The following is the second section of a chapter Archibald Alexander wrote on the Lord’s Day.

“The decisive argument for the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath is the fourth commandment. The ten commandments, as being of a moral nature, and therefore always binding, were promulgated in a very different manner from the other institutions of Moses. They were first uttered in a voice of thunder, from the midst of the fire on Sinai, and were then inscribed by the finger of God on two tables of hewn stone. Now, it is admitted, that all the other precepts of the Decalogue are moral; and would it not be an unaccountable thing that a ceremonial, temporary commandment should be inserted in the midst of these moral precepts? This is the law which Christ says he came not to destroy, but to fulfill. None of these commandments have been abrogated; and therefore the fourth, as well as the others, remains in full force. And it is remarkable that the prophets, in denouncing the sins of the people, always mention the violation of the Sabbath in the same catalogue with the transgression of moral precepts.

It may seem to cursory readers of the New Testament, that our Lord abrogated the Sabbath, and in his own conduct disregarded it. But this is far from being a correct view of the fact. The Pharisees insisted on such a rigid observation of the day of rest, as to prohibit works of real necessity and mercy. This superstitious and over-scrupulous opinion, our Saviour denounced, and showed, that healing the sick, and satisfying the cravings of hunger, were things lawful to be done on the Sabbath. And what renders it certain that this is the correct view of the matter is, that our Lord justifies his conduct by the practice of the saints in ancient times, when the Sabbath was in full force by the acknowledgment of all, and by the provisions of the Levitical law itself, which required the priests to perform double labour on the Sabbath. And he, moreover, showed, that the accusation against him, for a violation of the Sabbath, was hypocritical; because, the very persons who made it, would pull an ox or sheep out of a pit into which it had fallen, on the Sabbath day; and also, because they thought it no violation of the sacredness of the Sabbath, to lead an ox or ass to watering, though they objected to the disciples satisfying their hunger on that day.

One of his expressions has evidently been misunderstood, by some interpreters. It is where he says, that “the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” They have interpreted this to mean, that Christ claimed the right to do those things on the Sabbath, which would be unlawful to others on that day. But this cannot be the meaning; for Christ was made under the law, and had bound himself to obey it. He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. A breach of the fourth commandment would have been sin in him, as much as in any other. I take the meaning to be, that as he appointed the Sabbath, so he best knew how to interpret his own law.

There is a text in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which has been supposed to teach that it is a matter of indifference whether we observe the Sabbath or not. — “One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be full persuaded in his own mind.” But evidently, the question here discussed relates to the ceremonial law. It relates not to the Sabbath; which, as we have seen, was no part of the ceremonial law, but belonged to the moral code. The ceremonial law was virtually abrogated by the death of Christ; but all Christians were not yet enlightened to understand their Christian liberty; and such were indulged in their continued observance of these rites. The apostle is treating here of meats and drinks and festival days, the binding obligation of which had ceased.

But in the epistle to the Colossians, Paul says, “Let no man, therefore, judge you, in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or the Sabbath days.” Here, again, the ceremonial law is obviously the subject of discourse. He is speaking of “meats,” “drinks,” “new moons,” and “Sabbath days.” And the word Sabbath relates to the numerous Sabbaths of the ceremonial law, distinct from the weekly Sabbath. Whenever a festival of the law continued eight days, the first and the last were always kept as Sabbaths. Or the reference might be to the sabbatical year, for the word days is not in the original.

But on supposition that the weekly Sabbath was intended, the meaning might be that the Jewish Sabbath, namely, the seventh day of the week, was no longer obligatory on Christians, since they had, by divine direction, adopted the first day for their day of sacred rest and of holding public assemblies for the worship of God. This leads to the inquiry, what evidence have we that such a change was ever made by divine authority? The uniform practice of Christians, to meet on the first day of the week, from the very time of Christ’s resurrection, is strong evidence that this change was introduced by Christ and the apostles. It was suitable, that as the worship of God by his people, would principally respect to the work of redemption, it should be celebrated on that day on which it was made manifest that this glorious work was completed. Accordingly, Christ having risen from the dead always met his disciples on this day. And afterwards, the apostles and the churches were accustomed to come together on this day, “to break bread,” that is to celebrate the Lord’s supper. And when the apostle wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, it was already established as a custom, not only in the church of Corinth, but in the churches of Macedonia and Galatia, that their contributions for the poor, should be collected on this day. From the apostolical practice, we rightly infer the divine authority for this change. So generally was the first day of the week observed, in commemoration of Christ’s resurrection, and for the celebration of religious worship, that in the times of the apostles, it had obtained the significant denomination of the Lord’s Day.

Unless we had a particular day set apart, by divine authority for the worship of God, this important duty could never be performed in an edifying manner; and public worship would, for the most part, fall into disuse. And if a certain day should be agreed upon by the church, or by the civil government, it would want that authority and sanctity which are necessary to its general observance. As it is, we find how difficult it is to get men to cease from their earthly cares and pursuits on this day. It was, therefore, wisely placed among the most binding precepts of the moral law.

Part Two of Three

G.M.

Part One

I have for some time now been posting Archibald Alexander’s ‘Counsels to the Young’ and felt that more by that excellent author would not be inappropriate. It is particularly important that the views of old American Presbyterians like Archibald Alexander on the Lord’s Day are heard by modern American Presbyterians. You will find the following in A Brief Compend of Bible Truth which I think has been recently republished.

”Reason teaches that there is a God, and that he ought to be worshipped. Had man remained in his primeval state of integrity, social worship would have been an incumbent duty. But it is evident that continual worship, whatever may be the fact in heaven, would not have been required of him while on the earth. We know, from express revelation, that it was appointed unto him to keep the garden of Eden, and dress it; and this would have required much attention, and vigorous exertion. He was also constituted lord of the inferior animals; and the exercise of this dominion would of necessity occupy a portion of his time and attention. In order to perform the primary duty of worshipping his Creator in that manner which was becoming and proper, he must have had some portion of his time appropriated to that service.

The worship due to the great Creator requires time for the contemplation of his attributes, as revealed in his glorious works. It requires time, also, to recollect all the manifestations of his wisdom and goodness in the dispensations of his Providence, and to give vocal expression to feelings of gratitude for the benefits received, and the happiness bestowed. No doubt, devotional feelings were habitual in the hearts of our first parents. No doubt, they sent up, more formally, their morning and evening prayers; but more time is needed to draw off the thoughts from visible things, and to concentrate them on the great invisible Giver of existence. Short snatches of time are not sufficient to perform this noblest of all duties in a proper manner. A whole day, at certain periods, was needed, so that there might be time for the contemplation of divine things, and for the full and free exercises of devotion. And as man is a social being, and so constituted, that by uniting with others who have the same views and feelings, his own through sympathy are rendered more animating and pleasing, it is evident that it was intended that mankind should worship and praise God in a general and public, as well as in an individual and private capacity. What proportion of time should be consecrated to this service, the reason of man could not have determined. If it had been left free by the law of God, the obligation to set apart the due proportion of time would not have been so binding and sacred, as if the Almighty Creator should designate the day which should be employed in his service. And behold the amazing condescension of God! With some view to this very thing, He was pleased to perform the work of creation in six days, and to rest on the seventh; thus setting an example to his creature man; for He not only rested on the seventh day, but sanctified it; that is, set it apart to a holy use — to be employed, not in bodily labour or converse with the world, but in the contemplation of the works and attributes of God, and in holding delightful communion with his Maker. God could have commanded the world into existence, with all its species of living creatures, in a single moment; but for man’s sake, he created the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, the light, and the air, and vegetables, and animals, in six successive days, and then ceased to work; not that the Almighty could be weary and need rest; but for the purpose of teaching man that whilst he might lawfully spend six days in worldly employments, he must rest on the seventh day. This day, from the beginning, was a holy day.

It is wonderful to find learned commentators trying to prove that no day was sanctified at the beginning; but that Moses mentions it in his history of the creation, by way of anticipation. But this is an unnatural and forced construction. When the fourth commandment was proclaimed from Sinai, and written by the finger of God on one of the stone tables, the reason given for sanctifying the Sabbath day is, that “in six days God made the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” When the Sabbath is first mentioned by Moses, after the exodus, there is no appearance of its being a new institution; but it is referred to as a day accustomed to be observed; or, at least, as one on which it was not lawful to perform the common labours of the week. The mention of it occurs in the account of the descent of the manna. It is said, on the sixth day, they gathered twice as much as on other days. “And he said unto them, this is that which the Lord hath said, tomorrow is the rest of the Sabbath; bake that which ye will bake today, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over, lay up for you, to be kept until the morrow. And Moses said, Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath unto the Lord. And so the people rested on the seventh day.” Exod. 16:23. Evidently, this was no part of the ceremonial law, which was not yet given. It seems clear, that the reference is to a day of rest, of which the people had some knowledge.”

Part One of Three

G.M.