Sunday-Keeping vs. Protestantism
By S. D.
From the "Sabbath Recorder." Sunday-Keeping vs. Protestantism.
To the Editors of the Sabbath Recorder:— I find the following article in the New York Chronicle, Vol. VI, No. 30. The only changes I have made in it, are to make it read Sunday-keeping instead of Infant Baptism, and omit a single paragraph on infant communion, and put one papist in the place of another. The conscientiousness of the writer, and the purity of his motives, are sufficiently apparent to be allowed by all candid readers; but I would be glad to know how he can maintain either, if when he looks again into the great mirror of truth, he looks exclusively on the anti-Protestant appearance of Infant Baptism and refuses to look on the anti-Protestant appearance of Sunday-keeping. S. D. It is truly deplorable that men, Christian men, holding the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and who, on every other point of revealed truth, are sound in the faith, should, on the subject of Sunday keeping, betray that want of judgment and logical acumen which invariably characterize their general exposition of biblical truth; men, too, who readily adopt the noble aphorism of the renowned Chillingworth, "The Bible, the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." Would that they were willing to abide by such a glorious principle, and subject their practice to this infallible test. What is its import? Does it not mean that Protestants derive their religion from the Bible alone?—that they admit nothing into their religious faith and practice, but what they find in the Bible? If this be its import, ought not those who inscribe it on their banners, to exemplify it in their practice? Ought they not to be careful that they believe nothing as a religious doctrine, and that they practice nothing as a religious rite, but what the Scriptures teach? To adopt this aphorism, and at the same time admit into their religion what is not found in the Bible, is to proclaim to the world that they are not Protestants. And yet this is done by the advocates and practicioners of Sunday-keeping. What an unspeakable relief to the laboring intellect would it be, if the Scriptures had contained but one single command, or had furnished but one single example of Sunday-keeping; but alas, they are not to be found. Persons deeply interested in the research, and ardently desirous to make the discovery, have completely failed in the attempt to find such a command. How many longing eyes have pried into the sacred history to find but one example of Sunday-keeping, yet how inexorable the sacred page! Neither diligence, nor learning, nor criticism, nor prayers, nor tears, can extort from it the confession that one Sunday was kept in the days of Jesus and his apostles. This being the case, the Protestant principle disallows its authority, and the consistent Protestant must reject it as no part of his religion. To bolster up the unscriptural practice of Sunday-keeping, its advocates are obliged to go out of the record, and have recourse to the writings of the Fathers, thus substituting the traditions of men for the commandment of God; and with an air of complacent assurance they tell us that "Sunday-keeping was practiced at a very early period of the church's history." But what avails this statement, if it be not in the Scriptures? It matters not how long the practice has prevailed, it matters not how extensively it has prevailed, it matters not if it be patronized by the great, the wise, and the good—if it be not in the Scriptures, it is not a Christian ordinance. Earthly patronage cannot make it a heavenly institution. Patronage may be a passport for error, from one generation to another, yet it does not convert error into truth, nor does it give such sanctity to error as to make it profane to touch it. It may be true that Sunday-keeping is found in the beginning of the third century, but can this add the weight of a feather to the argument for it? Certainly not, in the opinion of any consistent Protestant. If Sunday-keeping be in the Scriptures, this discovery from the writings of the Fathers is not needed; if it be not in the Scriptures, a thousand such discoveries will give it no claim to a place amongst Christian observances. In what an awkward dilemma do the advocates of Sunday-keeping place themselves in practicing that which only has tradition for its authority, by attempting to vindicate their conduct from Scripture. Thus shorn of their strength, in vain do they thunder their anathemas against the Church of Rome on account of her traditionary character, for it is well known that the Roman Catholics maintain that there is no authority in the Scriptures for Sunday-keeping. "A great papist, going to hear a discussion about Sunday-keeping, told his friend he was going to hear—MIRACLE, namely, Sunday-keeping proved from Scripture." "Happy is he who condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth." It is deeply to be regretted that so large a portion of the Protestant Church, losing sight of the fundamental principle, namely, the sole sufficiency and sole authority of the Scriptures to determine all matters of faith and practice, should be placed in the anomalous position we find them, especially in the present day, when there are evident indications of an approaching conflict between Protestantism and Popery. Does it not behoove Protestants of every class seriously to consider whether they be prepared for the encounter, and we earnestly ask, are the Protestant advocates of Sunday-keeping in a right position for the conflict? Are they prepared to prove that the Scriptures, and not tradition, the Apostles, and not the Fathers, are the only authority on which they found their practice? If they be not prepared to avow, and to prove this, will not their inconsistency enfeeble their efforts, and prove a tower of strength to their adversaries? The cause of truth and righteousness demands this at their hands. This is no controversy between sect and sect, but between truth and error—the commandments of God and the traditions of men. Look at "the truth, on this subject, with open face," without the spectacles of a system. We invite appeal "to the law and to the testimony."