Pres. Fairchilds in Difficulty on the Sabbath.
By Wm. Penniman
J. H. Fairchilds, Pres. Oberlin College, in his Moral Philosophy, pages 261–4 inclusive, uses the following language in regard to the Sabbath, its change, &c. “The Sabbath, in its principle, is a law of nature; in its form, a positive institution. That positive enactment is found in the fourth commandment, ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’ The form of the precept indicates a previous establishment of the Sabbath. Of this we have the record in Genesis, which presents the institution as coeval with the creation of man; an indication that the Sabbath was for the race, and not for a particular people. A Sabbath divinely appointed was desirable to secure uniformity and to give authority.” So far he reasons like a philosopher, but when he speaks of the change, he attempts to overthrow the “uniformity” so necessary in God’s plan. He first attempts to prove that a change is desirable by the following arguments, if arguments they may be called: “If the old day were retained, the old associations would prevail. It would be difficult to turn the thought connected with the Sabbath from the old channel. A change of the Sabbath to another day, a day associated with the crowning event in the work of redemption, would serve this, and thus the Sabbath would be enriched by accumulated memories and associations. Such a change would seem desirable, if it were only allowable.” Why not let the old associations prevail? Is it not for our good to think of God’s great work in creating the heavens and the earth? Why not think of the reasons which God has given us for remembering his rest day? If the old associations are good, reasonable, and right, why should they not prevail? for if they are founded upon the truth, they “must and will prevail.” Why turn our thoughts from the old channel? The old channel is a good one, then why not sail in it instead of taking a new, which will land us on a sand bar. If, as the writer claims, the original Sabbath was a “positive enactment,” “divinely appointed,” and in its form a positive institution, why change? especially as we have no positive authority for it. So far as the associations are concerned, let them prevail, old and new, we can think of creation and redemption. Again we have a “monument” in baptism by which we can commemorate the resurrection of Christ, and thus in a degree commemorate the great work of redemption. According to Mr. F.’s own proposition, the change would not secure the “uniformity” so necessary. The change makes confusion, which is contrary to the great plan of the Creator. “If it were only allowable.” The candor of the writer in using the little word if is admirable. This shows that he is doubtful in regard to the allowableness and lawfulness of the change. No! God will not allow it. If man attempts the change, he attempts to overthrow an immutable law. But why is the change so desirable? Why desire to walk in new paths when the old are the safest and the best? “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” Jer. 6:16. So it is now. Men clamor for a change, and say as they did of old. Why is it so desirable to follow a multitude to do evil? Why so desirable to be on the popular side? Why so desirable to keep a day without one particle of authority for so doing? He next assumes that the change is made, and in proof says: “As a historical fact, the change was made early in the Christian era, and has been maintained down to the present time.” Further, “As to the authority of the change, only a word or two can be suggested here.” True, the change has been made, or attempted to be made, but he does not tell when, where, nor by whom, neither can he tell, for no man can tell of any such change by divine authority. In regard to the authority for the change he is quite candid, as he says, “Only a word or two can be suggested here.” It can be safely said that he has not room in his Moral Philosophy, nor will there be in any work he may write to give even one word of authority for the change. Again, “We find no definite, express command, changing the Sabbath, but the manner of the change harmonizes with the genius of the gospel system.” He is very truthful in the first part of the sentence and makes a very good admission, but the latter part is exceptionable. I would like to ask the learned writer a few questions: First, is it according to the genius of the gospel system to overthrow a positive “divinely appointed,” and, I might add, perpetual, enactment of the old? According to what philosophy and what genius did the Son of God overthrow the works of his Father, when he said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled? Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven.” Matt. 5:18, 19. Did not Christ in these declarations plainly recognize the law, and consequently the Sabbath therein? Finally, does not the genius of the gospel system harmonize with the infinite genius of its great Author, who kept his Father’s commands? If it be true that the manner of the change harmonizes with the genius of the gospel system, then that system must harmonize with the genius of the man of sin, of whom Daniel speaks (by inspiration), that he should think to change times and laws, Dan. 7:25, and with the genius of Constantine (a pagan emperor), who in A. D. 321 enacted the first Sunday law. This supposed change then has been made, and “The wild solar holiday of all pagan times” (as it is called in the North British Review, Vol. 18, p. 409) has been maintained down to the present time. But one more quotation: “That the ancient law of the Sabbath remains, only modified in one of its features, as a positive institution is probable, from the fact that all the reasons for the institution exist as of old. If this sentence is abridged as follows, it will be truthful. That the ancient law of the Sabbath remains as a positive institution is true from the fact that all the reasons for the institution exist as of old.” If it be true that the reasons exist (and all intelligent beings know, or ought to know, that they do), all the logical and sledge-hammer reasoning in the world cannot overthrow this proposition. This modification in one of the “features” of the Sabbath is no less than an attempted change in the law of God; and that change, to the first day of the week, overthrows the design of the Creator in the law, for the law requires not the first day, nor a day, but the seventh day. To make his proposition stronger, he puts it in Latin, “Ratione manente lex manet,” meaning, the law stands while the reason stands. The reasons for keeping the Sabbath will stand forever, for God rested on that day; and again, the prophetic finger points to its observance in the new earth, Isa. 66:23, therefore the law must stand forever, and must be as immutable as the throne of God. Wm. Penniman.
Woodburn, Ill.