p. 100 | EXTRACTS FROM MY SCRAP-BOOK

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 21, 1876

EXTRACTS FROM MY SCRAP-BOOK.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

THE REFORMERS ON THE SUNDAY QUESTION.

Protestants now generally take it for granted that the early reformers, such as Zwingle, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, etc., regarded Sunday just as Protestants do now, viz., as the Sabbath day. But this is a mistake, as a little acquaintance with their writings will show. They simply regarded it as a festival day of the church, having no higher authority than the church, a day which could be kept or set aside at pleasure.

The Confession of the Swiss churches declares that “the observance of the Lord’s day is founded, not on any commandment of God, but on the authority of the church, and that the church may alter the day at pleasure.”—Cox’s Sabbath Laws, etc., p. 287.

We further learn that “in the Augsburg Confession, which was drawn up by Melancthon [and approved by Luther], to the question, ‘What ought we to think of the Lord’s day?’ it is answered that the Lord’s day, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other such holy days, ought to be kept because they are appointed by the church, that all things may be done in order; but that the observance of them is not to be thought necessary to salvation, nor the violation of them, if it be done without offense to others, to be regarded as a sin.”—Ibid.

Zwingle declared “that it was lawful on the Lord’s day, after divine service, for any man to pursue his labors.”—Ibid.

Beza taught that “no cessation of work on the Lord’s day is required of Christians.”—Ibid.

Bucer goes further yet, “and doth not only call it a superstition, but an apostasy from Christ, to think that working on the Lord’s day, in itself considered, is a sinful thing.”—Ibid.

Cranmer, in his Catechism, published in 1548, says:—

“We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday, as the Jews do; but we observe the Sunday and certain other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we ought to obey.”—Ibid., p. 289.

Tyndale says:—

“As for the Sabbath day, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need, or may make every tenth day holy day only if we see cause why.”—Tyndale’s Answer to Moore, book i., chap. xxv.

THE WALDENSES KEPT THE SABBATH.

All are aware of the fact that the Waldenses, during the Dark Ages and the papal persecution, retained more of the pure gospel than any other people. That they kept the seventh day is plainly proved. Thus Mr. Robinson, the Baptist historian, quotes out of Greser the words of the historian, Goldastus, as follows:—

“Insabbatati [they were called] not because they were circumcised, but because they kept the Jewish Sabbath.”—Gen. Hist. Bapt. Denom., vol. ii., p. 413.

Of course the Catholics persecuted them terribly, and slandered them all they could. Of one of these popish persecutors, Allix says:—

“He lays it down also as one of their opinions, ‘that the law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that the keeping of the Sabbath, circumcision, and other legal observances, ought to take place.’”

Mr. Benedict speaks of them as follows:—

“The account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly a slanderous story forged by their enemies, and probably arose in this way: Because they observed the seventh day they were called, by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are frequently at this day.”—Gen. Hist. Bapt. Denom., vol. ii., p. 414.

The Abyssinians in Africa keep the seventh day. Some three hundred years after Christ they were separated from the Christian world and were lost sight of for about a thousand years. When they were again discovered they were found to be observing the seventh day. Thus Geddes, the historian, states their views:—

“Transubstantiation and the adoration of the consecrated bread in the sacrament were what the Abyssinians abhorred. . . . They deny purgatory, and know nothing of confirmation and extreme unction; they condemn graven images, they keep both Saturday and Sunday.”—Church Hist. Ethiop., pp. 34, 35.

The Armenians of Asia also keep the seventh day. Like the Abyssinians they were converted to the gospel very early, and then were lost sight of by the world for many centuries. When they were lately discovered they were likewise found to be Sabbath-keepers. Thus Buchanan says of them:—

“They have preserved the Bible in its purity, and their doctrines are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. Besides, they maintain the solemn observance of Christian worship throughout our empire, ON THE SEVENTH DAY, and they have as many spires pointing to heaven among the Hindoos as we ourselves.”—Buchanan’s Christian Researches in Asia, p. 159.

Another eminent author says:—

“They keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fast lawful, but on Easter even. They have solemn service on Saturdays, eat flesh, and feast it bravely like the Jews.”—Purchas’s Hist. Pilgrims, part ii., book viii., chap. vi., sect. 5.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE EARLY FATHERS.

Many seem to think that the authority of the early Christian Fathers is about equal to the Bible itself. But any one who has the slightest acquaintance with them must have a very different opinion of their authority. Mr. Dowling, in his History of Romanism, bears the following testimony:—

“There is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater surprise than the comparatively early period at which many of the corruptions of Christianity, which are embodied

in the Romish system, took their rise.”—Book ii., ch. i., sec. 1.

Neander speaks thus of the early introduction of image worship:—

“And yet, perhaps, religious images made their way from domestic life into the churches as early as the end of the third century; and the walls of the churches were painted in the same way.”—Rose’s Neander, p. 184.

“The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!” Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and that their pens were frequently employed in combatting those errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance, he asks, Is it to be found in the inspired word? Was it taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles? . . . More than this, we will add that though Cyprian, or Jerome, or Augustine, or even fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius, or Irenaeus, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural doctrines and dogmas of popery, which, however, is by no means admitted, still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ and his apostles? . . . He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same authority.”—Dowling’s Hist. Romanism, book ii., chap. i., secs. 3, 4.

“But of these, we may safely state that there is not a truth of the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish church, that may not challenge them as its abettors. In point of doctrine their authority is, with me, nothing. The WORD of God alone contains my creed. On a number of points, I can go to the Greek and Latin fathers of the church, to know what they believed, and what the people of their respective communions believed; but after all this, I must return to God’s word to know what he would have me to believe.”—A. Clarke, Com. on Prov. 8.

D. M. CANRIGHT.