Of a Series of Lectures on the Sabbath Question, delivered in Battle Creek, March 31st-April 4th, 1857.
Concluded.
We do not find the testimony of Clement, as quoted by First-day advocates, in his epistles in the Apocryphal New Testament, and cannot say whether it is also garbled; but as it stands it proves itself unworthy of credit. He is quoted as saying, "A christian, according to the command of the Gospel, observes the Lord's day, thereby glorifying the resurrection of the Lord." But the Gospel contains no such command; there is only one authorized way to commemorate the resurrection of the Lord: See Rom. vi, 1-5.
Pliny to Trajan says the Christians met "on a stated day." Melanchthon says: "Epiphanius and St. Augustine testify that on the fourth and sixth days of the week, church assemblies were held as well as upon the Lord's day," or First-day. It would be interesting to know by what rule "a stated day" necessarily means the first day. One would think tradition was getting scarce, as well as scripture, if it must be forced to service in this manner.
Justin Martyr was represented as saying: "On the day called Sunday, there is a meeting in one place of all the Christians, &c., because it was the first day, in which the world was created, in which he made the light," &c.
That this is a mere invention of man is evident from the fact that these reasons all existed from the creation; and if they are now sufficient to authorize its observance, they were then. But they were not, for God passed them all by, and sanctified the Rest-day, the seventh and last day of the week. And instead of commanding that the first day be kept because in it the world was created, he commanded man to work on it for that very reason. Ex. xx, 8-11. "What is the chaff to the wheat?"
Dionysius said the epistles of Clement were read "while they were keeping the Lord's holy day."
The presumption is very strong that Mr. Fillio introduced this testimony by mistake, merely because he found it in a list of quotations for the first day; for he has been known to teach that there is no sanctity attached to the first day. And more than that, to prove that this testimony favors his position, he has now got to prove that the Sunday is a holy day. We would here call attention to the fact that he did not claim any sanctity for the first day on the authority of any scripture. In the light of this fact we doubt whether the testimony of Dionysius is sufficient to settle the point to the satisfaction of Bible students.
In regard to other writers, and the want of direct scripture testimony, he said:
F. "The observance of the first day of the week was so well understood that there was no need of argument; an allusion to it is all we find."
The Sabbath of the Lord was pointed out by evident miracles, and the fourth commandment was so definite, and its penalty so great that its observance was as well understood as that of the first day could possibly have been, under any circumstances, yet the prophets and servants of God deemed it necessary to speak of it very often. But Mr. Fillio is not the first one to take this ground. A late publication (Pres. Bd. of Pub. Tract 118) argues the certainty of the well-known duty and general observance of the first day, from this: that it is not enforced in the writings of the New Testament! Reasoning thus, that it was so well known that no command was needed. Were not other duties, such as the third, sixth, and eighth commandments well known also? Or will not the rule apply to anything but Sunday? This, we must acknowledge, is a new phase of evidence. We claim that the Sabbath is binding because of the abundance of direct scripture testimony in its favor. They claim that the first day is binding because of the lack of such testimony. And if their position is equally tenable with ours, they have got the argument beyond a doubt; for we think that more testimony might have been added by the Scripture writers on the seventh day; but on the other hand, the lack of evidence for the observance of the first day could not have been more complete than it now is; so that if the lack of evidence is an argument they have got a very strong one!
We can assure our readers that we are only doing the strictest justice to that position in presenting it in this light. To show this more fully we copy the following from the "Explanation of the Catechism" of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
"The day is now changed from the seventh to the first day, in commemoration of our Lord's resurrection; but as we meet with no scriptural direction for the change, we may conclude it was done by the authority of the church, under the guidance of the apostles." That is, we may conclude the apostles did it because it is not found in the Scriptures! Could Catholicism possibly go further?
F. "But was not the seventh day also observed? It was to some extent by Jews and Judaising teachers. These were devouring wolves spoken of by apostles."
That the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath was distinct from Judaism, we have fully proved. We have for it, not only the act of hallowing and commanding, but the example of the Infinite One; and in all the Scriptures of truth we find not wherein we can better obey the injunction to be "followers of God, as dear children," than in observing that day which he observed and set apart "for man." Whether the term "devouring wolves" applies to them that follow such a rule, more than to them that "follow their own spirit and have seen nothing," and that say "Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken," (Eze. xiii, 3; xxii, 28,) we will leave to our readers to judge.
His last and most important witness was Eusebius; at least he seemed to attach the most importance to him. In producing this testimony the lecturer had a most triumphant time, waving the weighty volume before the congregation, and calling upon all who were not satisfied, to call at his house and consult Eusebius for themselves. We did not avail ourselves of this friendly offer, and so have been obliged to lose in part the benefit of the light of Eusebius, and content ourselves with the Bible.
Dr. Edwards in the Sabbath Manual quotes Eusebius, as follows: "And all things whatsoever, that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these WE HAVE TRANSFERRED to the Lord's day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence, and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath." This testimony of Eusebius is worthy of particular notice.
1. "We" have transferred them. Who are "we"? Will "we" stand as high in that day when God shall bring every work into judgment, as "we" have stood before men? Paul said in his time "the mystery of iniquity" was already working, and would eventually "exalt himself above all that is called God, or is worshiped;" and Daniel, speaking of the same power, said he should "think to change times and laws." Because he would endeavor to change the laws of God, calling that sinful which God had commanded to be done, and enjoining as a duty what God had not commanded, which is the highest offense against a government that a subject can commit; therefore Paul calls him "the man of sin." That the Roman Power, the mystery of iniquity, has well earned this title, we learn (1.) by Mr. Fillio's witness, Eusebius, in that they have subverted the law of God, transferring the claims of the Lord's Sabbath to Sunday; and (2.) by Dr. Edwards in his Sabbath Manual, page 123, where he says:-"But the observance of the seventh day, though it had been connived at, and was by the Emperor permitted, was not as we see by the doings of the council of Laodicea, considered to be proper; and they even went so far, though improperly, as to say, 'If they be found Judaism.'—keeping the seventh day—'let them be accursed.'" Thus they have declared that to be sinful and worthy of a curse, which God has commanded, and placed the divine blessing on.
2. Eusebius calls the seventh day the "Jewish Sabbath," while God in his law calls it "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," and by the Prophet "My holy day." This is another criminal act of the highest order; striking out the name of the great Law-giver from his own divine statute, and inserting another name in its place, thus destroying the authority of his law. Mr. Fillio has followed the Man of sin in this practice, thus treating the Law of God as he dare not treat the law of Michigan.
3. Eusebius says the Sunday is first in rank and more honorable than the Sabbath. God placed honor upon the seventh day, and declared that he is honored in its observance. Isa. lviii, 13, "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath [what? an old Jewish Sabbath? no but] a delight, the holy of the Lord, HONORABLE; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord." Read Rom. iii. 4. The testimony of Eusebius weighs but little in that scale.
4. The testimony of Eusebius weighs but little in that scale.
But the main point made by Mr. F. from Eusebius was concerning the sect of the Ebionites, where he endeavored to attach the stigma of their heresies to the observers of the Lord's holy Sabbath. But here we must take leave of Eusebius; we have only now to do with Mr. Fillio; because Eusebius is innocent of the part here acted by Mr. F. Speaking of their heresies, he said:
F. "And why were they called heretics? Because they kept the seventh day. They held the law to be necessary, and rejected the Epistles of Paul because he taught that the law was abolished,"
That the Ebionites were lightly esteemed, and justly so, by all true Christians, cannot be doubted; but when we state the facts in the case, all may at once perceive the unchristian and dishonest course pursued by Mr. Fillio in placing them on a level with those who try to obey God through faith in his Son. Some have affirmed that his lectures were characterized by mildness and gentility. But on this point, as on others, his remarks were interspersed with unfair and unjust allusions, and unrighteous insinuations, every way calculated to mislead his hearers, and lead them to suppose that we occupied a position that he knew we did not occupy. Others may differ with us in regard to true Christian bearing; but we always intend to "use great plainness of speech," and call sin by its proper name. We will not throw out insinuations to deceive and lead to positions that we dare not openly occupy; we scorn to pursue such a course; but we shall point to the wrong-doer, and say plainly, Thou art the man. We have forborne to remark respecting his unfairness and manifest dishonesty throughout those lectures, reserving it to this point, where all can see it most clearly. The truth in regard to the Ebionites will expose him.158Buck's Theological Dictionary gives us the following information. We would remark, that none will doubt the authority on such a question, and Buck quotes from Eusebius to show that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, recognizing him only as a mere man. He says they "rejected all the prophets, and held the very names of David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in abhorrence. They also rejected all St. Paul's epistles, whom they treated with the utmost disrespect. They received nothing of the Old Testament but the pentateuch. They agreed with the Nazarenes in using the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, otherwise called the gospel of the twelve apostles; but they corrupted their copy in abundance of places, and particularly had left out the genealogy of our Saviour. Besides the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, the Ebionites had adopted several other books under the titles of St. James, John, and the other apostles; they also made use of the travels of St. Peter, which are supposed to have been written by St. Clement; but had altered them so that there was scarce anything of truth left in them. They even made that saint tell a number of falsehoods, the better to authorize their own practices."
We have not enough so-called charity to believe that Mr. Fillio was ignorant of the wrong he was doing in attempting to fasten the odium of such a people and of such error, on the seventh day, and transfer it to those who keep the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus; who receive the Bible, the whole Bible, and the Bible alone, and reject such foolish and unauthorized traditions as he and the Ebionites relied on.
To expose such wrongs is an unpleasant duty; we regret that the necessity existed in the present case. But duty compels us to characterize things truthfully. The cause which must needs be upheld by using violence to the Scripture and perverting the testimony of history, is one that will scarcely stand the test of the judgment day. Though it has been conceded by many men of learning and study that there is no Scripture authority for the observance of the first day, they have claimed that tradition of church history established it beyond a doubt. But of late they are growing fearful of that. The truth of history is against them. We need not here stop to speak of the company that Sunday-keeping has been in; but we might trace it through the edicts of Protestant states in America and England, through the bulls of popes, the curses of councils, and the horrors of the inquisition; through the decrees of Pagan Emperors, back to those who slew their human victims, and offered all manner of abominations to their highest God, the sun. And amongst such it originated! For the truth of this last assertion we refer to the Douay Catechism and the Sunday school Union Bible Dictionary.
Over this part of Mr. Fillio's work we have had serious reflections. Of the tendency of his course there can be no doubt. We presume that some have had their minds diverted from the truth, and the word of God has lost much of its influence over them. The present is a time of lax morality and great prevalence of infidelity; and he who lowers down the standard of Bible truth, exalting above it the opinions and doctrines of men, incurs a fearful responsibility. The friendship of the world, and the praise of men, is but a mean reward for such a work as this. To a sensitive mind, under such circumstances, each word of praise would be a rebuke; each look of favor would give pain. If he now moves in the society of lovers of truth and morality, we do not envy him his reflections.
An appeal to the congregation on the authority of the "Christian fathers," (these were his words) closed his labors. Though he raised the question, "Did not Christ and the apostles preach in the synagogues on the seventh day?" He replied to it by stating that his positions were true or else "the fathers" had written falsehoods. There are some important facts to be considered in connection with the words and practices of the Apostles and Evangelists in regard to the seventh day, but these scripture facts must not be allowed to have any weight, lest we have to admit that the fathers have erred: That will never do. The infallibility of tradition must be maintained even at the sacrifice of scripture facts. "Lord how long?"
A word to our readers who have followed us through this argument, and we close. It was not for the sake of those lectures alone that we undertook this review. Though we have never heard such sentiments put forth in a more deceptive form, yet we know that they are advanced and advocated very extensively, and we wish to guard the minds of the honest inquirers after truth on this subject, as far as lies in our power. And now what will be your choice? Do you approve the word of God? Do you believe that it is not them that say to Jesus, Lord, Lord, that will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but they that do the will of his Father? Of certain ones it was said, they "began to make excuses." But no excuse should be allowed to influence our minds against the truth of God, that we would shrink from pleading in the day of judgment. Think of it, dear friends. Will your excuses weigh as heavy in the balances of God's word as they appear in the sight of an unbelieving world. Let us see.
3. Every body keeps the first day. Matt. vii, 13, 14. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Prov. xi, 21; xvi, 5.
4. Many learned men teach that it is right. Hos. x, 13. "Ye have ploughed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men." 1 Cor. i, 25-27; Rev. xviii, 23.
5. We are unlearned and must look to them for instruction. Prov. xix, 27. "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge." 2 Tim. iii, 1-7.
6. The laws of our country enforce it. Acts iv, 19; "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." Chap. v, 29; Dan. iii, 16-18; vi, 10.
8. I should lose my influence and bring reproach. Matt. v, 11, 12. "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Luke vi, 22, 23, 26; 1 John iv, 5.
9. It makes no difference what day I keep if I keep it right. Ex. xx, 9, 10. "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." Matt. xv, 3, 9. "To keep any day right is to keep it as God's law directs; otherwise his law is not right. To keep every day right is to work on the first six and rest the seventh."
10. I am afraid of new doctrines. Ex. xx, 11. "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it." Gen. ii, 2, 3.
11. I do not think these old laws are binding. Jer. vi, 16. "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Chap. xviii, 15.
12. The Apostle teaches that old things are passed away. 2 Cor. v, 17. "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." "The old man" of sin must pass away. Then the man becomes new—not the law. 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Prov. xxx, 5, 6. "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
Eccl. xii, 13, 14. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
Rev. xxii, 14. "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."