p. 563 | CLASHING VOICES by W. A. Blakely

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 15, 1887

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 13, No. 36.

“CLASHING VOICES.”

By W. A. Blakely

It is eminently proper that the National Reformers should have a department known as “Clashing Voices” in their official organ, the Christian Statesman; for they have the faculty of presenting some of the most absurd ideas, in making their voices clash with those who happen to differ with them. But this is not strange; for it seems to be impossible for the men who take the lead in this “reform” movement to keep their voices from clashing with their own statements. Sometimes they will write something that is sound and logical; then when they happen to have a different object in view, they will flatly contradict it—never seeming to realize the absurd position in which they place themselves. In the entire history of National Reform, this has seemed to be a characteristic of the movement.

The Sabbath question might be taken to illustrate. In their resolutions, memorials, to legislative bodies, and in their public writings, the Sabbath question takes a leading, if not the leading, position. Taking their authority, as they claim, from the ten commandments for the observance of Sunday, they make some excellent and incontrovertible arguments on the perpetuity of the divine law. They claim that the Sabbath of the law of God is as unchangeable as God himself. They urge in the strongest terms the importance of the fourth commandment, that is, when they are attempting to show the necessity for a Sunday law, or, as they style it, a Sabbath law. The following is from a report adopted by the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, 1887, and is quite in harmony with the teachings of the word of God:—

“The Sabbath was instituted before the rise of the Jewish nation; is coeval with man. Adam and Eve knew the Sabbath law; observed it in the garden; transmitted it to their children. The Sabbath is a permanent institution for mankind. The Sabbath law is a law of nature; therefore universal and permanent. Man must have a rest of one day in seven. This is an eternal law. As a sanitary institution, the Sabbath can be no more Jewish than Gentile, no more necessary for the days of Moses than of Gladstone. Also, the Sabbath law is a moral law; therefore universal and permanent. A moral law is unchange

able, as unchangeable as physical law, as God himself. No change of dispensation can lessen its bearings on man. Of this moral nature the Sabbath partakes; it can never die, must live throughout all the generations of mortals. This institution was loved dearly by Christ Jesus. Though he attacked most bitterly the counterfeit Sabbath of the Pharisees, he respected most highly the real Sabbath of Sinai. He spent the day chiefly in the synagogues, unfolding the Scriptures. He taught his disciples to revere the institution. See Mary Magdalene and the other women restraining their burning feelings, coming not to the Joseph tomb on the seventh day, waiting for the dawn-breaking of the first. Why? The Lord had taught them by his life, ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’”

Rev. M. A. Gault, who edits “Clashing Voices” in the Christian Statesman, was on the committee that drafted the report. But when the question arises in regard to which day is the Sabbath, he “reasons” in a manner that is extremely absurd, and directly contradicts the argument laid down above, as may be plainly seen by the following from his pen, as published in the Christian Statesman sometime since:—

“To show you why most people believe the Sabbath was changed to the first-day, we say:

“1. This change was prophesied in Eze. 43: 27.”

The absurdity of using this text as it is used by Rev. M. A. Gault (and not only by him but by many others, even in a work published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication), is apparent to anyone who will read Eze. 43: 18-27. Notwithstanding the National Reform party teaches that the Sabbath cannot be changed, they teach that the following is a prophecy of its change! “These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt-offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. . . . Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. And when these days [the seven days of sanctification] are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt-offerings upon the altar, and your peace-offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord God.” Eze. 43: 18, 27, 28.

Such proof is the best that can be obtained from the Bible; hence they use it; but that is none at all. To continue he draws a conclusion which is also entirely false. He says:

“2. In accordance with this fact [?] the first-day was kept as the Sabbath by the apostles, as is evident from the six or seven times when they met for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and other Sabbath observances.”

But the truth is that there is no record of “six or seven times when they met for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and other Sabbath observances.” Nor is there a record of the apostles themselves meeting even once for any religious purpose whatever; although Paul closed a week’s stay at Troas, with the Lord’s Supper on the evening of the first-day (Saturday evening). This meeting excepted, there is not a single instance in the New Testament of a religious meeting on the first-day of the week.

Since in the above instance the only apostle was Paul, the “six or seven times” the apostles met must be the one meeting they had on the day of his resurrection. There are three accounts of this meeting, and by some who observe Sunday it is supposed that this meeting was in honor of Christ’s resurrection, and is an example for us. The reason why they were gathered together was because they had a common dwelling-place (Acts 1:13); but that they had not met in honor of Christ’s resurrection is evident, for they did not believe that he had risen. When the two disciples returned from Emmaus and told the eleven, who were already gathered together in this “meeting,” that Christ had risen, they believed it not (Mark 16: 12, 13), though they had been told before. Mark 16: 9-13. And finally, when Christ himself appeared, one would think that they would have greeted him with joy; “but they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.” Luke 24: 37. But even if they had met for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (which they had not) that would not be, as Mr. Gault calls it, a “Sabbath observance;” for the Bible says: “As often [not specifying the day] as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.”

I quote again:—

“3. Paul says (Col. 2: 16), that we are not bound to observe any of the Jewish sabbaths; therefore the first day of the week must be binding because none of the ten commandments can ever be abrogated.”

Wonderful argument! Wonderful conclusion! But, as quoted in the beginning of this article, Mr. Gault says, “The Sabbath law . . . is as unchangeable as physical law, as God himself.” He also says “the Sabbath was instituted before the rise of the Jewish nation;” but in the argument above he places the observance of the seventh day with “the Jewish sabbaths,” and actually blots it out. For Col. 2: 16, 17, says: “Let no man therefore judge you . . . in respect . . . of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come.” But why does Paul say this? Because verse 14 says that Christ blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which enforced their observance. So if the Sabbath of the Lord was among those ceremonial sabbaths, it would be blotted out altogether, as they were, which position, I think, even the vacillating Mr. Gault would not care to take. Still he quotes verse 16 to prove that the seventh day is not binding! He continues to reason thus, but I only quote these as specimens of how their voices “clash.”

Hence in their writings they not only make their voices clash with opinions of others, but also with their own statements, and, that which is the most to their discredit, with the plain statements of the word of God. It is a shame that professors of Christianity will take the Scripture and deliberately twist some of the plainest passages, not only to their own destruction, but also to the destruction of those who have confidence in them, and reject the truth upon the strength of what “our minister says.”

W. A. BLAKELY.