p. 130 | Inconsistency by J. O. Corliss

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Feb 26, 1885

Inconsistency.

By J. O. Corliss

It seems that the new mayor of New York City is in favor of beer-selling “between services” on Sunday, when it will not interfere with religious duties. This, he thinks, is quite necessary, since there are so many who drink beer as freely as they do tea and coffee, and with as little injury. He is, however, very certain that such Sunday selling should be confined to properly licensed and orderly places. These declarations of Mayor Grace have called out considerable adverse criticism from some of the religious journals. The Christian at Work says, in referring to the matter: “If men must drink beer on Sunday, we have an idea they can buy it Saturday night and ‘drink it like tea and coffee’ on Sunday in their own lovely tenement houses. It isn’t so much for want of saloon beer-drinking on Sunday that New York is suffering as for an orderly and quiet Sabbath.”

Considering the position occupied by this journal on the authority for Sunday-keeping, we cannot see the consistency of its remarks. We quote from its issue of Jan. 8:—

“And to-day we rest the designation of Sunday on the church having ‘set it apart of its own authority.’ The seventh-day rest was commanded in the fourth commandment, as it is written in every tissue and trembling fiber of the human frame. The selection of Sunday, thus changing the particular day designated in the fourth commandment, was brought about by the gradual concurrence of the early Christian church, and on this basis and none other does the Christian sabbath, the first day of the week, rightly rest.”

Not being satisfied with so unorthodox a statement, the Examiner immediately declared itself at variance with this position; and then offered a rebutter in the old threadbare assertion that Christ himself recognized and sanctioned the change of the Sabbath after his resurrection, from the seventh to the first day of the week. A statement then followed that might be considered a reflection upon the orthodoxy of the Christian at Work. It is this: “To admit that the church of its own authority could make such a change is to admit the fundamental principle of Romanism, and to leave no logical stopping-place this side of the recognition of the infallibility of the pope.”

This is a logical conclusion, and a candid admission as well. We do not see how the Christian at Work can evade the issue. In fact it does not attempt it. It does, however, make a labored effort to cover its position by some random statements about early customs, that neither prove one thing nor the other. But one conclusive statement does occur in the rejoinder, which is damaging to the divine authority for keeping the first day: “But here let us say it would be nothing short of the marvelous and unprecedented, that Christ should have set apart Sunday as the one day for the Christian sabbath, yet with no single command, emanating from him or any of the apostles, recorded on the pages of the New Testament.” The conclusion the writer draws from his own proposition is thus set forth a little further on: “As neither Christ nor his apostles set apart one day, even Sunday, as a separate holy day, the institution of the Christian sabbath as it now exists must have come from ‘the church having set it apart of its own authority,’—an authority which is only binding as it has the support of established custom.”

These statements are as remarkable as they are true. That they are radically true, one only needs to read the Bible for himself to become perfectly satisfied. They are remarkable because they appear inconsistent when compared with a paragraph in the same column from which these extracts were taken. Speaking of the work done in furnaces on Sunday, the writer says: “There is too much Sunday work—there is no doubt about that—and the nearer we get to the Bible ideal the better shall we economize the forces of nature and conserve the interests of religion.”

But how in the name of reason can one get nearer to the “Bible ideal” by not working on Sunday, when the Bible says nothing about the Sunday being set apart for a sabbath? There is one process by which such seeming contrary positions may be harmonized, and it is the only one that presents itself. One extract above says that “the institution of the Christian sabbath as it now exists must have come from the church having set it apart of its own authority.” By placing this by the side of that which intimates that we come nearer to the Bible ideal by ceasing from labor on Sunday, one is forced to the conclusion that the writer believes in the power of the church to legislate for the Bible, and that all its decrees, of whatever nature, will be sanctioned by the Bible.

If so, then why stop half-way? Why not rather accept all the other dogmas of the same power? The same church is responsible for the doctrines of prayers for the dead, the invocation of saints, the worship of images, and various other points that the Christian at Work could hardly indorse. But one may reply, These are Catholic institutions. True, so is the Sunday rest-day. And whoever adopts the last has no good reason to reject the others from the same source. This point was clearly seen, too, by the Examiner, as is evident from its pointed summing up of the case in the few words previously referred to in this article.

It is useless to try to evade this conclusion. Either the Bible has, or it has not, set apart the first day of the week for the Sabbath. If it has not, then that day is not to be observed, and it is worse than folly to affirm that the church was entrusted to establish what the Lord of glory failed to provide, from the fact that the gospel commission grants authority to teach only that which Christ had commanded. But, on the other hand, if the first day was set apart by the Lord for the day of Christian worship, the Bible will so state it plainly. Moreover, to be valid, the precept must show that it was given before Christ died.

The blood of Christ was that which sealed the new covenant to the world, and made it effective. The new covenant was not in force at all until dedicated by the blood of the Son of God. The moment he expired the new covenant was ratified, hence could not afterwards be changed. In speaking of the work of Christ, Paul says: “For where a testament [covenant] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” Heb. 9:16, 17.

Let us examine these words in the light of established custom. A man makes his will or testament, but while he lives, he may change it if he sees fit, from the fact that it is not in force till after his death. But from the moment he dies, his testament must remain unchanged. It is his last expressed will, and he who would tamper with it, in his own or others’ behalf, is guilty of a crime, and must be punished for his temerity. Besides, in all such cases, any one who is accessory to the crime is punishable the same as the principal offender.

Is there any more propriety in attempting to change the new covenant after the death of its Author? Would it not rather be a crime as much more heinous than the altering of a human testament, as the will of the Infinite is above the human? The Saviour left the new covenant just as he wanted it. He very well knew that the church could not alter it after his death. Indeed, this is plainly set forth by the apostle. In speaking of the blessing to come on the Gentiles through Christ, he says: “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” Gal. 3:15.

Why was baptism instituted before Christ died on the cross? Then, too, why did the Saviour, the night he was betrayed, institute the communion? These are simple ordinances compared with the institution of a weekly rest-day. Why not leave such small matters to be inaugurated by the church after his decease? Simply because when he should die on the cross, his blood would then seal the new covenant to the world. It was therefore necessary that all its ordinances and institutions should be enacted before he died, that they might be sealed a part of that covenant by which he was to save the world. Any ordinance or institution enacted by the church this side of Christ’s death is but “man-made,” and therefore no part of the new covenant. After its confirmation, “no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.”

Does any one lay a claim that the Sunday was a religious institution before the cross? No, indeed. Then it is plain that it is no part of the new covenant, and they who for their benefit or convenience make it such, are guilty of tampering with the testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. And when this human institution is accepted by others, knowing that it has no authority in the Scriptures, they become accessories to a fraud, and are guilty as aiders and abettors of the crime.

But did Christ recognize a day of rest while instructing his disciples for their work under the new covenant? Most assuredly he did. We read in Luke 4:16 that it was his custom to go into the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stand up to read. When he was charged by the Jews (Matt. 12:1–5) with violating the Sabbath, he denied it, and said they had condemned the guiltless. He said also (verse 12) that it was lawful (according to law) to do well on the Sabbath day, showing that he recognized a law which regulated the Sabbath.

He said also, concerning this law: “Verily I say unto you, 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; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.” Matt. 5:18, 19. Then, according to the Saviour’s own statement, the commandments are as binding now as they were when given from Sinai. Not one jot or tittle of them is abated, and no one may break one of the least of them and be guiltless. He himself observed them, and taught his disciples to do the same. And when he delivered to them their commission to the world, he said: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”

No one is at liberty to teach what Christ has not commanded, and he who does so is performing a thankless task, for there is no promise of help toward any such effort. If the Bible points out the way to Heaven, why not adhere strictly to its teaching? If it lays down the conditions of life, we ought to follow them regardless of our convenience, if we expect to have its promises conferred upon us. J. O. Corliss.