Some One-Thousand-Dollar Reasons for Keeping Sunday.
By Editor
HAVING shown that the Sabbath was given “at the beginning of human history,” “for the whole human race, and should be observed by every human being;” having shown that the law of the Sabbath not only has never been abrogated, but that it “can never be abrogated,” Mr. Waffle proceeds thus:— “Accepting the conclusion that the Fourth Commandment is still in force, it may very properly be asked, ‘Why, then, do not Christians obey it by keeping holy the seventh day of the week, as it directs? By what right is this plain precept disregarded and the first day of the week observed?’ This question is a natural one, and unless a satisfactory answer can be given, the Christian world must stand convicted of error.”—P. 184. Here are some important acknowledgments. It is acknowledged (1) that the Fourth Commandment “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” shall be kept holy. This is important in this connection in view of the claim so often made nowadays by Sunday-keepers that the Fourth Commandment does not refer to any particular day. And (2) it is acknowledged that this “plain precept” is “disregarded” by Christians. We think he does well to state that “unless a satisfactory answer can be given” to the question as to why this is, the Christian world must stand convicted of error. We are perfectly satisfied that the Christian world must stand convicted of error on this question. And to prove that this is so, we need nothing better than Mr. Waffle’s one-thousand-dollar-prize essay; and that is the use that we propose to make of it on this occasion. The Fourth Commandment, which Mr. Waffle here admits “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” shall be kept holy, is the law of the Sabbath. Says Mr. Waffle, “The law of the Sabbath can never be abrogated.”—P. 157. Now as the law of the Sabbath directs that the seventh day of the week shall be kept holy, and as that law can never be abrogated, it is plainly proven that the “Christian world,” in disregarding “this plain precept,” must stand convicted of error. “Unless it can be shown that the law of the Sabbath, given at creation, has been repealed by a new legislative act of God, it is still binding upon all men who learn of it.”—P. 186. “Up to the time of Christ’s death no change had been made in the day.” “The authority must be sought in the words or in the example of the inspired apostles.”—P. 186. “It is generally understood that these words gave to the apostles supreme authority in legislating for the church. . . . So far as the record shows, they did not, however, give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week.”—P. 187. Now as “the law of the Sabbath” “is still binding upon all men who learn of it” “unless it has been repealed by a new legislative act of God;” as that law “directs” the observance of “the seventh day of the week;” as “up to the time of Christ’s death, no change had been made in the day;” as “the authority [for the change] must be sought in the280words or in the example of the inspired apostles” to whom, admitting Mr. Waffle's claim, was given “supreme authority in legislating for the church;” and as in the exercise of that legislative authority, “they did not give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week;” as, therefore, there has been no new legislative act of God, by Mr. Waffle's own words it stands proven to a demonstration that the law of the Sabbath which enjoins the observance of “the seventh day of the week” is still binding upon all men, and that in disregarding “this plain precept” “the Christian world must stand convicted of error.” “If the law of the Sabbath, as it appeared in the ten commandments, has been abolished, it must have been done by some decree of Jehovah. Where have we the record of any such decree? Through what prophet or apostle was it spoken? . . . We can find no words of Christ derogatory to this institution as it was originally established, or as it was intended to be observed. . . . There is nothing in the writings of the apostles which, when fairly interpreted, implies the abrogation of the Sabbath.”—Pp. 160, 165, 183. The law of the Sabbath “as it appeared in the ten commandments,” is the fourth commandment. And that commandment, by Mr. Waffle's own interpretation, “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” shall be kept holy. Now as the abolition of that commandment would require some decree of Jehovah; and as no such decree has ever been recorded, nor spoken, neither by prophet nor by apostle, the obligation of the fourth commandment still remains upon all men to keep holy “the seventh day of the week.” Therefore, in disregarding this “plain precept,” “the Christian world must stand convicted of error.” We must recur to a sentence before quoted. It is this:— “The authority [for the change from the seventh to the first day of the week] must be sought in the words or in the example of the inspired apostles.” Now with that please read this:— “A law can be repealed only by the same authority that enacted it. It certainly cannot be done away by those who are subject to it.”—P. 160. Was the law of the Sabbath enacted by the authority of the words or the example of the inspired apostles? Was it enacted by the authority of inspired men at all, be they who they might? No. The very idea is preposterous. Then it can never be repealed by the authority of inspired men, be they apostles or what not. That law was enacted by the living God in person. And it can never be repealed except by the personal act of the Lord himself. Any attempt of an inspired man to nullify any portion of the moral law would vitiate his inspiration. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isa. 8:20. This is also conveyed in Mr. Waffle's argument: “It certainly cannot be done away by those who are subject to it.” The inspired apostles were subject to the law of the Sabbath, as well as to all the rest of the law of God. And to charge to their words or to their examples, the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, is to deny their inspiration, to declare that there is no light in them, and to place them beyond the pale of being men of God. This, too, is even admitted in Mr. Waffle's argument. He says:— “There is nothing in the example of the apostles to oblige the most tender conscience to abstain from secular employment on the first day of the week, if there is no other authority for observing a weekly Sabbath.”—P. 160. Please bear in mind (1) that the aim of this one-thousand-dollar prize essay is to prove that the first day of the week is the true, genuine, and only weekly Sabbath; (2) that the author of the essay admits that the fourth commandment “directs” that “the seventh day of the week” is to be kept holy; (3) and that he likewise declares that the apostles, as supreme legislators for the church, “did not give any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week.” Then it is plain that all that remains to which he can appeal, and in fact the only thing to which he does appeal as authority for keeping the first day of the week, is the example of the apostles. Then when even this he sweeps away with the declaration that “there is nothing in the example of the apostles to oblige the most tender conscience to abstain from secular employment on the first day of the week,” his argument leaves not a vestige of authority upon which to rest the observance of the first day of the week. Thus again, he proves to a demonstration that in disregarding the “plain precept” of the fourth commandment, which “directs” the “keeping holy the seventh day of the week,” and which is “still in force,” “the Christian world must stand convicted of error.” That is exactly what we have believed for years. It is just what we are constantly endeavoring to set before the “Christian world,” as well as before the world in general. And we are thankful that the American Sunday-School Union, by its one-thousand-dollar prize, has enabled us to lay before our readers such a masterly demonstration of it. We are not prepared to say but what the Union has done a good work in awarding the one-thousand-dollar prize to the essay of Mr. A. E. Waffle, M. A., Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature, etc., etc.; for we cannot see how it would be possible to put together an argument for the first day of the week which could more positively convict the Christian world of error in disregarding the plain precept to keep the seventh day. J.