Sunday, the seventh day, its history and origin...

Front matter

CARBTXNG THE SABBATH.

Class _BV_LL.

Book. lS

Preface

The Sabbath question is the question of the agee— past, present and future. The Sabbath is coeval with the civilization of the human race and will last as long as that civilization exists. The Sabbath came in with the civilization of man, and it will go out when man ceases to claim the title of being a MAN. "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." It effects the Jew and Gentile alike; and wherever civilization has made any conquest man is (or ought to be) found in full enjoyment of this priceless blessing, i. e M rest from toil on the seventh day of the week, thus pre-figuring the rest of the eternal Sabbath for the people of God.

In my childhood I was brought up to attend the Sunday-school of the Church of England and was taught the Catechism, and became a Teacher, Temperance advocate, Lecturer, &c. I was always taught to believe in the Ten Commandments, and heartily joined in the response after the Fourth Commandment was read, "Lord, incline our hearts to keep this law."

The first book I read upon this subject was The Hist, of the Sabbath by Rev. John T. Bay lee (Clerical Secretary to The Lord's Day Observance Society, London, 1867). This writer said that Sunday was the first day, and that the day had been changed by the apostles. However, I could not reconcile this statement with my Catechism, or with the Ten Commandments of the Prayer Book. I searched up the different Sabbatarian Societies that were established to protect the Sabbath from the secular tendencies of the age and found to my astonishment that they all took the same view as Her. J. T. Baylee, i. e., The Sabbath Observance Society of Scotland, The Working- Men's Lord's Day Rest Association, The Sunday Rest Society, Ice, Jcc.

I received a tract written by the Rev. W. M. Jones, pastor of the Seventh-Day Baptist Church (Feb. 20th, 1879) and immediately put myself in eommunication with the author. But the literature I received from him did not settle the question in favor of the Saturday-Sabbath. All the Biblical encyclopedias stated that our Sabbath was the first day, and all eur Sabbath literature simply reechoed the same sentiments. I ©btained a pass to enter the Library of the Bri ish Museum to settle the point in dispute for myself, for I could not believe that the compilers ef our Catechism could be guilty of practicing such a pious fraud, i. e., that we were to keep Sunday the seventh day, in obedience to the command of God.

I left England for British Columbia in April, 1888, where I met the Seventh-Day Adventr&ta and obtained Andrew's History of the Sabbath. I left Victoria for San Francisco and found the Adventists very strong in Oakland. They were in conference, which lasted for several days. I wrote the following letter to the local press: "CHALLENGE FOR ELDER JONES.— declaration that the

ADVENTISTS WORSHIP ON THE WRONG DAY OP THE WEEK.

Editor Tribune: There is a widespread belief that Sunday is the first day of the week. The Seventh- Day Adventists would have us change our day of rest and keep Saturday instead of Sunday.

When I was a reader in the British Museum I read everything that would throw any light on the subject of the order of the days of the week. As a result of my researches I found abundant proof that Sunday is the seventh day, the identical Sabbath of Christ and his apostles.

A few years ago when in Victoria, British Columbia, the good Catholic Bishop Lemens allowed me the use of the Palace Library, where I found two editions of the Fathers, and my researches there Vad me to the same result. I came to San Francisco in 1894, and since that date I have searched the libraries there. Mr. Sutro, when Mayor of the city, granted me the use of his library, but since his decease the library has been closed against me and everybody else. The result of my researches in Mr. Sutro's library was the lame as that secured elsewhere. Since Mr. Sutro's death I have made use of the public libraries here. The San Francisco law library stands as a class library at the head of the list; and there I found all the ancient Roman laws relating to Sunday, Sabbath and Lord's in Corpus Juris Romani Ante Justiniani, the words, Sabbath, Sunday and Lord's day being used interchangeably.

In the text-book, Andrew's History of the Sabbath, of the Seventh-Day Adventists, where the author has correctly cited an original writer and dates, Sunday is the seventh day in every case.

The Jews kept Sunday as the Seventh day and called it the Sabbath down to the thirteenth century. Their present custom of keeping Saturday is but a modern innovation, as the voice of history fully proves.

If the Seventh-Day Adventists would like this question fully examined, I shall be pleased to meet Mr. Jones, the president of the Seventh-Day Adventist Association, in public discussion. Awaiting a reply, I am, very truly yours, F. Joseph Spencer.

Old Couctv Road, Fruitvale. near San Francisco, Cal.

P. S. — Will th« Religious Press please copy?"

Tribune. Oakland Cal. U.S t A. June 12£h> 190L

No reply was ever received to this challenge. However, I addressed the ministers of the different denominations i. e., the Congregational Ministerial Club, Aug. 27, 1901; the Pre* by terian Union, March 11, 1902; the Methodist Preachers' Meeting, April 7, 1902; the Baptist Ministerial Union, May 25, 1903, of San Francisco.

CHAPTER I Saturday Not the Seventh-day Sabbath 460-500 CHAPTER XI Sunday Both First and Seventh Day 500-593

CHAPTER XII Sunday the Seventh Day 593- 100 fi

CHAPTER XIII

How the Jews, Serenth-day Baptists, and Seventh-day Adventists Came to Observe the Sixth Day as Their Sabbath 1007-1075

List of Illustrations

page

Worship of Sun-god, at Sippara, Babylon. B. C. 900 32

Carrying the Sabbath 36 Handing down the birthright Bleeping 7 *

The Eberite Sanctuary as Abram left it. The Ancestral godi

or male images and earrings buried under the oak 224

Waiting for the Shadow 393

Isis and the multitudinous blessing (four figures) 402 Stonehenge Restored

The Coronation Chair and St. Peter's Chair 422

The Phallic Stone on Tarah Hill as we saw it in 1875 429

The double headed Venus 434

The Assyrian Tree of Life 443

Cock Crowing 458

The Bronze Barque with seven heads representing the planets 462

Bronze Antique, an instrument of punishment 464

Assyrian group &>0

Lunar Runic Calander, from the Isle of Osel 907

Runic Primstaff 912

Edges of Primstaff and the first 7 letters of Runic Alphabet 913

Oval Calander 916

Ancient Sand stone Almanac found in Great Britain. 925

The Crucifixion 932

Supposed mock representation of the Crucifix 933 Sacophagus in the Lateran Museum 936

Christ standing on the Mount of Glory 93 $

The idols of the Sun and Moon 944

The idols of Tuisco, Woden, Thor 945

The idols of Friga and Seater 946

The seven gods from which the days of the week are named 949 Idols of Wooden, Thor and Frigga 950

The seven gods in the ancient Sun Sanctuary 951

Our Numerals and other curious Memorials of Antiquity 954

Constantine's Luminous Cross and St. Anthony's Encounter 959 Christ blessing the Sabbath Day 987

The Giant's Dance or Stonehenge. Wiltshire, England 989

John James on his way to Tyburn 1061

CHAPTER I.

WAS THERE A REST DAY IN EDEN?

The first mention we have of a day of rest iD the sacred page of Holy Writ is to be found in Genesis ii. 2, " And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made : and he rested (yisboth — t&fi) on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." (In the Samaritan copy of the Hebrew text and in the Syriac Version and the Septuagint it reads, M And on the sixth day God ended hii work.")

The first mention we have of the word Sabbath as a verb is in Genesis ii. 3, " And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it : because that in it he had rested (Shavath — n^ar) from all his work which God created and made " ; and as a noun in Ex. xvi. 26 — (SJiabbath—nz?).

If this record be accepted as true, it would prove that there was a sanctified rest day in Eden, and that day a Sabbath ; for it was because God rested upon this day that the Israelites were commanded to rest (vide Fourth Commandment). If, however, the truthfulness of this record be called into question, and the creative week of Genesis conclusively proved to be at variance with true science, then there was no sanctified rest day in Eden. And in that case the Exodus Code of the Ten Commandments are but of human origin, and not Divine ; for the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment entirely rests upon the assumption that the Biblical account of the creation is historically true, viz., M 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 [hashshabatli) day, and hallowed it.'

In this age of scientific research — this age of reason — men are led by science; and if there should appear any discrepancy between revelation and science, revelation must be wrong and science right.

B

2 WAS THERE A REST DAY IN EDEN i

Not only is the creative week sacrificed upon the altar of an embryo science, but the Tables of Stone upon which God wrote with His own fingers those commands which will and shall govern the human race. "When and where will these sacrifices end ? It is as clear ae noon- day that they cannot end until these scientific Vandals have searched the four corners of the earth, and have sacrificed every vestige of revelation.

Sacrifice the Sabbath and you sacrifice the Lord of the Sabbath; for if there be no Sabbath, then there is no God. The two have come down to us from the same source, viz., revelation ; reject this, and where is the evidence of the other ? Natural philosophy could not supply that evidence. Impossible ! But let us assume that it did, it would be worthless unless at the same time it clothed that Deity with the attributes of holiness and love. God could not reveal Himself, clothed with those attributes which revelation has ascribed to Him, through the vehicle of natural religion ; hence the necessity for revelation. And as far as modern science has correctly translated the natural religion, we can as yet find nothing in this translation that would lead us to infer that it was in collusion with revelation, or that revealed truth was a pious fraud. While, however, we hold these views, there are those who think otherwise, whose wish it is to destroy our Sabbatic institution, and among that number we find the greatest intellects of the past and present that the world has ever seen. The objections against a Sabbath in Eden may be classed under the following heads: —

1st. Geology disproves the Sabbatic rest in Eden.

2nd. The analogy between the seventh day and the preceding six days disproves the Sabbatic rest in Eden.

3rd. We have no precept to observe the Sabbath in Eden.

4th. That the mention of the rest in Eden w T as by anticipation.

We will notice these objections in order, and at the same time we will quote from authorities that have put their arguments in the strongest light.

1. — Geology disproves the Sabbatic Best in Eden.

On this question Mr. Robert Cox, F.S.A., Scotland, a voluminous writer upon the Sabbath question, and whose works are accepted as the text books by the advocates of the Sunday Society, writes as follows (" Sabbath Laws," p. 72) :—

" Down to the present century it was almost universally believed by Christians that the material universe was created and fashioned

WAS THERE A REST DAY IN EDEN?

into its present condition by the Deity in the space of six days, and that on the seventh He rested from His work, these facts being in their apprehension distinctly affirmed in the 1st chapter of Genesis and in the Fourth Commandment. But the discovery has lately been made that such a belief is utterly at variance with demonstrable facts; and all fit judge-, whether lay or clerical, who have studied the question under the light of modern science, have been compelled to confess, though sometimes with great reluctance, that the tenet can no longer be maintained. The doctrine in question has, therefore, now descended irretrievably from the rank of reputed God's truth to that of an exploded man's truth ; and, of course, whatever consequences were deduced from the Hebrew cosmogony when supposed to be true* must now as such consequences be abandoned. So that, whatever duty of Sabbath observance is incumbent upon men, must henceforth be defended upon other ground than those which the Jewish narrative of the creation has hitherto supplied.

" By competent judges everyone of the ingenious attempts which, have been made to reconcile the Jewish narrative with astronomy and geology is pronounced to be a deplorable failure; and it would have been strange had the fact been otherwise, in a case where the recognised principles of biblical interpretation have been so completely set at nought, and where the scientific knowledge of the reconcilers has usually been so inadequate to the task.

"Professor Hitchcock, 'Religion of Geology,' p. 440, one of the most respectable and well-informed of the writers alluded to, expresses the opinion that ' Revelation is illustrated, not opposed, by geology. Who thinks at this day of any discrepancy between astronomy and revelation, and yet two hundred years ago the evidence of such discrepancy was far more striking than any which can now be offered to show geology at variance with the Scriptures . . . Rightly understood, and fairly interpreted, there is not a single scientific truth that does not harmoniously accord with revealed as well as natural religion, and yet by superficial minds almost everyone of these principles has, at one time or another, been regarded as in collision with religion, and especially with revelalion. One after another of these discrepancies melted away before the clearer light of further examination ; and yet, up to the present day, not a few, closing their eyes against the lessons of experience, still fancy that the responses of science are not in unison with those from revelation.'

This is a fair sample of the assertions made upon the subject ; but if the 1st chapter of Genesis be, as orthodox believers regard it, a history to be interpreted as other histories are, I am at a loss to understand wherein the ' superficial min is ' have erred, either now, or in the times of Copernicus and Galileo, in doing that for which Professor Hitchcock condemns them. For if the Elebrew narrative of the cosmogony be not a mere apologce, as some of the Jewish writers and primitive fathers understood it (but as the Church of England and Scotland do not understand it), it plainly teaches what

B 2

BT DAI :

Theodore Parker says it does,

tars, and earth, end gate the lath r it- plants animals, | \ I KeOOfl pn>v« s that many thousand*, if

million^ of jrmn moot have pawned between I of the fl

plant* ami man, the crown of creation; that foe of the

to gradually received its | form; one race of plants af

..th< r iprnngnp; animal* succeeded animals, the ttmnler first, then the more OOmplez ; end at bet man. This chapter tells of an ocean of water above our heads, separated from us by a solid I ponsc, in which the greater and learnt lightl II that there

aning and morning ii a sun to cause the

differeu sen day and night; that the inn end stars w<

created after the earth for the earth*i oonvenienoe; and t

leased B •'», find rested upon tk tfa day. Here the Bible

|| at farianoe with science, which is nature stated in • age.

nun will say directly wliat the Bohoolmen said to Galileo, " It

r, If opposed to the Bible, then nature is mistaken, for the

Bibi rtainlj right." Bat the popular riew of the Bible

logically makes the assertion, Truth and the Book of G ui-

no4 be reOOncUed except on the hypothesis that the Bible means anything it can be made to mean ; but then it means nothing.' "

From this extract Mr. Robert Cox demonstrably proves to his own faction that modern science is at variance with revelation, and that the Sabbath institution, which derives its authority from that rei elation, falls to the ground. We ask, M Does Mr. Cox prove that nee and geology are opposed to each other?" Certainly not. What Mr. Robert Cox has demonstrably proved is, that his views and those of Theodore Parker, with reference to the creation are wrong. Let us examine his argument

ice proves that many thousands, if not millions, of years must have passed between the creation of the first plants and man, the crown of creation." Is revelation opposed to this? Certainly I gratuitous assumption to suppose that the creative day was a natural day of twenty-four hours. There is not an atom »f evidence in Genesis that would lead us to infer this, but just the i. verse. The duration of the creative day must be measured by the creative work done in that day. The time consumed we know not, for both science and revelation are silent upon the point, and there- D€ at variance. But then we are told "that there was ding and morning before there was a sun to cause the difference . night and day," and that "this is opposed to true science and common We emphatically deny that the sun had any-

thing to do with causing or governing the evening ai d .noming of the creative days.

WAS THERE A REST DAY IN EDEN?

If the creative day was governed by the sun, how is it we have it distinctly stated that the evening and morning was the first day, the evening and morning was the second day, the evening and morning was the third day, &c. The natural length of the day that is governed by the sun is from evening to evening, and not from evening to morning ; and if we attempt to identify these creative days with the day of the week, then those days would be days commencing with evening and ending with morning. In that case we should have space of time between each day, and not belonging to or reckoned, viz., the time from morning to evening. The fact of the creative day beginning with the evening and ending with the morning conclusively proves that the creative day cannot be identified with the natural day that is caused by the sun.

The writer of the narrative has used the word " day " very indefinitely. We find him using it to define the period of light in contradistinction to night, Gen. i. 5. (In this verse the writer has used the word twice, and in both instances it is evident that he does not refer to the natural day.) Then it is used to include both day and night, Gen. iii. 17; and also pressed into service to define those six creative periods in which the world was created, Gen. i. 5 ; and in its most comprehensive sense includes all those creative periods — '* in the day that the Lord God created the heaven and the earth," Gen. ii. 4.

Again, if we accept the theory of Mr. Robert Cox, we must assume that God did His creative work at night but slept all day. Again, the sun not appearing until the fourth day, could not in any way govern the length of the first three days of creation ; and that it did not govern the length of the other days is clear, for each creative day begins with the evening and ends with the morning.

It may be asked, why should the creative day be so defined as to commence with evening and end with morning ; for if the day be creative periods, then there would be no necessity to so define it ? To answer that we must endeavour to discover the idea that the writer intended to convey when he pressed those words into service. That he did not mean to convey the idea that the evening and morning should be understood as the evening and morning of the natural day is clear. What did he intend to convey by the word evening? We are not left in any doubt upon this, for we find that in the same narrative the word eve is used by the writer as we use it to this very •lay, as meaning the beginning— the eve of a great battle, the beginning of a great battle, the eve of a great crisis — the beginning of a

\VAS THERE A REST DAY IN EDEN?

great crisis. Thus we find that when God had created our first parents, He called their name Adam, Gen. v. 2. Adam, however, gave his wife a name, and called her " Eve, because she was the mother of all living-." Her name previous to the Fall was simply woman — womb-man, i.e., a man with a womb ; " therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh," Gen. ii. 24. Here we have the true meaning of the word " eve." The evening of the creative day simply means the " beginning "of the creative day, just as Eve was so named because she was the mother (or gave birth to) the human race. That this is the true meaning there can be no doubt, because the day upon which God rested is not so defined as commencing with the evening and ending with the morning, the obvious reason being that the seventh day was a Sabbath, and was observed as such.

Having shown that the word evening must be understood as meaning " beginning," we now pass on to the word " morning." For the true meaning of this word we admit that the writer of the narrative does not enlighten us, for the reason that he nowhere else mentions it ; therefore for a solution we must turn away from the narrative, and seek for its meaning in contemporary writings, and the only writing that has come down to us from that time is the Book of Job. In the 38th chapter, verse 4, we read, " Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth ? declare it, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest ? or who hath stretched the line upon it ? W hereupon are the foundations thereof fastened ? or who laid the corner stone thereof ; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy ? " There can be very little doubt that the whole of this chapter has reference to the building of the great pyramid by the Sethites and the sons of God (these latter had been driven out of the garden), for verse 21 clearly intimates that Job was then living : " Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?" The moment the head or top stone had been placed upon that monument, it was then the morning stars (Sethites) sang together, and the "sons of God" shouted for joy. The work was finished.

2. — The Analogy between the Sabbath Day and the preceding six disproves the Sabbatic Best.

r Mr. Cox introduces the following argument to support this view:

WAS THERE A REST DAY IN EDEN?

" If the six days of creation were not literal days, but periods, then by the same canon of analogy the seventh day ought to be a period of rest, and not a literal seventh day rest ; and in this case the seventh day Sabbath is only binding upon those who believe that the creative days are literal days, and not binding upon the geologist who believes that the days were periods."

I deny that there is any analogy between the six creative periods and the seventh day rest. They are not analagous ; the one is just the opposite to the other; the second is analagous to the first because they are both creative periods, but not so with the seventh, for the reason it is not like the preceding six creative periods, but just the reverse; therefore there can be no analogy. To insist upon the sanctified rest day as being of the same duration as the preceding work days is to insist that because a cathedral has been six years in building, the consecration service ought to last one year. The creative days commenced with the evening and ended with the morning, but it is not so with the seventh day rest ; therefore there can be no analogy, since there is no measurement of time given for the seventh day rest.

3. — We have no precept to observe the Sabbath in Eden.

This argument is urged with some force by Milton (" Treaties on Christian Doctrine," pp. 605-6.)

" It is urged, first, that G-od rested upon the seventh day. This is true, and with reason, inasmuch as He had finished a great work — the creation of heaven and earth. If, then, we are bound to imitate Him in rest without any command to that effect, we are equally bound to imitate His work according to the fable of Promethus of old, for rest implies previous labour. They enjoin that God hallowed that day ; doubtless He hallowed it as touching Himself, for on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed, Ex. xxxi. 17, but not as touching us, unless He had added an express commandment to that effect ; for it is by the precept, and not by example even of God Himself, that we are bound."

Let us accept this argument of Milton, and apply it to the following passages where we are instructed and taught by Example and not by precept : —

Jesus Christ, in His defence to the Jews, says (John v. 17), " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." — John Milton replies, " We cannot admit your argument, Lord ; for it is by precept, and not by example even of God Himself, that we are bound."

Jesus says (Matt. v. 48;, " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." — Milton replies, " It is by precept, Lord, and not by example even of God Himself, that we are bound."

Jesus says (John xiii. 15), " I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." — Milton replies, " It is by precept, Lord, and not by example even of God Himself, that we are bound."

Peter says (1 Pet. ii. 1), " Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his step?." — Milton replies, " It is by precept, Peter, and not by example even of God Himself, that we are bound."

Paul says (Rom. xv. 5), " Be like minded after the example of Christ.'* — Milton replies, " It is by precept, Paul, and not by example even of God Himself, that we are bound."

We extract the following definition of the word Example from Cruden's Concordance : —

"Example, taken either for a type, instance, or precedent, for our admonition, that we may be cautioned against the sins which others have committed by the judgments which God inflicts upon them (1 Cor. x. 2) ; or Example is taken for a pattern for our imitation — a model for us to copy after — ' I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you' (John xiii. 5); and ' Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps ' (1 Pet. ii. 21). This is one of the means by which our Redeemer restores His people to holiness, viz., by exhibiting a complete pattern of it in His life upon earth. That example has a peculiar power above the naked precept to dispose as to the practice of holiness may appear by considering (1), That they most clearly express to us the nature of our duties in their subject and sensible effects. General precepts form abstract ideas of virtue, but as examples virtues are made visible in all their circumstances ; (2), Precepts instruct us what things are our duty, but examples assure

us that they are possible Examples, by a secret and lovely

incentive, urge us to imitation. The example of Christ is most proper to form us to holiness, it being absolutely perfect, and accommodated to our present state. The Divine Nature is the supreme rule of moral perfection, for we are commanded to be holy as God is holy."

When our blessed Redeemer introduced His policy of love in opposition to the precept of Moses, He fortified His position by taking God as His example — hence His hearers were to copy the example of God. " Ye hpve heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitef ully use you, and perse-