Of a Series of Lectures on the Sabbath Question, delivered in Battle Creek, March 31st-April 4th, 1857.
WHY do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your traditions ? is a question asked by our Saviour, and which applies with peculiar force to those who oppose the Sabbath of the Lord. Tradition in its thousand forms, envelops the theological world as the smoke of Sodom did the plain of Jordan. Unpopular only by its name, man blindly clings to it, as a refuge from the reproofs of conscience and the dictates of God's word. Its position has ever been the same—opposed to the commandments of God; hence its origin is apparent—it comes from the enemy of righteousness. The Scriptures represent him as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. He opposed the truth of God by introducing a falsehood in Paradise; (Gen. ii, 3-5;) he endeavored to destroy the upright man of the land of Uz without cause; (Job i, 8; ii, 3;) he accuses the saints day and night, and moves his agents to make war on them that keep the Commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ; (Rev. xii, 10, 17.)
The times in which we live are perilous indeed; for the mass of those who have the form of godliness deny the power thereof, and are lovers of pleasures, yea, and of their own selves, more than lovers of God; (2 Tim. iii, 1-5.) Pride, the first sin of Satan, (Eze. xxviii, 14-17,) and his chief means of carrying on his last great deception, (1 Tim. iv, 1,) sits like an incubus upon the churches of this day, whereby they are led to follow the fashions of the world, to substitute grandeur and display for spiritual worship, and to erect temples as gorgeous as those of paganism, wherein too often worship is offered as destitute of the Spirit of God as is the service in the temples of heathen lands. At altars consecrated to the service of God the proud are called happy, and the rich are honored, while the poor, the meek, and the lowly are thrust out, unable to support such costly systems of worship, and meet the cash demands of modern ways of salvation. Teachers are in every place heaped together to preach smooth things, who turn from the truth unto fables. (2 Tim. iv, 3, 4; Isa. xxx, 8-11.) The broad road is crowded with those who profess to know God, while the narrow way is yet an unfrequented track. And why unfrequented ? It is unpopular ! pride cannot enter there ! but cross-bearing and self-denial mark the steps of its travelers. With the many the love of the world and a strong desire to treasure up unrighteous mammon have taken the place of the love of the Father; (Matt. vi, 24; 1 John ii, 15;) and while the world feels safe because it is so nearly in the track of them that profess to be the light of the world, (as they should be, Matt. v, 14-16,) both the popular church and the world are in moral darkness, each by the other blinded, and eventually must both alike fall into the ditch; (Matt. xv, 14.) In such a time as this it is not matter of surprise that the righteous (as was Elijah) are accused of being troublers of Israel; (1 Kings xviii, 17, 18;) and as the spirit of persecution is engendered by blind guides and slothful shepherds that feed themselves and care not for the wants of the flock, we know that God looks upon these things, and has spoken of them by the prophets; (2 Tim. iii, 12; Eze. xxxiv, 2-10;) and that soon he will cause their dispersions to cease, and unite the shepherds with the principal of the flock; (Jer. xxv, 34-37.)
Never were these scriptures more forcibly impressed upon our minds than while listening to a series of discourses by one who professes to be a watchman in Israel, who "strengthened the hands of the wicked that he should not turn from his wickedness, by promising him life," while transgressing the commandment of God. (Eze. xiii, 22.)
The subject of this review is a series of five discourses delivered in the Methodist House in Battle Creek, on the evenings of March 31st to April 4th, 1857, by N. FILLIO, of the Baptist denomination. His text109was Col. ii, 16, 17, which will be examined in its place.
His opening remarks were on the nature of law, showing the difference between moral and positive law. On this point he endorsed the views advanced by the generality of theological writers. His expressions were: "Moral law is holy, just, and good—unchangeable and perpetual as the eternal throne. It exists in the fitness of things. What it claimed of our first parents it claims of us, and will claim of all in all ages. It cannot be altered nor suspended. Positive law is neither good nor bad in itself; its virtue is in the enactment—it is a special enactment, and may be amended, abolished, suspended, or annulled. When its purpose is accomplished it ceases to be binding."
Thus far we find no reason to dissent; but from this point we must disagree, as his conclusions are not based on these facts, but are at variance with the Scriptures. That all may see without difficulty what the positions are that are being reviewed we shall put his remarks in smaller type, and prefix his initial, F., to them.
"Positive law forbade the eating of the tree of knowledge, and enjoined sprinkling of blood on the door-posts."
The sprinkling of the blood was typical, and the law enjoining it was limited and local, and from these facts known respecting it we readily and justly conclude that it was positive; (see 1 Cor. v, 7.) But in regard to the prohibition of the tree of knowledge we have not the like facts recorded. Of the nature of the tree we can know nothing, save by the very brief declarations in Genesis. But of its effects we can speak more understandingly, as we see the fruit of that action in the depraved dying nature conferred on the entire race by that transgression. We further know that the consequences of the transgression of certain moral laws descend to the posterity of the transgressor, but not so of positive laws. Positive law is founded on the transgression of moral law, and is constituted the means of averting the penalty of the violation of moral law. But positive law has no penalty. Hence, the evil accruing to the posterity of the sinner is solely the result of the violation of moral law. This position is confirmed by a reference to the Scriptures. The positive enactments of the past dispensation are denominated shadows. Col. ii, 17; Heb. viii, 5; x, 1. They are efficacious only as they are founded on the transgression of moral law; for in them is a remembrance of sin. Heb. x, 3. And they are significant only as they point to "the seed of the woman" in bruising the serpent's head, or the great work of human redemption; for the body is of Christ. Col. ii, 17. From this we remark, (1.) The consequences of eating the forbidden tree extend to the whole human family, and no transgression preceded it. (2.) The violation of the first and eighth commandments are involved in the act. (3.) Another duty, (dressing the garden,) is incorporated in the decalogue which contains a command to work; and slothfulness is assuredly a moral evil. Every consideration shows that principles of morality were involved in the paradisiacal laws. These remarks are necessary to remove the fog that is so often raised by the opponents of God's law when they examine the early history of our race.
"My first position is that the seventh-day Sabbath is a positive institution."
Let this be borne in mind. We shall watch the argument closely to see if it is sustained by proof.
"There is no light from nature—nothing in the fitness of things showing duty to observe seventh day or any other."
We are not entirely dependent on nature for a knowledge of our whole duty. Those who reject revelation, or deny the Bible, often turn away from the Sabbath and from many other plain duties. In this manner of reasoning the lecturer, though professedly a teacher of the Bible, lays a foundation for infidelity. Who shall judge what is fitting and right without consulting revelation? If it can be done we have no need of revelation, and the Bible is thus made a useless instrument. Let lovers of the Bible note this position. "To the law and to the testimony," is our watchword.
"It signifies rest and nothing more."
Sabbath signifies rest, but the seventh day Sabbath signifies something more than rest. Do not the words "the seventh day" convey some idea more than the simple term rest? They do. And God has attached more than that to the institution. God wrought—he rested—he sanctified—he commanded. These several facts are all urged in the teachings of the Bible on this subject. An observance of the Sabbath, keeping holy the day of God's rest, (see Isa. lviii, 13.) was and is obligatory on all, even though circumstances, such as sickness, &c. rendered it impossible for them to labor the other days. Thus the declaration of Mr. F. is fully disproved.
"Gen. i, 14-19. Lights were made for signs and seasons, but they did not mark the return of the seventh day; if they did they could not make its observance obligatory."
True they could not; neither could they make any principle of right obligatory, but the Law of God could. An examination of Psa. xix, might have helped Mr. Fillio here. Verse 1 reads: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork." This all will acknowledge, but this is not sufficient to meet the wants of man. The 7th verse says: "The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Converting is changing or turning from one thing to another; and if we are ever turned from wrong to right, it will not be by merely observing nature, but by studying the Law of God. Nature may inspire with feelings of devotion, but the law shows how acceptable worship may be rendered. Had Mr. Fillio been led by the light of this scripture he would have pursued a course far more wise and consistent than that taken in these lectures.
"Time does not possess a moral quality."
This declaration may be considered evasive, better calculated to cover up than to bring out the truth. Moral is more properly used in reference to agents, as in the formation of character. Now we do not claim that the Sabbath is a free agent, and would not claim for it precisely what we would claim for free agents, but we do claim sanctity for it, by the will and power of God. The idea of the holiness of the Sabbath is plainly expressed in the Scriptures. Let us consider a few questions. Is it possible for God to impart a quality of holiness to time? The answer must be in the affirmative; certainly we cannot limit his power in such respect. Second. Should he constitute it holy, could he express that fact in terms that we could understand? He surely could, for every one confesses to a knowledge of the idea who denies the fact. Third. If he could do it, and could reveal it, could language stronger and more definite be used than that used in reference to the sanctity of the seventh day? "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." Gen. ii, 3. "The Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Ex. xx, 11. "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day." Isa. lviii, 13.
"We have no means of knowing that any portion of time is better adapted to any purpose than another."
Let him ask his neighbors if the fourth of July is better adapted to commemorate the Independence of this nation than any other. He would not easily persuade them to adopt another in its stead. And we would ask Mr. Fillio if he believes what he said, viz., that the first day of the week commemorates the resurrection of the Saviour? and would not any other day commemorate that event just as well? One of two things is certain, if the declaration here quoted is true, then there can be no propriety, as he claimed, to observing the first day for any such purpose. But if there be any propriety in observing the first day, then this declaration is not true. But the Bible settles the point by giving us the Sabbath that we may retain the knowledge of the Creator. Ex. xx, 8-11; xxxi, 17; Eze. xx, 12, 19, 20. Let all read these scriptures, and then judge if all nations would not have "retained God in their knowledge," if they had kept the Sabbath. See Rom. i. J. H. W.
(To be Continued.)