Of a Series of Lectures on the Sabbath Question, delivered in Battle Creek, March 31st-April 4th, 1857.
(Continued.)
As it was the announcement that Mr. Fillio would give the "scriptural view" of the Sabbath question, we should expect on his part at least an appearance of conformity to scripture. And so long as his labors were confined to the question of the seventh-day Sabbath, this appearance could to some extent be preserved; for there is plenty of scripture on that subject. But when the First-day institution comes up, the scene changes entirely. On this point his only arguments were assertions, without scripture warrant or authority, though some of them were pretty well backed up with such testimony as the church of Rome freely furnishes to sustain her dogmas—tradition.
F. "The first day of the week commemorates the resurrection of Christ, and the descent of the Spirit; in other words, the completion of the work of redemption."
Here we perceive his mind has undergone a complete change, and one particular portion of time is well adapted to a particular purpose. If he had designed to give the popular view, these assertions might pass current; but the popular view is not always scriptural. In this case there is no evidence in the scripture to sustain the declarations. There is an institution of the gospel which well commemorates the resurrection of Christ. See Rom. vi, 1-5. God has distinguished the seventh day by the facts of the creation, by its sanctification, and by his commandment; yet Mr. Fillio argued directly against its fitness for every purpose specified in the Scriptures. God has not so specified the first day, nor sanctified it, nor given any law respecting it; yet without any divine testimony Mr. F. discovers a wonderful fitness. Truly has the word of God pointed out such teachers: "They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge." Jer. iv, 22.
By reference to Rom. viii, 22, 23, we learn that the saints of God are waiting and groaning for redemption. This sufficiently refutes his assumption.
F. "A plain scriptural example, backed up with the blessing of Christ, and the sanction of the Spirit, binds this duty very near, if not equal to positive enactment."
After all that he has said about the nature of the Sabbath and Sabbath law, it would be very ungenerous to suppose that he would claim that any moral principle is involved in the keeping of Sunday. Therefore it is neither positive nor moral. It has often been said that to be almost saved is to be wholly lost; and so, that which is only very near a law is no law at all. God's law, and the declarations of scripture respecting it, are all definite. Sin is the transgression of the law. But according to Mr. Fillio's theory of duty, the desecration of the Sunday institution is very near a sin. Such an approximation to something undefined is a poor substitute for scripture proof.
Let it be borne in mind that "the blessing of Christ" referred to, was not conferred on the first day of the week, but upon his disciples. And the probability that the Spirit sanctioned its observance is not very strong in the entire absence of any evidence that they observed it.
F. "Luke xxiv, 49. Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. When, Lord, shall we be endued with power from on high? One week hence, on the first day of the week."
This was designed for a conversation between Christ and his disciples. Of what importance such things are in a "scriptural view," it is hard to tell. We think Mr. Fillio might make some additions to the Apocryphal New Testament which might be of service in the Sunday cause. He has made a good beginning.
F. "Matt. xxviii, 10. Jesus appointed a meeting on the first day, in Galilee. This is a gospel institution."
Jesus did not "appoint a meeting" in Galilee, but promised that they should see him in Galilee; and this is several times mentioned. Matt. xxviii, 7, 10; xxvi, 32; Mark xiv, 28; xvi, 7. And there is not a particle of evidence that they saw him in Galilee on the first day of the week; it seems truly astonishing, that any one should presume to make such an unwarranted statement. There is no proof that Jesus was seen of them more than once in Galilee. Matt. xxviii, 16 says they went into a mountain in Galilee; but the mountains came to the shore of the sea; [Luke viii, 32, 33.] and we have evidence that they saw him there on the seashore. The scriptures so often mentioning the fact that they should see him in Galilee, after his resurrection, seems to place much stress on his being seen there as a confirmation of that event. And to show the fulfillment of that promise the circumstances of their seeing him in Galilee are recorded in John xxi. The disciples were fishing when the Lord met with them on the shore of the lake. It may have been on First-day, as Mr. F. asserts, though there is no evidence of it; for there were five other days, besides the first day of the week, wherein they were allowed to fish, or do their own work. Ex. xx, 8-10.
F. "But we are told that the day of the crucifixion is greater than the day of the resurrection. I am surprised that any follower of Jesus should advance this."
There are none, to our knowledge, who claim that this has any bearing on the Sabbath question, except the Mahometans; and with them it is a matter of will and supposition, as the choice of First-day is with Catholics and Protestants. There is no scripture on either side. But there are several scriptures which ascribe our redemption to the blood of Christ. Rom. iii, 24, 25; Eph. i, 7; Col. i, 14; Heb. ix, 12, 15; 1 Pet. i, 18, 19; Rev. v, 9. See Acts xx, 28. Therefore, if anything short of the full accomplishment of redemption (which is yet future) should be chosen, surely the day on which his blood was shed would be most appropriate. But as there is no authority for either, the observance of Sixth-day and First-day are alike mere "will-worship" or "voluntary humility," and both condemned by the Scriptures, being "commandments and doctrines of men," that turn from the truth; viz., the commandments of God. Col. ii, 18, 22, 23; Titus i, 14.
Many other declarations of the greatness of the first day, its consecration, &c., we pass by as unworthy of attention.
F. "On the day of his resurrection, the first day of the week, he met with them four times. 1. With the women; 2. with Peter; 3. with the disciples at Emmaus; 4. with ten disciples in Jerusalem."
One might have gathered from the delivery of the above, that there were four appointed meetings of worshiping assemblies on that day. And a stronger effort to make out a case without any foundation whatever, it has never been our lot to witness. The first meeting was his suddenly making himself known to the women who had come to the sepulchre with the spices, &c. When, where, or in what manner, he was seen of Peter is not related. The third meeting was in the midst of a seven and a half miles' journey made on that day. But he was not known to them till they were eating supper, when he vanished out of their sight. The fourth was some time later, when he came to the residence of the eleven, and found them also taking their supper, and he upbraided them because till that time they had not believed that he was risen. See Acts i, 13; Mark xvi, 11-14.
F. "John xx, 26. This is said to have been on Monday. But when any circumstance occurred one week from another the Jews called it after eight days. So in Luke ix, and Matt. xvii. They record the same transaction, but there is a difficulty—their statements disagree materially. Hence, they were accustomed so to speak, to begin on the first day from any occurrence, and one week from that was the eighth day."
Several errors may be noticed in the above. 1. Matt. xvii, and Luke ix, do not contain any contradiction, nor any difficulty to the candid mind. One says it (the transfiguration) was "after six days," and the other "about an eight days after." If the second said about ten days after, it would not contradict the first that it was after six days. 2. As after six days means about eight days after, it cannot also be that after eight days should be just one week after, nor on the eighth day. 3. Even if it was admitted that it was their custom to reckon one as is here claimed, it would avail nothing to his argument unless it was also shown that after eight days, and the eighth are identical. But they are not. Every reckoning of time contradicts it. Thus the nineteenth century commenced fifty-seven years ago; nineteen centuries are not yet completed; while after nineteen centuries is more than forty-three years in the future. But suppose it had directly said it was on First-day, what then? Every thing essential to his argument lies beyond that.
F. "It is argued by great and good men who have the means of ascertaining that the ascension was on the first day. He was seen forty days, or many days, which denotes a round number, and means just six weeks, as they reckoned time by weeks from Sunday to Sunday."
Who these "great and good men" were we know not, as we were not favored with their names. This was a new announcement. If their "means of ascertaining" were no better than Mr. Fillio's, they were not very great, judging from the manner in which he handled it; as he failed to give any proof on the point, it is but fair to suppose that he did not know of the existence of any. Forty days means forty-three days as they reckoned time! How does he know it? Perhaps his "wonderful echo" so informed him.
Here we behold the convenience of the Sunday theory. While the advocates of the Sabbath of the Lord are plodding along in the dull path of fixed facts, authenticated records, and well-defined laws, the Sunday advocates have only to give fancy a loose rein, and evidences cluster around, with light and airy forms, placing themselves in every conceivable shape and position to suit the exigencies of the case. And why not? "Theology would be far behind the "spirit of the age" if we should cramp it down to lawful accuracies and positive proofs. "One day in seven and no day in particular" is the first day of the week.
"The seventh part of time" always comes on that day. After eight days from one Sunday, by a singular construction, brings us to the next Sunday; and forty days, by an elongation no less singular, comprises six full weeks and a day, beginning and ending on Sunday. A sliding scale of morality has been coming into use for a long time. Mr. Fillio has done much toward perfecting it.
In making his reckoning to the day of Pentecost he remarked that "the wave-sheaf was offered on the seventh day of the week." Lev. xxiii, 11, says, "on the morrow after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it." The New Testament does not say that Christ arose on the first day, but we think he did, as he was the antitype of the first-fruits which was offered on that day. But if Mr. Fillio is correct, the argument for the resurrection on the first day is entirely destroyed. And again, if the common computation is correct, which makes the resurrection and Pentecost to have been on the same day of the week, it would follow from Mr. Fillio's argument that both occurred on the seventh day. Dr. Clarke has a calculation by which the day of Pentecost is clearly brought on the second day of the week. A few more efforts on the part of Sunday advocates will leave us nothing to do in exposing their inconsistencies.
F. "There is no evidence that Christ met with them on any other than the First day."
Then the meeting recorded in John xxi, must have been on First-day. We hope our friends who put forth such declarations as the above will read that chapter with care.
F. "On that day he met with them three different times, and sent the Comforter to crown the finished work of redemption."
As the work of redemption, according to Mr. F.,150was finished on the morning of the resurrection, the ascension, and the gift of the Spirit were no part of that great work; these must be the "non-essentials" of which so much has been said! But no one would gather such an idea from the scripture. He ascended on high as an Intercessor, to grant remission of sin, and the Spirit was given to perfect the followers of Jesus. Heb. ix, 15, 24; Acts v, 31; Eph. iv, 8-13. They who think that the work of redemption was finished when our Saviour rose from the dead, must leave out of that work his intercession or priesthood, and second coming, without which the work of redemption could never be accomplished. To say that such an error arises from taking a superficial view of the work of Christ, does not near express the truth: it arises from losing sight of the main features of that work, and the manner of its consummation.
F. "1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2. This order was no new thing. Notice first: Paul is returning from a pastoral visit to the churches in Galatia; he established a rule of weekly contribution at the time of the meetings of other christian churches. They could attend to it best on First-day. Why? Because it was the day of assembling. It was the day of observance."
That this was the day of observance or day of assembling, has yet to be proved. That he established a rule of weekly contributions at the time of meetings is contrary to the evidence of the text. Even Justin Edwards, who has made such an effort to press every thing into the service of the First-day, in his note on this passage says, "at home." See his Notes on the New Testament.
J. W. Morton, in his "Vindication of the True Sabbath," pp. 51, 52 says:—
"The apostle simply orders, that each one of the Corinthian brethren should lay up at home some portion of his weekly gains on the first day of the week. The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, 'by him;' and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means in the collection-box of the congregation. Greenfield, in his Lexicon translates the Greek term, 'by one's self, i. e., at home.' Two Latin versions, the Vulgate, and that of Castellio, render it 'apud se,' with one's self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, 'chez soi,' at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, 'bei sich selbst,' by himself, at home. The Dutch, 'by hemselven,' same as the German. The Italian, of Diodati, 'appresso di se,' in his own presence, at home. The Spanish, of Felipe Seio, 'en su casa,' in his own house. The Portuguese, of Ferreira, 'para isso,' with himself. The Swedish, 'naer sig sielf,' near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above."
F. "Another evidence. Acts xx, 7. This was not called as a special meeting. There is no such inference in the case. There has been an attempt to play on this passage. The primitive Christians met early in the morning, and also in the evening. They met on this Lord's day, and Paul preached a long sermon. This makes a perfect net-work or chain of evidence."
The remark that there has been a play on this passage, doubtless refers to the view advanced that this was an evening meeting; and as the evening was the first part of the day, and preceded the morning, this meeting was held before First-day morning, and at the break of day on First-day morning, Paul departed on his journey. And Mr. Fillio did not deny it, or attempt to show that it was not so. To have attempted it would have been to expose his weakness; therefore he prudently passed it by with the simple declaration that they met in the morning as well as in the evening. But no one could pretend that this was a morning meeting. The reading of the passage forbids it. Thus our position is clearly true. And here let the reader notice, that in this passage, which proves that Paul started on his journey on First-day morning, is the only account in the New Testament of a public meeting on the first day of the week. Acts ii, does not mention the first, or any other day of the week, but the day of Pentecost, which was not a weekly, but a yearly feast-day.
Now we have passed through a "perfect chain" of evidence, let us see what it is composed of. 1. The Sabbath is a positive institution. 2. It was instituted after Israel left Egypt. 3. It was peculiarly Jewish. 4. The fourth commandment was essentially different from the other parts of the decalogue. 5. The priests were required by law to violate it. 6. The least violation was to be punished with death. 7. The Sabbath was a shadow. 8. The law of Horeb was given to the Jews alone. 9. The law written and engraven on stones was abolished. 10. The law of the new covenant is in contradistinction (of opposite qualities) from that written on stones, (the ten commandments.) 11. The Sabbath was lost in Babylon, some centuries before Christ. 12. Christ and his disciples openly violated it. 13. He consecrated the first day of the week. 14. There is very near a law for its observance. 15. After eight days from Sunday means the subsequent Sunday. 16. Forty days means six full weeks and one Sunday over. 17. Paul ordered them to take up collections in their meetings on First-day. 18. It was an established custom to meet on that day.
Comment is unnecessary. As he claimed that the work of redemption was finished at the resurrection, and had merely to be "crowned" by the ascension, and gift of the Spirit, so here he has finished the "perfect chain" of evidence, and got two links to spare. The first is as follows:
F. "The first day was called by primitive Christians and ancient fathers the Lord's day. John thus designated it. Rev. i, 10. Some claim that this means the seventh-day Sabbath; but this cannot be made to mean Sabbaton. The first day was always called the Lord's day. Examine the original Greek and you will find it so."
It is extremely unpleasant to review anything wherein a want of candor is evinced. The most able persons may sometimes take a weak position, and the most candid may sometimes be led by prepossessions to advocate an error; but when any one pursues a continuous course of false reasoning and perverting the truth, honesty before God and our fellow-men requires us to characterize it truly and expose the deception. And we have no hesitation in saying that deception was practiced by the lecturer in his remarks on Rev. i, 10. Those who think that that scripture refers to the Sabbath, do not claim that Rev. i, 10 mentions the Sabbath or seventh day of the week by name; but they take other scriptures, such as have been quoted in this review, to show that the Lord has claimed one day of the week as his, and that is the seventh day. And that is the fair and correct method of settling questions by the Scripture. And now in turn we will ask, Does Rev. i, 10 mention the first day of the week? It does not. If you "examine the original Greek" will you find any mention of the first day of the week? You will not. If you examine the whole Bible will you find a single passage calling the first day of the week the Lord's day? You will not. Did the Lord ever claim it as his day? He did not. What authority had Mr. F. for making such a statement? None whatever. What scripture is applicable to his course? Matt. xxiv, 4.
The last link was the most definite and clear that he presented. It was the testimony of the fathers; uninspired tradition. And here let the fact be noticed that the denomination to which the lecturer belongs—the Baptist—professes to reject tradition and take the Bible alone. Had any individual arisen and proved by the same authors that the sprinkling of infants was the duty of gospel believers, he would have denied the authority at once. So inconsistent will men act when led by prejudice. Had Luther had confidence in such testimony the Reformation would not have been; and had Protestants carried out the principles of the Reformation they never would have appealed to such testimony to sustain unscriptural dogmas. But when men are determined to sustain the Sunday at all hazards, tradition is the best field for them to labor in. Whatever is claimed from Scripture on that side is by unnecessary and far-fetched inferences, while much of their traditional evidence is direct and pointed. But in this we rejoice, that those who keep the Lord's Sabbath and teach men so, are not reduced to such straits. Some may query thus: Did any of the early writers speak in favor and defence of the seventh day? We answer, they did; and their testimony can be produced if necessary. But we do not consider it necessary as long as we have an abundance of better testimony, to wit, the plain word of the Lord.
His first witness was IGNATIUS; who, he claimed, called the first day of the week "the Lord's day, the queen and prince of all days. Let every friend of Christ celebrate the Lord's day. Let us not sabbatize, but live according to the Lord's day, on which our Life arose."
Those who have read the same testimony in Justin Edwards' Manual will notice that Mr. Fillio has followed the marginal reading of the Apocryphal New Testament in the above quotation. In regard to the "Lord's life," Mr. Fillio says, partly following the marginal reading, "live according to the Lord's day." It is that "living according to the Lord's life," is the proper reading may be seen by the expression, "How shall we live different from him?" We say Mr. F. partly follows the margin: he says, live, the margin reads, living. The idea of the epistle is this. How shall we live different from him, if even the prophets came to a newness of hope in living according to the Lord's life; or, as he did.
3. The common English version from which Dr. Edwards and Mr. F. professedly quote involves the suppositions that (1.) the prophets did not keep the Sabbath, but the Lord's day, or as they claim, the first day of the week, which is too absurd to deserve a notice. And (2.) that at the coming of Christ, whom the prophets waited for, they were raised from the dead; whereas the scriptures teach that they will be raised at the second coming of Christ, under the sounding of the seventh trumpet. Rev. xi, 15-19.
We have been thus particular on this testimony, as Ignatius lived at an early age, and some think this epistle conclusive, or rather, the supposed quotation; for it is not generally known that it is speaking of the lives of the prophets, and has no reference to the observance of a day. That theory which rests on a few inferences, and such garbled extracts from spurious Catholic writings, is a bad one for Protestants to rest on. Reader, when you follow in the track of such errors, remember that God will bring every work into judgment.
J. H. W.