Review of Objections to the Seventh-day Sabbath

ANSWERS

1. In the first objection, the writer asserts that the fourth commandment of the moral law is capable of being changed. In the second, he asserts that the commandment, when thus changed, would answer the divine purpose as perfectly as though it had not been altered. The third objection contains the writer’s proof that the commandment has actually been changed. Let us candidly consider the first objection. ROSS 1.4

Whether this objection is just or not, none will deny that it rests wholly on the assertion of men. The writer - as many others have done - has here separated the fourth commandment into what he is pleased to call its moral and its positive parts. The requirement to keep a day is moral, and therefore eternal. But that part of the commandment which tells us what day it is that God would have us keep, is positive and therefore changeable. In other words, this argument may be thus stated: That part of the fourth commandment which designates the seventh day as the Sabbath has passed away and left only words enough in force, to require that some day be kept. ROSS 2.1

We now ask for the commission by which men have been authorized to cut in twain the fourth commandment. As the Scriptures do not furnish it, the answer must be that reason authorizes this act. Reason, then, is sufficient to prepare for destruction that part of the commandment which requires the observance of the hallowed Rest-day of the Creator. Let us try the same engine upon the remainder of the commandment, as follows:- ROSS 2.2

The duty to rest is no doubt a moral duty, and of an unchangeable character, but the requirement to devote a day to this “is of the nature of a positive institute capable of change” so as to require a part of each day, instead of the observance of any entire day! ROSS 2.3

If this same mode of reasoning does not as effectually destroy the remaining portion of the fourth commandment, as it does that part which it was aimed against, we certainly fail to see the difference. Indeed it shows that the one part of the commandment is equally as changeable and positive as the other. So that if it is sufficient to prepare a part of the commandment for destruction, it is of equal value to those who would destroy the remainder. When did God ever authorize men to take his commandments to pieces in such a manner? Is not this the very course which the Romish church has taken with the second and the tenth? Nay did not the Protestant church borrow this very argument from the church of Rome? Here are the words of the “mother church” on this point: ROSS 2.4

“As far as the commandment obliges us to set aside some part of our time for the worship and service of our Creator, it is an unalterable and unchangeable precept of the eternal law, in which the church cannot dispense; but forasmuch as it prescribes the seventh day in particular for this purpose, it is no more than a ceremonial precept of the old law, which obligeth not Christians. And therefore, instead of the seventh day, and other festivals appointed by the old law, the church has prescribed the Sundays and holy days to be set apart for God’s worship; and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath. Catholic Christian Instructed, page 204. ROSS 3.1

From what has been said, two important facts are made plain: 1. That this argument was invented by the church of Rome to justify the change of the Sabbath. 2. That if this argument be just, it proves conclusively that no part of the fourth commandment is moral, unless it be the requirement to rest. ROSS 3.2

This argument first cuts off from the commandment, the requirement to keep the seventh day, because that is positive and susceptible of change to another day; and it cuts off the duty of keeping any day, as such a requisition is also positive, and susceptible of being changed so as to require the observance of a part of each day. We think the fourth commandment has undergone a sufficient amputation to have nothing now left but the moral part. But what now remains? Alas, not enough to hold the form of a commandment together! In cutting off the seventh day from the fourth commandment, we cut off the term “Sabbath of the Lord,” for that term is expressly applied to the Rest-day of the Creator, the seventh day. And when this has been severed from the commandment, no man can show that the requirement to keep any day remains behind. Here is the fourth commandment with the “positive” and changeable parts taken out:- ROSS 3.3

“Remember to ... keep .. holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work: but ... of the Lord thy God: ... thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested ... wherefore the Lord blessed ... and hallowed.” ROSS 4.1

Like a building with its frame taken out, the fourth commandment is now only a mass of ruins. And even could we allow men to repair the commandment, by inserting the words, “first day of the week” where they have taken out the seventh day, it would only turn the truth of God into a lie, as the commandment would then require us to keep holy the first day of the week, because God rested upon that day from his work of Creation. Nor would there be any way to mend the matter, except to strike out the reason on which the fourth commandment is based; viz., “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it,” and to insert instead, these words: “Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week; wherefore the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath.” The fourth commandment would then read thus:- ROSS 4.2

“Remember the first day of the week to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work: but the first day of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week; wherefore the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath.” ROSS 5.1

Here is the commandment as multitudes desire to have it read. As it requires the observance of a different day from the original commandment, and for a different reason from that which is there assigned, it leaves no part of the original Sabbatic institution in existence and thus this matter ends in the total destruction of the fourth commandment. ROSS 5.2

2. Let us now examine the second objection. In this it is asserted that the first day of the week will answer the purpose of rest, worship and commemoration, equally as well as the seventh. We reply that so far as rest from toil is concerned, men may doubtless obtain this on the first day of the week; though the idea of a day of rest at the commencement of the week instead of one at its termination, is the very reverse of God’s plan, not to say of propriety also. It is only by joining the last six days of one week to the first day of the following week, that men are able to hide this absurdity. ROSS 5.3

But we deny that the worship of God can be maintained as acceptable to him in the observance of a different day from that which he ordained, as in the observance of the right one. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24. Those who make the commandments of God of none effect by their tradition, worship God in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matthew 15:3-9. That this is strictly true of Sunday-keeping, none can deny. It is a tradition of the elders that directly makes void one of the ten commandments. If God should pronounce it a vain oblation, and say in the day of judgment to its observers, “Who hath required this at your hands?” would they not be speechless? ROSS 5.4

But will not Sunday answer as a day of commemoration equally as well as the Lord’s Sabbath? We answer that the fourth commandment requires us to commemorate the rest of Jehovah from the work of creation. The seventh day - the day of his rest - is the memorial of that event. Hence the commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath-day [literally the Rest-day,] to keep it holy.” “The seventh day is the Sabbath [Rest-day] of the Lord thy God.” The first day of the week can never become the memorial of the Creator’s rest; for he began his labor on that day. It is not the memorial of Christ’s resurrection, for the Lord never set it apart for that purpose, but ordained a far more appropriate memorial of that event, viz., baptism. Romans 6:4, 5. It is not a divine memorial of any event. If any one thinks that it is, let them tell us where God has said so. ROSS 6.1

The fourth commandment presents before us an important event which God would have commemorated. It presents us also with the memorial by which he would have us commemorate that event. And it states distinctly how God made that memorial, and when. To insert Sunday in the commandment as the memorial of Christ’s resurrection, not only destroys the divine memorial there given, but also destroys, as we have seen, the reason which God assigned for giving the commandment. ROSS 6.2

3. The third objection contains the writer’s proof for First-day observance. It asserts that Christ and the apostles observed the day, and that John called it the Lord’s day. Did Christ observe the first day of the week? If he did this, when, where and how, did he do it? ROSS 6.3

The resurrection of the Saviour, it is true, occurred on this day; but this was not so remarkable an event as the sacrifice of the Lamb of God which occurred on another of the six working days. Jesus showed himself to his disciples on the day of his resurrection, and perhaps on that day the next week, though this cannot be claimed as certain. But to show that the day of his appearing was not thereby made sacred, the next time he appeared to them was a fishing-day, and the last time was on Thursday. John 21; Acts 1. This is all the evidence that can be brought to show that Christ observed Sunday! ROSS 7.1

Did the apostles observe the first day of the week? The first instance which is cited as proof, is this: The disciples sat at meat, and while thus engaged, Jesus came in and upbraided them for their unbelief respecting his resurrection. Mark 16:9-14. The next incident which is cited, was “after eight days” from the one just noticed. John 20. It is possible that this was on the first day of the week, but it is by no means certain that such was the case. But whether it was Sunday or not, nothing transpired which might not have occurred with equal propriety on any day. ROSS 7.2

Paul’s act of breaking bread on that day may also be cited. But though he broke bread on that day - just as his Master had done on another of the working days, and as the apostolic church at Jerusalem had done every day - he never dreamed that it had become the Christian Sabbath; for as soon as it was light, he started on his long journey to Jerusalem! a positive proof that he did not consider that day the Sabbath. Paul commanded the members of the Corinthian church, every one to lay by himself in store on that day for purposes of charity. But this is the very reverse of a public collection, as each must be at his own home in order to obey. ROSS 7.3

John was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, but he does not say that the Lord’s day was Sunday. The objector says that for him. The Bible many times calls the Sabbath, the Lord’s holy day. It never tells us that he has put another day in its place. It never calls Sunday the Lord’s day. Those, therefore, who affirm that the Sabbath of the Lord is not his holy day, and assert that Sunday is such, directly contradict the authority of the holy Scriptures. ROSS 7.4