A BAPTIST ARGUMENT by M. C. W.

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 18, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 44.

A BAPTIST ARGUMENT.

By M. C. W.

IN the Herald of Truth of October 16 the Rev. Eli Reese has an article on the Saturday Sabbath, containing nothing new, one or two points of which we wish to notice for the benefit of our Baptist readers. Mr. Reese says:—

"To keep this [the seventh day] according to the commandments, as thus saith the Lord, involves the following: 1st, Labor was forbidden, and the perpetrators of such subjected to the death penalty, 'Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath, he shall surely be put to death,' Ex. 31:15. We have an instance of this in Num. 15:32-36."

We cannot understand how intelligent men can so pervert the word of truth. The Sabbath law is not found in the texts above cited, but in Ex. 20:8-11. Neither was labor for God forbidden under the Jewish dispensation. See Num. 28:9, 10. It was lawful (or in harmony with the Sabbath law) to do works of necessity and mercy on that day. Matt. 12:1-12. This is the interpretation of the Sabbath law by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Willful infractions of the Sabbath law were, it is true, under the Jewish theocracy, punishable with death. So also was transgression of the first three commandments, and the sixth and the seventh. In order to observe those moral precepts now, is it necessary to connect with them the various laws peculiar to the Jews? And if it is necessary as regards the Sabbath, it is just as necessary as regards every other precept of the decalogue. It is to this extreme that Mr. Reese's logic drives him.

He then tries to bring in the Rabbinical tradition of what constituted a Sabbath-day's journey as a part of the Sabbath law. He must know that it is not; and his article is an insult to his readers to suppose that they are ignorant of the facts of Scripture on the matter. His reference to Pentecost (Acts 2:1) we have before noticed. That it occurred on Sunday, Mr. Reese doubtless believes, but his opinion is only an opinion. Equally learned first-day men place it on the Sabbath, or Saturday. Whichever day it occurred on has no bearing whatever on the day of the week. If it had been a weekly day which God designed to honor by the outpouring of his Spirit he would have said so, and would not have left us to the prejudiced opinions of fallible mortals.

Later on in his article Mr. Reese refers to the claim that the laws peculiar to the Jews are done away, and says:—

"Here I may be told that the points mentioned and others have been done away, as having served their purpose. This I most heartily believe. A Sabbath-day consists of such Sabbath elements as God has placed in it, or what he has commanded in reference to it. If these are taken out or away from Saturday, it is then reduced to its time element, and cannot essentially differ from other days."

But the elements on which the seventh-day Sabbath was based still exist unchanged. The offerings made on that day in the Jewish age Mr. Reese knows had nothing whatever to do with the original Sabbath law. That law was given before an offering was needed, and it would have been of binding obligation on all men if man had not sinned, and offerings necessitated. These offerings had nothing to do with the Sabbath law. But as the elements and essentials of the Sabbath exist now as fully as they did at creation and Sinai, the seventh-day Sabbath is as obligatory now as then.

"The New Testament contains no command to keep Saturday, because it was then about to disappear as the Sabbath. And the fact that a great religious crisis was at hand would have necessitated such, if it was to be continued. The Saturday Sabbath is directly dependent on these commands; Sunday is not, because she has that which supersedes such, and gives her sabbath visibility. When a thing is placed out in very clear light, and you can see what it is, you do not need a command to make it any more perfect."

We simply reply that the New Testament contains no command against the worship of images, or taking the name of God in vain. A law is in force till it is repealed or abrogated; but not one jot or tittle of the moral law was done away. Jesus expressly says that he came not to change the law, and that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail. Matt. 5:17-20; Luke 16:17. True, Sunday is not dependent on God's commands. It has no connection with them; it cannot be made to have. It rests on the tradition of an apostate church, and all the Scripture proof which can be adduced in its favor adds not one scintilla of evidence to its claims. Can the resurrection of Christ be seen more than his acts as Creator? All that Sunday has is the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church; but does this, in the minds of Baptists, supersede God's commands?

The closing words of Mr. Reese we suppose contain his climax of argument. We give them for the benefit of our readers:—

"Saturday is a cold day compared with Sunday as a sabbath. It is noticed that Saturday observers nearly always prefer Sunday for the dedication of churches, baptizing, etc., as if conscious of the weakness of Saturday."

And we might reply that as people have more leisure on Sunday, they can get larger audiences; and that immersion is a pretty cold ceremony compared with sprinkling as an ordinance; but these remarks are not necessary. Indeed, Baptists are "hard up" for proof if they are forced to accept Mr. Reese's arguments as such. The word of the Lord must indeed be precious to them in these days. We do not, however, believe that all Baptists will be satisfied with man-made institutions, or with that tradition against which they have always had so much to say.