Protestantism at the Parting of the Ways
By Sanford B. Horton
Writing the Reformation's Last Chapter
DR. SCHAFF, in his "German Reformation," volume 1, pages 7, 8, has very aptly said, "The Reformation of the sixteenth century is not a finale, but a movement still in progress." The Reformers were divided into two schools, one of which held that it was necessary to return to the Bible for all gospel teaching, and accept no doctrine based upon the tradition of the church. These were called "radicals." The other, still under the mysterious influence of Romanism, maintained a conservative position. Among the radicals was Carlstadt, who, while the colleague of Luther in the controversy with Dr. Eck, differed in several fundamentals with the Wittenberg monk. Carlstadt, according to Dr. Sears Barnas, in his "Life of Luther," "held to the divine authority of the Sabbath from the Old Testament," on the ground that "we should not, in things pertaining to God, regard what the multitude say or think, but look simply to the word of God;" and in regard to traditional doctrine, that "it is sufficiently against the Scriptures if you find no ground for it in them." But Carlstadt was not alone in maintaining that the seventh-day Sabbath was still binding upon Christians and should be kept by the adherents of the reform movement. A. Ross, in "Abbildung d. Relig. in Europa, 1665," page 440, enumerating the different churches of the sixteenth century, has the following: "8. Sabbatarians, so called because they reject the observance of the Lord's day as not commanded in Scripture; they consider the Sabbath alone to be holy, as God rested on that day and commanded to keep it holy and to rest on it." John Frith, an English Reformer burned at the stake July 4, 1533, held to the Sabbath truth by the following positive statement: "The Jews have the word of God for their Saturday, sith [since] it is the seventh day, and they were commanded to keep the seventh day solemn. And we have not the word of God for us, but rather against us; for we keep not the seventh day, as the Jews do, but the first, which is not commanded by God's law."—"Frith's Works," page 69. THE spirit of antinomianism operated against a recognition of the obligation of the Sabbath commandment; and attempts were constantly made, by fines, imprisonments, and even death itself, to discourage the true Sabbath propaganda. But these attempts were not effective. Very much more might be said on the subject of the Sabbath question in the time of the Reformation; and if the reader is interested to inform himself from an exhaustive treatise on the subject, I would recommend the securing of a copy of "History of the Sabbath," by J. N. Andrews and L. R. Conradi. The true Sabbath has been observed from the apostolic days to the present time; but God purposed, we believe, to reserve for this time a more extensive Sabbath movement than was evidently possible in the time of the Reformation. This phase of the subject will be considered in another article. With the open Bible now in our hands for over a century, students of the Sabbath question are compelled to admit the permanency of the seventh-day Sabbath. And in the light of history, Sunday observance is clearly discerned to be but a human ordinance, without divine authority. We ask the reader to examine the following admissions, and determine his Christian duty as to Sabbath observance: "The Bible is the word of God in the fullest sense; but it was never intended that we should learn our faith and practice from it. . . . The Bible nowhere commands us to make any change in our holy day. Any man who gets his faith and practice from the Bible is bound, at whatever inconvenience, to observe Saturday as the Sabbath."—The Rev. E. A. Wasson, in Church Standard, August 31, 1895. "There are some points of great difficulty respecting the fourth commandment. . . . In the first place, we are commanded to keep holy the seventh day; but yet we do not think it necessary to keep the seventh day holy; for the seventh day is Saturday. It may be said that we keep the first day instead; but surely this is not the same thing; the first day cannot be the seventh day; and where are we told in Scripture that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day. . . . Another difficulty on this subject: We Christians, in considering each of the Ten Commandments, turn to what our Lord says in explanation of them. . . . 'Not one jot or tittle' of the law shall fail; that He has come 'not to destroy but to fulfill' the law; and then He shows in the instance of the sixth, seventh, and third commandment, how He will require them to be fulfilled by Christians, not in the letter only, but in the spirit, and the heart, and thought."—"The Church Catechism," volume 1, pages 334, 335, by the Rev. Isaac Williams; James Pott & Co., 12 Astor Place, New York. Not Based on Divine Appointment
THE above extracts are from Protestant Episcopal sources of recognized standard. The Baptist brethren furnish admissions also. Roger Williams, writing from Rhode Island to friends in England in 1671, said, "You know yourselves do not keep the Sabbath, that is, the seventh day." Previous to this, he had come in contact with the civil authorities in Massachusetts Bay Colony because he held that the magistrate might not punish for nonobservance of Sunday laws, and he was in consequence driven away from civilization, to make his home with the Indians in Rhode Island. Said Dr. E. F. Hiscox, author of "The Baptist Manual," before a meeting of ministers in New York in 1893: "There was and is a commandment to 'keep holy the Sabbath day,' but that Sabbath was not Sunday. It will, however, be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week. . . . Where can the record of such transaction be found? Not in the New Testament — absolutely not." IN a controversy between the Presbyterians and the Episcopalians in the sixteenth century, over the question of festivals ordained by the church, the Presbyterians rejected the authority of the church. This controversy is related by the distinguished theologian Hengstenberg as follows: "The opinion that the Sabbath was transferred to the Sunday was first broached in its perfect form, and with all its consequences, in the controversy which was carried on in England between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The Presbyterians, who carried to extremes the principle that every institution of the church must have its foundation in the Scriptures, and would not allow that God had given, in this respect, greater liberty to the church of the New Testament, which His Spirit had brought to maturity, than that of the Old, charged the Episcopalians with popish leaven, and superstition, and subjection to the ordinances of men, because they retained the Christian feasts. The Episcopalians, on the other hand, as a proof that greater liberty was granted to the New Testament church in such matters as these, appealed to the fact that even the observance of the Sunday was only an arrangement of the church. The Presbyterians were now in a position which compelled them either to give up the observance of the Sunday, or to maintain that a divine appointment from God separated it from the other festivals." We would not weary the reader by adding the many more testimonies available upon8this important Sabbath controversy. But in the admissions quoted, is there not a clear confession that the present-day Protestant churches are out of harmony not only with the Bible but with their articles of faith, which say, "The Bible and the Bible only is the religion of Protestants"? As Dr. Hiscox, already quoted, said in the meeting mentioned, "I wish to say that this Sabbath question, in this aspect of it, is, in my judgment, the gravest and most perplexing question connected with Christian institutions which at present claims attention from Christian people." In our judgment, there is but one of two things to do — either proceed with the work of the Reformation by returning to the Bible for all doctrines, including Sabbath observance, or return to Rome, who not only repudiates the Bible as the teacher, but is the mother of the Sunday-sabbath institution. There is not, nor can there be, any middle ground. Either the Reformation principle and movement were right, or they were wrong. If right, they must be maintained until the last chapter of the great Reformation is written.