LINE UPON LINE by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 27, 1855

LINE UPON LINE.

By Editor

WE do not deem that we are giving undue prominence to the Sabbath question by repeatedly calling attention to this subject and pointing out the numerous evasions by which men, who have "sought out many inventions," seek to avoid or pervert the claims of the Sabbath precept. A subject of the first importance, involving as it does one of God's positive precepts to men, and the duty of men to God, cannot be too often urged upon the mind, nor too thoroughly discussed; nor can the puerile attempts to set aside the obvious claims of the fourth commandment be too plainly denounced. The Advent Herald has of late become quite prolific in these attempts; consequently we find quoted into its columns of Dec. 15th, an article from the "Pres. Banner and Advocate" on "The Fathers and Reformers on the Sabbath," which like all other articles endeavoring to establish a "Christian Sabbath," on the first day of the week from the testimony of the fathers contrary to the plain teaching of the word of God, is eminent only for its weakness.

We will not stop to examine minutely the article before us, but only mention some of its characteristics.

It commences with this inquiry: "Is the fourth commandment binding upon Christians?" and yet it says not a word about the claims, the institution, or perpetuity of that commandment, and quotes not a text of scripture, which has any relation to the Sabbath institution.

It is headed, "The Fathers and Reformers on the Sabbath;" yet how far back does it go for testimony on this question, which it regards so eminently holy as to supplant the word of God itself? It goes back to that age when the "mystery of iniquity" began to work with all its power; the age of the "fathers" which was not an age of reform but of apostasy. The apostles left the church in a state of purity, but not without first giving it warning that the mystery of iniquity did already work, and that after their departure, grievous wolves would enter in. No reform, and no new Bible institution has resulted from the teachings or the customs of those times; but there the church began with rapid step that downward course which ended in the Papal slough of corruption, and which finally awoke the spirit of the reformation in the sixteenth century. Martin Luther, the reformer who then arose, being an eye-witness of the results of the so much lauded fathers, was eminently qualified to appreciate their merits; and he thus says: "When God's

word is by the fathers expounded, construed and glossed, then in my judgment it is even like unto one that straineth milk through a coal sack, which must needs spoil the milk and make it black; even so likewise, God's word of itself is sufficiently pure, clean, bright and clear; but through the doctrine, hooks and writings of the fathers it is very surely darkened, falsified and spoiled!"

This article says that the seventh day was good enough as far as the time was concerned; but it was to be superseded by another day through the very force of the Christian dispensation, and for sufficient reasons; yet it nowhere tells us what the force of this dispensation is, and it gives us no reasons why the seventh day should be superseded.

It says that the Christian Sabbath "was destined to supplant the Jewish institution;" and yet it offers no particle of proof that the fourth commandment or the seventh day was a Jewish institution.

It says that when the converts entered into the spirit of Christianity as the substance shadowed forth by Judaism, they would naturally quit the shadow for the substance; and presently the last day of the week would be given up for the first day of the week—from which we are doubtless to learn that the first day of the week is the substance which was shadowed forth by the seventh day—a new application, truly, of types and shadows!

And then, quotation is made from that horrible imposition called the Epistle of Barnabas, which says, "We keep the eighth day with joy," &c. This certainly cannot be applicable to our times; for we have only seven days to the week! We think it more appropriate to those days of infidel supremacy in France, when all religion was subverted, and weeks of seven days abolished, and periods consisting of ten days each, instituted in their place. Here was a time when those who are so delighted with this fictitious epistle of Barnabas, could have kept the eighth day with joy!

It says that the Reformers of the sixteenth century have been cited against the Divine authority of the Christian Sabbath; and yet it nowhere gives us any divine authority for their so-called Sabbath.

It tells us what Ignatius says, and Justin Martyr says, and Barnabas(?) says, and Tertullian says, and Irenæus says and Dionysius says, and Calvin says; but nowhere what the word of God says.

It deserves credit however for the manner in which it concludes. We will notice this more at length. It says that Calvin has left enough on record to show his full belief in the christian obligation of the Lord's day; but, now mark, "if Calvin ever taught otherwise, we would say that Calvin is not Christ, nor an infallible teacher; and we would answer as he himself answered when Jerome was quoted as authority for an erroneous tenet, 'What Jerome thought I care not; let us inquire, What is truth?'"

We are glad here to find an acknowledgment of so correct a principle as the above. The writer at last found himself moving in the right channel; and the whole groundwork of his article is thus cleverly kicked over in the conclusion. We will adopt the principle; and when we see the fathers quoted as authority on such an "erroneous tenet" as Sunday-keeping, we reply, "They are not Christ nor infallible teachers;" and "what they think we care not, let us inquire, What is truth?" Thy word is truth, says Jesus, and with that we are satisfied.