The Bible Displaced by Tradition.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IN an editorial in the Christian at Work, a few weeks ago, there were some admissions in regard to the Sabbath that are too good to be passed by unnoticed. The article contrasts the former times with the present, claiming that precepts and customs that were good for people three thousand years ago are entirely out of place in this enlightened age. It deprecates the basing of moral duties to-day upon commands that were given when the world was in its infancy. Among other illustrations it uses the following:— "Even our higher moralists have made failures in this direction. Thus some plant the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] squarely on the fourth commandment, which was an explicit injunction to observe Saturday, and no other day, as 'a holy day unto the Lord.'" Very good; that is what we have stoutly maintained, notwithstanding the fact that many religious teachers have labored hard to prove that the fourth commandment enjoins the observance of Sunday, or of any day which convenience may suggest. We are glad to have this frank expression of opinion from so able and influential a journal as the Christian at Work. Not that it adds anything to our faith, or tends to confirm us in our belief. That is unwavering. When the Bible speaks as plainly on any point as it does on the observance of the seventh day of the week, we do not need anything additional. But the statement just quoted is good to place against the assertions of those who claim to keep Sunday in obedience to the fourth commandment. A house divided against itself cannot stand; and when Sunday-keepers take such diametrically opposite positions in support of their pet institution, it is a pretty good indication that the foundations of that institution are very shaky. We leave those who believe in keeping Sunday, and at the same time believe that the whole of the moral law is binding upon all men, to settle this question with the Christian at Work, while we pass on to another point, which clashes with the teachings of another class of professors. Some professed Christians claim that God has yielded to the wishes of wicked men so as to abolish his holy law, and that none of it is binding. They care not what the commandment prescribes, since they do not believe that it is in force. They claim to follow the apostles. Here is something that will be of interest to such persons:— "So some have tried to build the observance of Sunday upon apostolic command, whereas the apostles gave no command on the matter at all." Good again; we could not tell it any straighter ourself. We are glad also of this frank admission; it always does us good to find something in religious journals with which we can agree. But right here it may occur to some that the Sunday seems to be left out entirely. If not commanded in either the Old Testament or the New, where shall we find authority for its observance? The Christian at Work is equal to the occasion, and continues:— "In the meantime, the fact that Sunday observance rests upon the custom of the early church, handed down through all the centuries—and which ought to be sufficient for every Christian—is lost sight of." Where else, to be sure, should we look for authority for Sunday observance but to tradition, since the Bible is silent concerning it? We admire the honesty of those who do not attempt to make the Bible responsible for that which it condemns, but we are not satisfied with the reasons offered; for, 1. How do we know that it was the custom of the early church to observe Sunday, since the Bible is silent concerning it? There was no church before the one which was the result of the apostles' preaching; but the Bible gives us an account of that, and says nothing about Sunday observance, as the C. at W. admits; so, according to its own admission, the earliest church did not keep Sunday. 2. And further, Allowing that the early Christians did keep Sunday, where did they get their authority? Not from the commandment of God, nor from that of the apostles. They must have devised it in their own heart. But why must we follow their example? Where do we learn that they were set as examples for us? If they could do as they pleased, why may not we? Why should we follow the example of the early Christians who kept Sunday, any more than that of the earliest Christians, who kept the Sabbath of the Lord? 3. And, once more, If we are not to follow the plain teaching of the fourth commandment, why need we be so strict about obeying any of the other nine? Why may we not interpret any of them in as liberal a manner, or ignore them altogether, and do as we please in everything. If a minister of the gospel should blaspheme, or a deacon should systematically steal money from the church treasury, or a whole church should be guilty of violation of the seventh commandment, the Christian at Work would be one of the first to denounce such acts as sinful in the extreme; yet it will openly advise its readers to ignore the fourth commandment entirely. What is the reason? Why is not the fourth commandment as sacred as the third, the seventh, or the eighth? Let those answer who can. But we must notice one more admission. Here it is:—
"The truth is, so soon as we appeal to the litera scripta of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the argument." We would like to have our good Presbyterian and Methodist and Baptist friends read that sentence several times, and then ask themselves the question, Shall we accept the Bible as our rule of faith and practice, or not? The Protestant rule is, "The Bible, and the Bible alone." Shall we change this, or shall we cease to call ourselves Protestants? If we retain only so much of the Bible as suits our ideas, why keep any of it? Are the lives of mortal men to be taken as a standard by which to test the Bible, or is the Bible the rule by which men's actions are to be measured? If the latter, then it would seem absolutely necessary for us to follow the literal reading of the Scriptures. The Christian at Work is professedly a Christian paper. Its proprietors and editors profess to be Christian men. It is run in the interest of a Christian denomination. Now where do they get their Christianity? Is it from the Koran, the book of Mormon, or the daily newspaper? No, from the Bible. The Bible is the only place where Christianity is defined. Then what kind of Christianity will we have if we swing loose from that book? No Christianity at all. If we are not to take the litera scripta of the Bible in regard to the Sabbath, why should we take it in regard to the death and resurrection of Christ? May it not be that the passages that speak of those events do not mean what they say, or if they mean what they say, are of no consequence? But to claim that would be infidelity, says one. Ah! would it? Then pray tell what it is to say that the commandments of God may be set aside at pleasure? But we believe the Bible, and propose to take it just as it reads. Even the Christian at Work will hardly say that it is not safe to follow Bible teachings strictly. The Bible will not lead us astray. As long as we stick to the Bible we are on the safe side. But when we leave it, we are adrift. We do not know where to go. We do not know of any man who is not liable to sin, so we dare not follow the example of men. We dare not follow the impulses of our own heart, for "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." And besides, we read that God will bring into Judgment, those who walk in the ways of their own heart, and in the sight of their own eyes. Eccl. 11:9. And so we say again that we shall stick to the Bible, fully believing that man shall live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
E. J. W.