The Fathers, the Fathers!
“The Sabbath Transferred.”—No. 4.
“The Fathers, the Fathers!”
Passing over the various arguments on laws of progression, geologic changes, and principles of evolution, by which Mr. Parker seeks to show that there ought to be a change in the Sabbath, and which, whatever they may be, have no more reference to the fourth precept of the law of God than to the first or fifth, we notice in conclusion chapter 4,—“Practise of Early Christians.” The author of “The Sabbath Transferred” opens this chapter by a discussion of the importance of the resurrection of Christ, and then asks:— “How natural that Christians should be given a perpetual memorial, that Christ in His resurrection should enable man to say, ‘O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?’ Should not every follower of Christ, who rejoices in His resurrection, delight also in observing the Lord’s day [by which Sunday is meant] as a memorial of His power over death, the last enemy of man?” The expected answer to this question is a hearty affirmation; but we emphatically answer, No; because (1) every true follower of Christ will follow Christ; and Christ observed no first-day Sabbath. He did observe the seventh day, appointed from the beginning. (2) No such memorial has been appointed of God, no such commanded. God requires no works of supererogation. Well may He say to those who introduce anything which He has not commanded, “Who hath required this at your hand?” Jesus commissioned His disciples to teach “all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20), but nowhere has He commanded a first-day Sabbath. He instituted, commanded, and observed the seventh-day Sabbath. The follower of Christ will walk as He walked. 1 John 2:6. But what about a memorial of His resurrection?—Simply this: God has given a memorial of Christ’s resurrection,—Christ’s power over sin and death,—in every regenerated soul. Every soul lifted above the power of sin; every transformed life, beginning at baptism, and of which baptism is a figure, is a living, perpetual witness of the power of Christ’s resurrection. But as the church lost this witnessing power, she turned to the form of a day. No self-denial was necessary to keep a day observed by all heathendom. Mr. Parker feels the force of the fact that there is no command for Sunday. He endeavors to get around it in this way:— “As the transfer of the Sabbath did not take place until the moment of the resurrection, naturally no express command would be given in regard to it by the Saviour, but it was probably included in the ‘many things’ that Christ desired to say unto His disciples, which He affirmed they could not bear at that time. The observance of the Christian Sabbath [by which is meant Sunday] by the risen Lord, and the example of inspired men in keeping this holy day, is as conclusive of the transfer of the Sabbath as if a direct command had been given. The example of inspired men in obeying the moral law is as conclusive of what they believe as the precepts which they may utter.” Upon this we may remark, (1) That the earnest Christian wants more than a human “probability” for the foundation of his practice. (2) There is absolutely no example of Christ or His apostles in regard to the observance of Sunday as a holy day. And even if there were such examples of men, their example would prove nothing. We have given us but one perfect example, Christ Jesus. (3) Yes, indeed, “the example of inspired men in obeying the MORAL ‘LAW’” is good. That is what we want; but where is the moral law, or any law of God, for the observance of Sunday? Mr. Parker finds better witnesses for Sunday among the “Fathers” in the early church. Among them he cites the partly-converted heathen, Justin Martyr; the pseudo Barnabas; “The Teaching of the ‘Apostles,’” not earlier than the third century; Tertullian, who believed in the sign of the cross, and equally absurd things; the half-converted heathen philosopher Clement; Origen, his disciple, and Eusebius, the apologist and friend of the wicked Constantine. But tho every so-called “Father” testified of Sunday sacredness, which none of them really do, their testimony would be of no authority to a Bible Christian. Martin Luther truly said: “When God’s Word is by the Fathers expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it is even like unto one that straineth milk thru a coal-sack, which must needs spoil the milk and make it black Even so, likewise, God’s Word of itself is sufficiently pure, clean, bright, and clear; but thru the doctrines, books, and writings of the Fathers, it is very surely darkened, falsified, and spoiled.”—Table Talk. Dr. Adam Clarke bravely said: “In points of doctrine their authority is with me nothing. The Word of God alone contains my creed.” And again: “He who honors them [the Fathers] best, knows that on many of those subjects [doctrines of the Gospel] they blow both hot and cold.” Martin Luther and Adam Clarke did not see the light on the Sabbath, but they saw the principle. The Word of God alone is sufficient. Testimony one decade this side of Inspiration is not to be believed unless in harmony with the Word, and then we rely only on the Word. Apostasy is of rapid growth. In less than forty days from the time that all Israel solemnly promised obedience to God at Mount Sinai, they were worshiping the sun-god Apis of Egypt. See Ex. 32. Within three years after the United States solemnly promised Cuba an independent government on American principles, it is refused. The apostle Paul tells us that the mystery of iniquity did already work in his day, waiting only till Christ was rejected, when it would burst forth into life and power. 2 Thess. 2:3–7; Acts 20:28–30. Evidence of this was manifest among the Galatians. When they turned from Christ, they went back to heathenism, the observance of days and times, among which was “the wild solar holiday,” Sunday, observed by nearly all the pagan nations. See Gal. 4:8–11. And now men look to the apostasy instead of to the Word; to the example of the heathen, instead of to Christ Jesus; to the traditions of an apostate church, instead of to that law magnified and honored by Jesus Christ. We have read Mr. Parker’s book. We have noticed his main arguments. To the man who wants an excuse for disobedience, this book will furnish an occasion. But to the soul who desires to build at any sacrifice on the true foundation, it will have no weight. Its arguments are self-devouring. It is a pity to see good talent and paper wasted in the attempt to overthrow the truth and example of all Biblical time. Reader, take the Word.