The Cincinnati Daily Commercial,
By Editor
A WRITER in this paper has been distinguishing himself for some time past by his zeal for the demolition of the Sabbathic Institution. It may be that the people with whom he is associated are too scrupulously attached to the practice of devoting one day in the week to rest and religious duties, to suit his views of Christian obligations; or it may be that he discovers a strong inclination in them to return to Jewish usages and traditions. But his greatest fear seems to be that the observation of the Sabbath upon conscientious grounds will more generally obtain. On this particular point he discovers a deep and anxious solicitude. For his comfort we can assure him that conscience seems to have very little to do in this matter, so far as it relates to the regard paid to the first day of the week, commonly called the Christian Sabbath. In order to eradicate the impression that the Scriptures require the observation of the Sabbath, he has left no stone unturned, and appears to have come to the conclusion that he has put the question at rest. We have however a few words to say on the subject before we adopt the opinion that the Sabbathic Institution was never anything more than a shadow—an item of that ritual that has waxed old and vanished away. In order to sustain this theory, he has made the groundless assumption that "Jesus the Son of God when upon earth, rendered himself obnoxious to the charge of Sabbath breaking, and found it advisable to abscond from a prosecution which otherwise might have cost him his life." Such irreverent and blasphemous remarks can hardly deserve a serious rebuke. Had the writer been as industrious in gathering from the Scriptures the evidences afforded therein of the moral nature of the Sabbath, as he has been to find evidences of the abrogation of it, respect for his character for consistency, if nothing else, would have restrained him from expressing a sentiment in such close keeping with the feelings of an infidel. To charge the Son of God with Sabbath-breaking is taking sides with his accusers and murderers. Even were we to admit that the law of the Sabbath was but a ceremonial law, and obligatory upon the Jews only, and upon them only during the Mosaic dispensation, still had Jesus disregarded its claims, while he was on earth, it would have proved him an impostor. For he was made under, that is, subject to the law. He took not on him the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, and as a servant, he became subject to the law, and as he said, it became him to "fulfill all righteousness." Nor can it be properly regarded in any other light than that of the vilification of Christ's character to say as this writer has, that he treated with contempt the restraints of the ceremonial law. For according to his own admission God gave that law to the Jews, and they were bound in obedience to God, to respect and observe it. The enemies of Christ can much easier bring the charge than sustain it. It remains yet to be seen wherein Christ either violated the law of the Sabbath or treated with contempt the ceremonial law. He appealed to the Jews themselves, and asked them, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" In their estimation it was sin to violate the ceremonial law and even to eat with unwashed hands, and it would have been a triumphant vindication of their opposition to him, could they have done so. The Jews accuse him of breaking the Sabbath in restoring the crippled man to soundness on the Sabbath-day, and he asserted that it was lawful to do this good act on the Sabbath. The law of the Sabbath did not forbid either works of necessity or mercy. The commandment as given by God and written on the table of stone with his own finger, runs thus: "In six days thou shalt labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it, thou shalt not do all thy work." So that the law as it is in its original form, does not forbid such works as Jesus performed; and none but such as take part with his enemies would ever prefer this charge against him. His declaration, that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath-day was not made in order to vindicate a breach of the Sabbath on his part, or to intimate that he had relaxed, or intended to relax its claims; but rather as an assertion that he fully understood its just limits, and that he had not surpassed them. The restrictions of the Mosaic ritual relative to the Sabbath are unknown to the fourth commandment with the exception of the simple prohibition of labor. The rabbis added a long list to these restrictions. These Jesus rebuked and repudiated, while he kept the Sabbath in the true spirit of the commandment. Leaving our friend with Christ's accusers, to settle with him the matter of their joint accusation, we will next notice this sweeping clause, "Throughout the whole course of history, sacred and profane, nothing appears with more distinctness than the fact that the Sabbath began with Moses and ended with Christ." "The word Sabbath," says a modern writer, "does not occur in Genesis. The earliest intimation of a Sabbath-day is in Exodus xvi, 5." It is not material to us who this modern writer is; but we think it can be made to appear that both he and the author of the article under review have erred greatly in their assertions. That the Sabbath did not begin with Moses is evident from the fact that God instituted it at the close of his works of creation, as recorded in Genesis ii, 3. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his works which God created and made." And in Exodus xx, 11, in referring to this consecrating act, God said, "For in six days Jehovah made the heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it." Here, as we see, seventh-day, and Sabbath-day, are synonymous, and signify the same thing, and it detects a disingenuous technicality to assert that the word Sabbath does not occur in Genesis, when the thing—the Sabbath itself is so prominently mentioned. And we say further, that where it is said in Gen. ii, 2, "And he rested the seventh day from all his works," the literal reading of the Hebrew phrase, "He rested on the seventh day," is, "he Sabbatized or kept the Sabbath on the seventh day." So much for this modern writer's remark. And we have in Gen. iv, 3, 4, a plain intimation of Sabbath-keeping by the sons of Adam, Cain and Abel. We are there informed that in process of time it came to pass "that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof." In the margin of our Bible we read instead of process of time, "the end of days." A more literal rendering from the Hebrew is, "in the cutting off, or cission of days." With the fact that God35had established a cycle of seven days which constitutes a week, when the series of days is cut off, or terminated, by the Sabbath, it is quite conclusive that Cain and Abel met together at the altar to offer their sacrifices upon the Sabbath day. The reason assigned by Jehovah for the institution, [Ex. xx, 11,] shows conclusively that the Sabbath did not begin with Moses; but is as old as the creation itself. And it proves furthermore that it was not instituted as a memorial of Jewish emancipation from Egyptian bondage, nor for any other event which related to that people; as it was appointed twenty-five hundred years before they left Egypt. The reason which God assigned for its institution is, that he had rested upon it. The commandment to keep the Sabbath, begins with a charge to "REMEMBER the Sabbath-day," &c., which evidently implies their previous knowledge of it. In Exodus xvi, 28, in rebuking the people for violating the Sabbath, he said, "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" We may infer from this that this people had for a long time been in the possession of the Sabbath and other ordinances of God, traditionally if not by a written code. It is true that the Sabbath was enjoined upon the Israelites at mount Sinai; but how can this affect the antiquity or the perpetuity of it any more than it does the other precepts of the decalogue? They were all in like manner given to them, and they were no more given to other nations than was the Sabbath. And though a due observation of the Sabbath is urged upon the Hebrews in view of their deliverance from bondage, and as being a sign between God and them, this is no good reason for considering the Sabbath exclusively theirs. They, in common with all others were bound to keep the Sabbath as a memorial of the creation, for which it was especially instituted; for in this they had a common interest with all others. But they were under special obligation to keep all God's commandments on account of the special blessings and privileges bestowed upon them. And their keeping the Sabbath would be a sign, known and read by all their idolatrous neighbors, and between God and them, much the same as a due regard for the Sabbath ever has been between God and his people, by which also they have always been distinguished from infidels. And this sign would be the more significant as the Canaanites in whose land the Israelites were about to dwell, were worshipers of the sun, the principal day of whose worship was the first day of the week, or Sun's day, as it was anciently called. The writer has presented to us an array of names as collateral evidence of the truthfulness of his theory. But of what avail are all the names and men on earth in this case, if they form opinions, and make assertions contrary to the word of God? They are wrong, if not wicked. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." We could also cite names in a much greater number, and in every respect equally entitled to our confidence, whose opinions differ widely from those he has presented; but this would imply that we lack confidence in the word of God, and need the testimony of men to support it. The Apostle says, "Let God be true, and every man a liar," who disputes with him. We are forbidden to receive the testimony of an angel if he controvert the word of God.—Sab. Recorder.