. To make the truth on these points clear, has been a leading design in the ensuing discussion. The Argument, such as it is, is now given to the public, in the hope that it may help to satisfy the inquiring, to relieve the doubting, to decide the wavering, to confirm the weak, and to promote in all a more intelligent and better observance of the Lord's Day.

THE AUTHOR.

Boston, Feb. 12, 1841.

Index

THE SABBATH AS AN INSTITUTION.

CHAP. I. Preliminary Remarks, 7

CHAP. H.

Explanation of Terms, 16

CHAP. HI.

The Sabbath at Creation, 19

CHAP. IV.

The Sabbath in the Patriarchal Age, 31

CHAP. V.

The Sabbath in Egypt, 41

CHAP. VI.

The Sabbath in the Wilderness, 57

CHAP. VII.

The Sabbath a Sign, 73

CHAP. VIII.

The Argument recapitulated and closed, 82

1#

6 INDEX.

CHANGE OF THE DAY.

CHAP. IX.

Statement of the Question, and Preliminary

Remarks, 96

CHAP. X.

Nature of the Argument for a Change of THE Day, 104

CHAP. XI.

Christ's Sanction of the Sabbath and its

Change, 107

CHAP. XII.

The Sanction of the Apostles and the Primitive Church, 124

CHAP. XIII.

The Argument continued, 140

CHAP. XIV.

The Proof-Texts of Opponents, 149

CHAP. XV.

The Testimony of Ecclesiastical History, ....159

THE SABBATH.

Chapter I. Preliminary Remarks

The Sabbath — This is the topic in discussion. But what is the question at issue in respect to it ? Till this is ascertained, we can make do progress in the discussion. 1 will attempt to state it. And first, 1 will state what it is not.*

1. It is not whether men ought to be holy every day ; to have " Holiness to the Lord '' written on all they have and are ; to critj their religion into their business, so as .to make their business part of their religion, and do all they do to the glory of God, and in this sense keep ail days holy; for in this, the friends and the opponents of the Sabbath are agreed. At all events, no friends of the Sabbath deny it. True, their opponents sometimes say they do. Nay, they even insist, at times, that their zeal for the observance of one day in seven, as holy, is ^drtually that they may have the freer license to sin during the remainder of the week. But it is not so. Such repre-

* The arguments noticed in tliis cliapter were all urged in the Convention.

sentatjons are injurious and false. What friend of the Sabbath, if a minister, does not preach that men ought to be holy every day and every where, as well as on the Sabbath and in the sanctuary ? And when he urges the observance of one day in seven as a Sabbath, who is there, be he minister or layman, that does not do it, in order that, by carrying its hallowing instructions and influences with them into the ordinary avocations of life, men may be led to serve God in ihem as well as in their religious duties, and so be made the more holy, rather than the less so, during the other six days of tlie week ? And who, that kiiows any thing of a real observance of the Sabbatlj, does not know b}^ experience, that such are its actual tendency and effect? Or if, in any case, the tendency and effect of its observance seem otherwise, and men do cast its restraints behind them, and take occasion from it to sin the more the moment they enter on the v/eek, who are they that do it ? The men that honestly advocate and keep the Sabbath, or those only that play the hypocrite in regard to it ? The men to whom the Sabbath is a delight, and the holy of the Lord lionorable, or those to whom it is a yoke, and a " burden," and a curse, and who in their hearts ivish there ivere nonc'^ The latter, plainly. Be this, however, as it may, the (juestion at issue between the friends and opponents of the Sabbath is not whether men ought to serve God always and every where, and so keep all days holy, — for this the friends of the Sabbath most fully believe and teach, ■ — but whether keeping all days holy, forbids the setting apart of one day in seven as a Sabbath ; i. e. as a day of rest from the ordinary avocations of life, and of special de-

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

votion to the duties of religion. And to pretend this, is to say that setting apart particular times to particular duties, so that those duties may be the more orderly and profitably discharged, is inconsistent with keeping all time holy ; whereas, in point of fact, it may be, and is, only a more effectual, as well as common sense arrangement for this very end.

2. The question touching the Sabbath is not whether Christ taught a higher and purer morality than Moses and the prophets. That he did, I know, is claimed. It is said in terms, that " the standard of morality under the gospel dispensation is infinitely higher than it was under the old ; " and the inference is, that the Sabbath is therefore now set aside. But the fact asserted admits of question — much more the inference. When one (Matt. xxii. 36 — 40) came to Christ with the inquir}^, " Master, which is the great commandment of the law," his answer was, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all -thy heait, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it — Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'^ And then he added, ^-On these two commandments Jiang all the law and the prophets " — a plain declaration, that these two great requirements of supreme love to God and impartial love to man, covering, as they do, the whole field of obligation and duty, are not the revelation of a new acd higher standard, unknovvTLi to Moses and the prophets, but a summary only of what they themselves had taught. Indeed, so true is this, that, on another occasion, (Blatt. vii. 12,) when Christ g\'ive his disciples that golden rule, which in its v/ide sweep comprehends all obligation iO THE SABBATH.

and duty, — "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," — so far from telling them that herein he gave them a higher and purer standard of morality than that of Moses and the prophets, he adds emphatically, " For this IS the law and the prophets " — nothing older and nothing newer, nothing more and nothing less, but the same identical thing itself If Christ's testimony, then, is to be received, he did not reveal nor enjoin a higher or a purer morality than did Moses and the prophets. Of course the Sabbath is not to be set aside on this ground.

But admit, if you will, that he did reveal a new and higher morality, still the inference of no Sabbath does not follow ; for the question is, not whether Christ taught a higher and purer morality than Moses and the prophets, but did he teach one so high and so pure as to set aside the Sabbath? Admit it to be as elevated and pure as purity itself, does it therefore follow that to set apart one day in seven as a Sabbath, — i. e. as a day of rest from the ordinary avocations of life, and of special devotion to the duties of religion, — is no longer obligatory or proper ? To say so, brings us to the old absurdity again, viz. that to appropriate particular times to particular duties, for the sake of their more orderly and profitable discharge, is inconsistent with keeping ail time holy, or, what is the same, with the purity of the gospel ; or that it is at best a needless and profitless arrangement. And this is an absurdity so glaring that anti- Sabbath men themselves do not, and cannot, practise on it, — except in their religion. For they, as well as others, have their general arrangement of one time for the duties of the family, another for the duties of the farm, or the workshop, or the printing-office, and so on through the whole circle of regularly-returning duties. And can it be, that it is in religion only, that the appropriation of a particular time to particular duties is a needless and profitless arrangemenr, inconsistent alike with keeping all time holy, and with the elevated purity of the gospel — nay, a "burden " and a "yoke," from which Christ came to deliver us? By no means. Elevated and pure as is the morality Christ taught, it does not follow that it is so pure as to annihilate or set aside the observance of one day m seven as a Sabbath, or day of holy rest. That remains to be proved, not taken for granted.

3. The question touching the Sabbath is not whether the law, or Sinai covenant, is done away in Christ, or in the gospel, or new covenant ; for in this the friends and opponents of the Sabbath are agreed. But it is, in what sense is the one done away by the other? Is it so done away as to set aside the Sabbath? That is the question. (1.) Is it done away as a means of justification ? Agreed. " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his' sight," (Rom. iii. 20.) That, however, does not touch the question of the observance of the Sabbath as a duty. The lav/, though not binding as a rule of justification, may be as a rule of duty, so that it may still be as much my duty to keep the Sabbath as it is to worship God. (2.) Is it, then, done away in Christ as a rule of duty ? It is so asserted ; but what saith the apostle ? — " Do we, then, make void the law" (as a rule of duty) "through faith?" (as the rule of justification.) (v. 28.) "God forbid. Yea, we ESTABLISH the law." Such is Paul's opinion. And why, indeed, should he have any other ? What room is there for pardon or justification w"here there is no sin to be pardoned ? And what sin can there be where there is no law, or existing obligation to be violated? And what law is there when the law is done away ?

But admit that the law, as a rule of duty, is done away ; are we, then, no longer bound to love God or man, to abstain from idolatry, blasphemy, false witness, theft, adultery, murder, and the like ? Are we absolved from obligation in respect to these matters as well as that of the Sabbath ? This is not pretended. But it is said that obligation, in these cases, is unchanging, growing out of the very nature, necessities, and relations of man, and that, therefore, we are, in respect to them, "under law to Christ." Be it so. And how does it appear that we are not equally " under law^ to Christ " to keep the Sabbath ? This, at least, is the question ; and is a thing to be proved, not taken for granted.

4. The question at issue is not whether the rites and ceremonies of the old economy were a shadow of good things to come, and are all fulfilled in Christ. For in this we are all agreed. But it is w^hether the Sabbath, any more than the marriage institution, or the command to honor parents, or every other command of the decalogue, was a part of that shadow, and therefore done away in Christ, the substance. All agree that the shadow is done away ; but was the Sabbath a part of it ? That is the question, and is a matter to be proved, not assumed.

5. The question at issue is not whether Christ

PRELIMINARY ilEMAKKS. 13

came to deliver us from the yoke and bm*deii of old rites and ceremonies; for this, too, all admit. But it is, whether the Sabbath, any more than the marriage institution, or the command to worship and serve God, was a part of that burden and yoke ? True, it is so claimed. The Sabbath, so far from being regarded as a "delight," is set down by some as a burden, from whose intolerable pressure it was one great object of Christ to deliver us. All this, however, is but begging the question. What proof is there that the Sabbath was a part of that biu'den ? To assume it, and then mfer, that because the burden is done away, the Sabbath is, is assumption, and nothing more. With the same propriety you may assume that marriage was a part of the burden, and then gravely infer, that, the burden being done away, marriage is done away too. The logic — if logic it can be called — is as good in one case as in the other. Indeed, as a matter of fact, some who have applied it to the Sabbath fii'st, have afterwards applied it to the marriage institution, and insisted, that "it is only in the view of the mind, and after the fashion of the world, that a person has any more right over a w^oman, after a certain ceremony is performed, than before" — that " God is about to put an end to all such mock, sham, and fictitious rights" — that the parties "ought to be left fi*ee to separate from each other; else what is the use to talk about people's having rights, seeing they are not allow^ed to exercise any in a matter the most important to their peace and welfare of any other, but are bond slaves?"^ — that "the righteous-

"* Battle Axe, p. 19. 2 ness of the saints will cause those that possess it for the first time to love their neighbor as themselves, and act in accordance w^ith such love in all things," and that, so acting, "what one has is to another as his own. All things are common in the fullest sense of the words — wives and every thing else. No part of the price is kept back. None are suffered to want while another abounds." * — And that " when the will of God is done on earth, as it is in heaven, there will he no marriage. The marriage supper of the Lamb is a feast, at which every dish is free to ever^y giiesf'' f

Such sentiments shock us. They shock, too, it is believed, the great body of those who reject the Sabbath. Indeed, so manifestly do they " turn the grace of God into lasciviousness," that we can scarcely persuade ourselves that they are seriously entertained b}^ any. And yet it is notorious that they are. These, and worse than these, are the sentiments of the spiritual or no-marriage Perfectionists. It is equally notorious that the same processes of assumption and inference, and the same reasonings about burdens, and shadows, and entering into rest and the liberty of Christ, &c. &c., which lead the one to the rejection of the Sabbath, the church, and the ministry, lead the other, and logically too, to the rejection of Sabbath, ordinances, church, ministry, marriage, Bible and all. Starting at the same point, and pursuing the same processes of reasoning, the one stop with the rejection of the Sabbath, the ministry, and the church, the others rush headlong, yet logically, to results that, under the garb of Christianity, strip Christianity of her essential elements, and make Christ little else

than a minister of sin. I repeat it, then, the question at issue in respect to the Sabbath, is not, whether the burden of old rites and ceremonies is done away, but is the Sabbatli a part of it? And this is a thing to be prov^ed, not assumed.

6. The question is not whether it is our privilege and duty to have peace and joy in believing; to enter into rest; to become freemen in Christ Jesus; to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ maketh free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage, &c. &LC.', for all this the friends of the Sabbath niost fully beheve and teach. But the question is, whether this peace, and joy, and rest, and hbertj, are the peace, and joy, and rest, and liberty, of doing without a Sabbath. That is the question.

7. And finalh^, the question is not whether the letter (2 Cor. iii. 6 — 11) killeth while the spirit giveth life; nor whether the Jewish dispensation is done away by the Christian ; nor whether the Christian is so much more glorious than the other as to eclipse and throw it into the shade; for this, too, is clearly taught in the passage quoted and fully believed by the friends of the Sabbath. But the question is whether the Christian dispensation is so glorious as to dispense with the Sabbath. And this, as in all the other cases, is a matter to be proved, not assumed. Let it be well considered, then, that the inferences so confidently drav\'n to the non-existence of the Sabbath, from the several premises now noticed, are, after all, mere assui.iptions. Of course they are all to be set aside at the outset, as having nothing to do with the question really at issue. This done, we may profitably proceed with the discussion.

Chapter II. Explanation Of Terms

Ijs^ the discussion of every subject, much depends on a correct explanation or definition of terms. It is so in the present case. Some really seem to suppose that the friends of the Sabbath regard one day as intnnsically more holy than another, and that when they use the terms sacred, sanctified, holy, and Sahhath, they do it with such an understanding of them. But is it so ? Learning, as they do, all they know of the Sabbath from the Bible, it is but fair to suppose that they use these terms in the same sense that the Bible does. What, then, is the Bible use of them ?

1. Sanctified. This, in the Mosaic use of it, denotes, among other things, " set apart specially to sacred or religious purposes." Thus (Lev. viii. 10 — 12) we are told that Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle, and all that was therein, and '^ sanctified ^^ them; and sprinkled the altar and all his vessels, to " sanctify " them — not that the materials of which these things were made were intrinsically more holy than the same materials wrought into other vessels ; nor that the vessels themselves were made intrinsically more holy by this act of consecration ; but only that they were thus set apart specially and exclusively to the services of religion. In like manner, also, " he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's

EXPLANATION OF TERMS. 17

head, and anointed him, to sanctify him ;" i. e. to set him apart to the services of rehgion — not that he was thereby made intrinsically more holy than before. In the same sense, when they came up out of Egypt, the Israelites were commanded (Ex. xiii. 2) to "sanctify," or (v. 12) " set apart unto the Lord," all the first-born of man and beast — the beasts for sacrifice and the men for the religious services of the altar and the temple. In Joel also (i. 14 ; ii. 15) the priests are called upon to "sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly," &c. ; i. e. obviously, to appoint or set apart a time lor that religious service. And in the same sense^ beyond ail question, it is said, (Gen. ii. 3,) "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it;" i. e. set it apart specially to religious purposes.

2. Holy. This is used in the same sense with the term sanctified. Thus the "holy garments" (Ex. xxviii. 2) of Aaron and his sons are not garments intrinsically more holy than others, but merely garments made and set apart specially for the religious services of the altar and temple. So, when it is said, (Ex. xvi. 23,) "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath," the meaning is, not that the morrow is intrinsically more holy than any other day, but that it is the day set apart from the ordinary avocations ^of life to the purposes of religious rest, improv^ement, and worship. Literally translated, the passage reads, "To-morrow is the rest, the rest holy (Sabbath-^wodesh) unto the Lord." And this gives you its true meaniilg, viz. To-morrow is the rest, the rest that is holy; i. e. consecrated, or set apart to the Lord. So, m the account of the original institution of the Sabbath, (Gen. ii. 3,) the term which is translated 2# sanctified is yeJcaddesh, and means, literally, he caused it to be holy ; i. e. he hallowed oi* set it apart to the purposes of religion.

3. Sabbath, This term, in view of what has just been said, is readily understood. Literally, it means merely rest. Applied to a particular period of time set apart as holy, as of a day, it means a day set apart to rest from the ordinary avocations of life, and specially devoted to the duties of religious instruction, improvement, and worship. The Sabbath, then, as an institution, is a season of rest, holy or consecrated to the Lord. It consists of two parts, the Sabbath or holy rest, and the time or day set apart for it. This distinction is clearly recognized in the account of its original institution, God (Gen. ii. 2) rested (sabbatized) on the seventh day ; and then (v. 3) he " sanctified," or set that day apart, as the day for sabbatizing, " because that in it he had rested," (sabbatized.) The sabbatizing or holy resting is therefore one thing; the particular day set apart for it is another. The particular day may therefore be changed, as from the seventh to the first day of the week, and yet the institution itself, as a season of holy rest consecrated to the services of religion, remain unchanged.

Chapter III. The Sabbath At Creation

The question, then, or rather questions, at issue in this discussion, are these — 1. Is the Sabbath, as an institution, perpetually binding on men P 2. Has any particular day been set apart, by divine appointment, for its observance ? and if so, what day is it ?

Is THE Sabbath perpetually binding on men?

It will be my object to show that it is.

1. Its perpetual obligation is manifest from its original institution. Like marriage, it was instituted at creation, and instituted, not for the Jew alone, nor for the Greek, nor for any particular age or cation, but for man — the race; to live, therefore, like the marriage institution, while the race, in its present state of being, lives ; and to be binding in its observance, while there is such a race to observe it. This is manifest from the inspired record. According to that, the fii'st period of creation (Gen. i. 1 — 5) brought forth the shapeless mass of chaos, and separated the darkness from the light, and gave being to Day and Night. The second (vs. 6 — 8) gave the firmament, and separated the waters which were beneath from those which were above it. The third (vs. 9 — 13) gathered the waters that were under the firmament into seas, brou^ght forth the earth, clothed it with the tender grass, and the herb, and tree, and made it Lnstinct every where with vegetable life and beauty. The fourth (vs. 14 — 19) studded the firmament with greater and lesser lights, to divide the day from the night, and to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years. The fifth (vs. 20 — ^23) filled the sea and air with their appropriate inhabitants, and made them instinct with animal life in all its myriad forms. The sixth (vs. 24 — 31) peopled the eai'th with every living creature, each after his kind; gave man his being, in the image of God, and male and female; then blessed, and bade him multiply, and replenish and subdue the earth, and invested him with dominion over bird, and beast, and fish, and herb, and tree. Tlius was creation ended. The great arrangements of day and night, of earth and seas, of seasons and years ; of vegetable and animal life, pervading earth, and sea, and air; of man in the conjugal relationship, ("male and female created he them,") multiplying and replenishing the earth, and swaying the sceptre of dominion over all, — these arrangensents were all completed. Nor will it be pretended that these were not, each and tM, permanent in their character, and made originally, as they are nov/ continued^ not for man of any particular age or nation, but for man — the race.

But there was one arrangement not completed. True, creation's w^ork was done. Existence, in all its varied forms of beauty and of life^ and up through all its myriad ranks to man, the image of his God and head of all, was thrown from its Creator's hand. And it was all very good. But how should this fair world, or man the head of it, be kept in fond remembrance of its Author.^ how made to move in

AT CREATION.

sweet attraction and harmony divine around its great Original? Man, the race, needed one arrangement more — a something, that, at regular and oft-returning periods, should stop him in the busy whii-l of life, and lift his thoughts to Him that gave, and, without ceasing, was to give to him, and all things else, their being and their all. What should that arrangement he ? And (Gen. ii. 2, 3) " God rested on the seventh day from all the work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work.'' That gave the desired arrangement. God rested on the seventh day from his creating work, and dwelt in sweet complacency and holy joy on all that he had made. It was all ''very good;^^ and in holy contemplation of it, holy satisfaction filled his mind — God felt satisfied. "On the seventh day (Ex. xxxi. 17) lie rested and was refreshed.^'' And because He rested tlien and was refreshed, he set that day apart for man, that, at each returning seventh period, he and his might rest from their six days' work, as God had done from his, and, resting, lift their thoughts in fond remembrance and holy joy to God, their Maker, and be, (Ex. xxiii. r2,) like him, " reii-eshed." The one was manifestly the reason or occasion of the other. God rested and was refreshed on that day. Therefore he blessed and "sanctified,'' or set it apart, not for himself, plainly, but for man to rest and be alike refreshed. Nor was it for one age or nation merely, but for man in every age and every where.

And being so, it was the arrangement needed, and fitted to hold the world in fond remembrance and sweet attraction to its Maker's throne. It was the arrangement with which the circle of great and permanent arrangements for man in the morning of his being was complete, and without which that circle was marvellously incomplete. Can there, then, be doubt that, in accordance with the obvious and literal import of the divine record, the Sabbath was instituted, by God, at creation, and as an arrangement for the race, not for any particular portion of it ? Were not all the other arrangements, made and instituted at creation, made and instituted for the race ? Was not the arrangement of day and night for man — the race ? of earth and seas, for man — the race ? of seasons and years, for man — the race ? Of vegetable and animal life, pervading earth, air, and sea ; of man, in the conjugal relationship, or social state, multiplying, and replenishing and subduing the earth ; of man, wielding dominion over all the lower creation, — were not all these arrangements made and instituted for man — the race? Why, then, should the arrangement of the Sabbath be an exception ? Plainly it was not. It was instituted when they were instituted, and, like them, was designed to be as universal in its existence, and as perpetual in its obligation, as the race itself Nay, it was the crowning arrangement of all. They looked rather to the welfare of the natural and the mortal of man ; this to the spiritual and immortal of him.