Rev. Luther Lee, D. D., on the Sabbath; or Strange Inconsistencies and Contradictions.
By Wm. Penniman
MR. LEE was formerly President of Leoni (Michigan) Theological Institute, and is author of several works. On p. 366 of his "Elements of Theology," we find the following: "Professed Christians are divided into four classes in regard to the Sabbath question. 1. Those who believe we are bound to observe the seventh day as a Sabbath, according to the law given by Moses. Those holding this view are a small but respectable denomination of Christians. 2. Those who believe that Christianity has abolished the Jewish Sabbath, and that now there is no day designated by divine authority as a Sabbath. 3. Those who hold that a Sabbath is necessary, very important, and that the first day of the week is a very proper day to observe as a Sabbath, and that we ought to observe it, yet place it wholly upon the ground of expediency, and do not allow that it has been designated by divine authority. 4. Those who hold that the Sabbath, as an institution, exists, and is of moral obligation, but the day on which it is to be observed, has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, by divine authority." Mr. Lee is very wide of the mark in regard to the first class, for Sabbatarians do not hold to the Sabbath according to the law given by Moses, but according to the law given by God himself amidst the thunders of Sinai, that law of ten words which he wrote on tables of stone, thereby denoting its perpetuity. We shall see before we get through, that Dr. Lee is partly among those enumerated in the second class, as he endorses a part of their position in attempting to abolish the Jewish Sabbath (something which never existed), yet differs with them in giving a substitute. On p. 376, after quoting Col. 2:16 ("Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days"), the Dr. says: "Under such authority and influences, the Jewish Sabbath gradually sank into disuse." Again, on page 375, we read: "It is a significant fact that, as the observance of the first-day of the week increased by the increase of Christianity, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath declined." Several times more the author uses this Ashdod expression; yet on p. 367, in beginning his subject, he very truthfully says: "The Sabbath was instituted at the beginning, and existed during the patriarchal age from Adam to Moses." If the Sabbath existed many ages before a Jew, or before Moses, then why call it, as Mr. Lee does, a Jewish Sabbath, and claim as some do, that it was given by Moses, thus attempting to rob it of its divine authority. In order to prove that the Sabbath was given for the Jews alone, it must first be established that the moral law was given only for them, and that the Sabbath was not given in Eden, and that Christ did not mean that "The Sabbath was made for man" when he said it was. It will be seen by the following quotations that Lee's theology makes moral law much stronger than positive (yet the author cannot get along without making a change of day, which is a change in the institution). "The Sabbath, as an institution, is based upon moral principle which lies back of all positive law." "It is now clear that we are under moral obligation to devote a portion of our time to God, in the shape of a religious Sabbath. On this moral obligation the Sabbath is based. The obligation arises out of our own moral natures, and the relation we sustain to God, and would remain if all positive law were repealed." This language has the right ring, and founds the Sabbath upon moral principle, just where God founds it; stronger even than positive law. The author, to be consistent, should not attempt to change this immutable institution by enumerating himself among the fourth class. The fourth class are right only in part, for while they admit the existence and moral obligation of the Sabbatic institution, they plainly contradict this position in saying that "the day on which it (the institution) is to be observed has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week by divine authority." It seems strange that Sunday defenders of this class cannot see that the Sabbatic institution is not one which makes any day, or no day in particular, or a seventh portion of time, the Sabbath, but the seventh day on which God rested. Why can they not see that a change of day implies a change of institution? Where is the divine authority for the change? Assertion is not proof. Many writers who keep the first day admit there is no divine authority for the change. Amos Binney, a standard writer in the M. E. Church, in his "Theological Compend," says, "There is no divine authority for the change." Adam Clarke, D. D., in commentary upon Matt. 12:8, says: "It seems to have been by an especial providence that this change has been made and acknowledged all over the Christian world." President Humphrey rebukes this sentiment as follows: "No human authority may expunge a single word from the statutes of Jehovah. It were infinitely less daring for the meanest subject of the mightiest earthly potentate to declare the fundamental laws of the empire null and void, than for man, who is a worm, to set aside the institutions of his Maker." And yet President Humphrey, like Dr. Lee, dared to expunge the seventh day from Jehovah's law, and in its place insert the first day, thus setting aside God's divine institution. Alex. Campbell also said that "one might as well talk about going through with creation again as to talk about a change of day." It is therefore inconsistent and absurd to hold that "the Sabbath as an institution is based upon moral principle which lies back of all positive law," and yet contend for change of day. We read again (p. 366): "The point is not how large a portion or which portion of time." We deny the validity of this position, as we think God's word contradicts it in saying, "The seventh day is the Sabbath;" not the light part of the day, nor the dark part, the first, the middle, nor the last part, but the whole twenty-four-hour day. If "the point is not how much," then a person can observe as much as is convenient, and do what he likes on the remainder. If the point is not "which portion of time," we ask in the name of truth and reason, what is it? If the law does not specify how much, or which portion of time, then what does it specify? Once more: "Reason cannot see any natural difference in days, so as to involve a moral obligation to keep any particular day as a Sabbath more than any other day. This depends upon the appointment of God. It is seen then, that the fact of a Sabbath depends upon moral obligation, and cannot be repealed, but that the particular day upon which it is celebrated depends upon positive law, and may be changed as often as may suit the will of the Lawgiver." There are many things in which reason can see no natural difference, but does it follow from this that there is no difference in days or things? Admitting that there is no difference, then why not keep the day God has appointed, instead of any other? But the trouble is not in the difference but the day, in trying to make a part of the institution depend upon moral and a part upon positive law. We admit that "the day may be changed as often as may suit the will of the Lawgiver," but there is a "natural difference" between "may be changed," and is changed. And as there is not a single Bible text for the change, we are compelled to believe that the Sabbath of the law is yet binding. What right has Mr. Lee to say (as he virtually does) that the rest is made holy, but the day not. It does not read that the Lord blessed the rest because that in it he had rested, but the rest day. We therefore conclude that the Lawgiver did not make the Sabbatic institution to depend partly upon moral and partly upon positive law, or in other words, make one part immutable, and the other changeable. Mr. Lee gives very good reasons for the existence of the Sabbath during the patriarchal age from Adam to Moses. He also says that some of the best writers upon antiquity confirm the doctrine that the Sabbath was instituted at creation, and among them are Homer, Hesiod, Callimachus, Lucian, Porphyry, Josephus, Grotius, and Eusebius. Eusebius is quoted as saying that "almost all philosophers and poets acknowledge the seventh day as holy." But it seems that many theologians do not esteem the day so highly as some of the philosophers and poets, as they undertake to take the holiness from the Sabbath, or seventh day, and transfer it to the first. God has made a particular day holy; it is not the rest alone that is made holy, but the rest day. We therefore conclude that as "the Sabbath [Sabbath day, as there can be no rest without time] as an institution, lies back of all positive law," the day also on which it is to be observed must lie back of positive law. The reader will notice the expressiveness of the following from the "Elements." "The Sabbath, having been instituted at creation, formed no part of that typical and ceremonial religion which was afterwards given to the Jews. It was only joined to it as a part of its moral code, but existed before it, and remains since that has been removed. The Sabbath was therefore instituted for the whole human family. It has been proved that it was instituted at the completion of creation, when Adam was the only man, and what was instituted for him was for the whole race. It was distinguished from the entire ceremonial law by being made a part of the decalogue; all the other parts of which it is admitted remain unrepealed under the gospel, and are perpetually binding. It was written upon stone with the other nine commandments, as an emblem of its durability. It has been proved to be based upon a moral obligation, and therefore must be perpetually binding." The preceding is so truthful and forcible in regard to the Sabbath and the law, that it is worthy of being written with letters of gold, and like the law which it defends, deserves an inscription upon tables of stone. It is plain to be seen that much depends upon the position which a thing holds. Christ taught that there are two great commandments in the law, and that the first teaches love to God, and the second love to man. The Sabbath comes under our duties to God, is placed in the very center of the law, and must, therefore, in the very nature of things "be based upon a moral obligation, and be perpetually binding." We regret that Mr. Lee is so inconsistent and contradictory as to try to take the Sabbath out of its position in the law, as we shall see that he does, if we have not already seen it. Another good admission: "The exceeding tenacity of the Jews on the subject of the seventh-day Sabbath, may have rendered it necessary for the first Christians among them to observe it as a matter of personal safety, nor can it be maintained that they necessarily violated any moral principle in so doing." The truly righteous among the Jews were no doubt "tenacious" in observing the law against murder. Neither was there any necessity for them to threaten the early Christians with death for not observing the Sabbath as they did observe it. Paul, once a ringleader among those who persecuted the Christians, never once claimed that he persecuted them because they did not keep the seventh-day Sabbath. On the contrary there is abundant evidence which might be given, that Paul kept it after his conversion, and especially in the text (Acts 28:17) where he says he has done nothing contrary to the customs of his fathers. As the custom of his fathers was to keep the Sabbath, he could not have said this truthfully if he did not then observe it himself. I am glad that Mr. Lee admits that "he violated no moral principle in so doing." We think not if the doctors proposition is true that "the Sabbath is based upon a moral obligation, and therefore must be perpetually binding." This way of disposing of the matter makes me think of what I heard a Methodist preacher say in regard to immersion as baptism: "The Lord may accept it as baptism, but he does not require it;" and again of what a Presbyterian preacher said of sprinkling infants: "We are not commanded not to sprinkle them." Mr Lee and Sunday-keepers may then have this consolation, that inasmuch as the Lord has not commanded them not to keep Sunday, the Lord may accept it as the Sabbath. The Lord may do certain things, but the question is will he do them? Mr. Lee in commenting upon Col. 2:16, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days," says: "To what sabbath does the apostle refer? It cannot be the Christian Sabbath, for he was speaking of what was enjoined by the law, and that never was." He is truthful in saying that the Christian Sabbath never was enjoined by the law. What he means, however, is that the rest is enjoined but not the day. This optional-day position has already been shown to be untenable. Wonderful to tell! on the next page of this "Theology," the author in referring to McKnight's Comments upon Col. 2:16, says: "This comment of Dr. McKnight is not to be construed as implying the abrogation of any part of the moral law; the obligation of the fourth commandment is continued in our obligation to observe the Christian Sabbath." If this is not a plain contradiction, when he says on one page the Christian Sabbath is not enjoined by the law, and on the next that it is, then we fail to know what a contradiction is. We think we can see why Mr. Lee made this mistake or contradiction. He did not like to have this text abolish his pet Christian-Sunday Sabbath, so he must make the law hold it in some way after all. He finally comes to this conclusion in regard to Col. 2:16: "It must be, then, that the apostle refers to the seventh-day Sabbath, and he gives them clearly to understand that they are not morally bound to observe it." This profound writer on the Sabbath does not seem to be aware that in taking this position in regard to Col. 2:16, he evidently enumerates the Sabbath among the things in the ceremonial law which were to be done away, thus plainly contradicting what he has said on p. 371 of his work, where he says: "The Sabbath being instituted at creation, formed no part of that typical and ceremonial religion which was afterwards given to the Jews." That the text in question does refer to what was done away in the ceremonial law, the context abundantly proves. Verse 14: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross, . . . . Let no man therefore," etc. This text cannot possibly be construed to embrace the true Sabbath of the Lord, as the following comments of Dr. Edwards (one of the most able Sunday defenders, and author of "The Sabbath Manual") will clearly prove. In his notes upon this text, "Judge you," etc., he says: "Pronounce you good or bad, according to your treatment of the ceremonial law." "A holy day, sabbath days; in the original a festival—sabbaths. The days referred to are those required to be observed in the ceremonial law—days associated by God with meats, drinks, and new moons. The passage does not refer to the Sabbath of the moral law, associated with the commands forbidding theft, murder, and adultery. This weekly Sabbath was never against men, or contrary to them; but was always for them, and promotive of their highest good." Again in commenting upon the 17th verse: A shadow "of the Redeemer who was to come, pointing to him as the only and all-sufficient Saviour." The body is of Christ; "he is the substance to which as shadows, all the Jewish rites referred." Barnes and other commentators might be quoted, who hold similar views with Dr. Edwards on this text. It is plain that the Sabbath was instituted before sin entered the world, and ages before redemption was shadowed forth in the typical system; and again it was written, not among the types and shadows which were done away in Christ, but by the finger of God, in the center of the moral law. One more comment, and we are done with this review, as we have endeavored to be as brief as possible, and yet try to do justice to the subject. Many of our great theologians, when they undertake to demolish the seventh-day Sabbath, use the little, yet sometimes very significant word, if. Pres. Fairchild, in his "Moral Philosophy," speaking of the change of day, very honestly says: "The change were desirable, if it were allowable" (italics ours). Mr. Lee, in commenting upon Ps. 118:22, 24, to make the point impressive, uses this wonderful little word three times. If the above text does prophetically refer to the Christian Sabbath; if by the day the Lord hath made, is meant the Christian Sabbath set apart in commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord which occurred therein, and if by rejoicing and being glad in it is meant the joy and gladness of Christian worship, the argument must prove conclusive in support of the divine appointment of the Christian Sabbath." It is strange that men who are good logical reasoners when advocating the truth, will resort to mere assumption in trying to prop up error; but alas! such is the case. The text referred to reads: "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." This text is one of the strongest of the assumed pillars in support of Sunday observance. There is abundant evidence that Jesus did become the chief corner-stone in the spiritual temple composed of his people (Eph. 1:20-23, and 2:20, 21) when he ascended on high; but what has this to do in making a Christian Sabbath? It is only referring to some of the greatest events of "the Lord's doing" in the gospel day. That this thought is true, the following text abundantly proves. "Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad." John 8:56. Sunday keepers might with just as much propriety claim this text as meaning the first day of the week as the other. Abraham, who kept the true Sabbath, would not very likely have rejoiced so much over the predicted change which first-day keepers should claim that this text sets forth. Now we have had enough of this if way of doing business. Away with ifs, doubts, or uncertainties. As the Lord has made man, made the Sabbath, and the Sabbath law, let us keep the day which the law requires, for in no other way can we keep the law.