THE DUNKARDS ON THE SABBATH.
By Wm. Penniman
“The Sabbath of the Lord not in force. The gospel perfect, the law imperfect. The gospel the Christian’s only rule of faith.” Such is a part of the title-page of a small pamphlet published by the Dunkards. If the Sabbath of the Lord is not in force, what one is? It must be the Sabbath of man or of the adversary that is in force; but the writer means, no doubt, the old so-called “Jewish Sabbath.” What can be more false than to plainly contradict God’s word in pronouncing the law imperfect, when it is plainly said (Ps. 19:7), “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Hear then the conclusion of the whole matter: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Eccl. 12:13. If the keeping of God’s commandments is the whole duty of man, then certainly it must be a perfect law which enforces these commandments. Again, the commandments of this law “stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.” Ps. 111:8. A law, then, that is as enduring as the throne of God must be a perfect law. No doubt some in the Psalmist’s day pronounced the law imperfect, for he says, “It is time for thee, Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law.” Ps. 119:126. There are many now who are trying to make void the law by calling it imperfect, and they try to do this through the faith of the gospel which confirms it. Hear Paul (Rom. 3:31): “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law [through faith].” The plain sense of this text seems to be that the law is established through the faith of the gospel instead of being done away or made imperfect by it. But why multiply proof to prove that which is so evident? The position that what they call the gospel is the Christian’s only rule of faith is very absurd. “Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. Christ came to magnify the law and make it honorable. Isa. 42:21. The teachings of Christ prove this, as he said, “One jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matt. 5:18. That “fulfill” means to carry out or obey. Christ further teaches, in enjoining the precepts of this law (Matt. 5:19), “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments [of this law], and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Certainly, then, the Sabbath, in the center of the law, is not the least, and even if it is the least it should not be broken. Abundance of evidence can be given on this point, but this is sufficient. To prove the gospel perfect, and that the “Jewish Sabbath” is done away, the writer quotes Col. 2:13, 14, but this text only refers to feast days, as Barnes and all good commentators testify. He next apparently introduces a new phase of argumentation by a series of questions on the law, as follows: “We now come to those parts of the first covenant that were transferred into the gospel entire, or else in a changed condition,”—the fifth commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” and the sixth, “Thou shalt not kill,”—and asks: “Was ‘Thou shalt not kill’ a part of the law?—It was. Is ‘Thou shalt not kill’ one of the conditions of the gospel?—Certainly. Why was this put584in the gospel?—Because God and our Saviour want it in. It was not put in the gospel to look at, but for the whole world to believe and obey.” “Was the commandment, ‘Remember the Sabbath day,’ put in the gospel or in Christ’s sermon on the mount?—It was not. Why was it not put there?—Because God and our Saviour did not want it there.” This catechism certainly throws the Westminster in the shade. We will ask this catechiser one question, Can he cite one text of Scripture anywhere in the gospel, or in the Bible, in proof that the first day of the week is the Sabbath, or that the Sabbath has been rightly changed to it? Since Christ did not mention the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” is it any proof that this commandment is not in force? And as he did not mention the second, is it any proof that it is now done away, and that it is now right to make graven images, and fall down and worship them? We would like to know what kind of a transposition a commandment has to undergo to be admitted into the gospel entire. He does not attempt to mention a change in any one of them except the Sabbath. It is to get rid of the Sabbath that all of this warfare against the law is waged. It is not enough to have the example of Christ, the disciples and apostles, for keeping the Sabbath, but this people must have a positive commandment in the gospel for it. But there is a positive commandment for it in the gospel, as can be shown by the following text (we will read it to favor the first day, supposing that the disciples visited the sepulcher on the Sabbath): “And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the first day according to the commandment.” Luke 23:55, 56. How jubilant Sunday keepers would be over this text if it read in this way! Certainly they would call this a law for Sunday keeping, and would want no better proof for its observance. In another pamphlet of 64 pages, entitled “The Law and Sabbath; the Gospel and Lord’s Day,” by E. Hopkins, a Dunkard, we find he says, “The fourth commandment is not a moral precept.” This is another false and untenable proposition, and contradicts all good writers on moral philosophy. God said, “Remember the Sabbath day,” but forgetful man says, “You need not remember it, for it is not a moral precept.” Yet this same author no doubt will admit that the law against stealing is a moral precept. But some are so willfully blind that they pretend not to see that it is just as immoral to steal from God as from man, for the seventh day, or Sabbath, is his. Ex. 20:8-11.