Lord of the Sabbath.

 Lord of the Sabbath.

(Excerpt) 

CHAPTER V. “APOSTOLIC TESTIMONY.”

In following the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” through the different principal headings under which his argument is framed, and his logic displayed, next after the “Testimony of Christ” we come to his so-called “Apostolic Testimony.” Before we record his first definite proposition under this head, we wish to repeat one sentence from his exposition of the “Testimony of Christ:"

“As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside—a power which certainly he has nowhere exercised, either by himself or through his apostles.”—P. 168. 

Here is the definite, positive statement that Christ has certainly nowhere, exercised the power to set the Sabbath aside, either by himself or through his apostles. Now please read the following:— 

“The Jewish Sabbath is definitely abolished by apostolic authority.”—P. 175. 

True, in this latter statement, he prefixes to the Sabbath the epithet “Jewish;” but on page 190 he defines the “Jewish” Sabbath to be the “seventh day.” And as the Lord from Heaven said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” as that is the day upon which the Lord rested, which he blessed and which he sanctified; as from the creation of the world that was the only day that had ever been known as the Sabbath; and as that day is the only day that was ever recognized as the Sabbath, by either Christ or his apostles, his insertion of the epithet “Jewish” does not in the least relieve his latter statement from being a direct contradiction of the former. Therefore, as Christ nowhere set the Sabbath aside, “either by himself or through his apostles,” and as the only weekly Sabbath of which either himself or his apostles knew anything “was definitely abolished by apostolic authority,” it follows inevitably, by his own words, that if the apostles did abolish it, it was without the authority of Christ. But no, no; he will not allow that for an instant. Well, how does he avoid the conclusion? Oh, that is easy enough; he simply contradicts again both himself and the conclusion, thus:— 

“It is demonstrated that the Sabbath of the law was abolished by apostolic authority, in accordance with the developed teachings of Jesus Christ.”—P.186. 

We beg our readers not to think that we draw out these sentences for the purpose of making contradictions, nor to think we are trying to make the matter worse than it really is. The contradictions are all there; we simply take them as we find them. And really we should not know how to go about it to make the thing worse than it is, nor as bad even as it is. We could wish indeed, that it were not so: but in such a cause it cannot be otherwise; and we want the people to see exactly how the Sunday institution is made to stand by an argument that ought to be the most conclusive, seeing it was considered worthy of a five-hundred-dollar prize. 

We proceed. In proof of his word that the “Jewish” Sabbath is definitely abolished by apostolic authority, he says:— 

“No wonder that the apostles could so little tolerate the proposed continuance of the bondage from which Christ had set them free. Galatians 5:1. Had he not taken away ‘the handwriting of ordinances’ against them, and ‘nailed it to his cross?’”—P. 176. 

But of all things the Sabbath is one that can by no possibility be classed with the ordinances that were against us. Christ said, “The Sabbath was made for man.” The proof is absolute therefore that the Sabbath was no part of those ordinances which Paul says were “taken away;” for those that were taken away were such as were against us (Colossians 2:14); unless, indeed, by Mr. Elliott’s costly reasoning it could be made to appear that the same thing can be for us and against us at the same time. But, allowing all the wondrous efficacy of this high-priced logic, we doubt its power to the performance of this feat. Yet on the strength of the above statement he makes the following assertion:—

“With the ceremonial system vanished the Jewish Sabbath.”—P. 177. 

It would be an easy task indeed to disprove this, on our own part; but he does it himself so effectually that we need merely to copy his words. Of the law given at Sinai, he says:— 

“Of the law thus impressively given, the fourth commandment forms a part. Amid the same cloud of glory, the same thunders and lightnings, uttered by the same dread voice of the Infinite One, and graven by his finger, came forth these words as well: ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ It is impossible, in view of these facts, to class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. By the sacred seal of the divine lip and finger, it has been raised far above those perishing rites.”—P. 118. 

That is a fact. It is impossible, even by prefixing to it the epithet “Jewish,” to class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. For amid the same cloud of glory, the same thunderings and lightnings, the same dread voice of the Infinite One, who said, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” said also, “The seventh day is the Sabbath”—not of the Jews, but—“of the Lord thy God.” It is indeed raised far above the perishing rites and ordinances that were against us. Therefore, although the ceremonial system vanished, the Sabbath remains; for it is no part of the ceremonial, but is an essential part of the moral system. 

But Mr. Elliott is not done yet. He continues:— 

“Such is the relation of apostolic teaching to the Jewish Sabbath. The yoke of the fathers with its crushing weight of sacerdotal requirements, was cast off. The galling fetters of tradition were broken, and forever was the infant church delivered from ‘statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.’ Ezekiel 20:25.”—P. 180. 

Over against that please read this concerning the Sabbath of the fourth commandment:— 

“It belongs to that moral law which Paul calls ‘holy, and just, and good’ (Romans 7:12), and not that ritual law of which Peter declares, ‘neither our fathers nor we were able to bear’ it. Acts 15:10.”—Pp. 118, 119. 

So, then, the “yoke” which was “cast off” had nothing to do with the Sabbath; and the “statutes that were not good,” etc., from which the infant church was delivered, were not at all those of which the Sabbath is a part, for they are “holy, and just, and good.” And more, we should like to know upon what principle it is that the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” applies the phrase, “the galling fetters of tradition,” to an institution given by the direct word of God, with a voice that shook the earth, and whose obligation was graven upon the tables of stone by the divine finger? For by the term “Jewish” Sabbath he invariably means the seventh day, and that is the very day named by the voice of God. But lo, this is to be pushed aside as “the galling fetters of tradition;” and in its place is to be put a day—Sunday—to which in all the word of God there is no shadow of sacredness attached; a day which rests for its authority solely upon, “we have the right to assume,” “the right to infer,” “doubtless,” “probably,” “in all likelihood,” and “a religious consensus of the Christian church” (p. 203); and in all this we are to suppose there is nothing traditional! 

Again we read:— 

“It has already been shown that the Sabbath is a part of the moral law; it has the mark of universality as co-existent with man; it embodies a spiritual significance; it has a reasonable basis in the physical mental and moral needs of man; it was incorporated in the decalogue, the outline of moral law given to Israel; it was enforced by such threatened penalties for violation and promised blessings for observance as could not have been attached to a merely ceremonial ordinance; and Jesus confirmed these historical and rational proofs by his own example and teachings.”—P. 183. 

That is the truth, and it is well stated. But now see what an extraordinary conclusion he draws from it:— 

“Being, therefore, a part of the moral law, it is established as an apostolic institution by every word and phrase in which the apostles assert that law to be still binding on men.”—P. 184. 

“Being, therefore, a part of the moral law, it is established as an apostolic institution”!! Is, then, the moral law an apostolic institution? Does the moral law find its origin in the apostles? Do the precepts of the moral law find their spring in the will, and derive their authority from the actions, of the apostles? We confess it impossible for us to find language that would fittingly characterize such a preposterous proposition. It is astonishing how any man who is capable of forming the least conception of moral law, could set it forth as sober argument. Nor are we allowed to entertain the charitable view that perhaps it was done ignorantly; for Mr. Elliott himself has given us a perfect exposition of the ground of existence of moral law, not only of moral law in the abstract, but also of the Sabbath as being itself a moral institution. He says:— 

“Suppose the question to be asked, How can we know that any precept is moral in its meaning and authority, and not simply a positive and arbitrary command? What better answer could be given to this inquiry than to say that a moral precept must have the ground of its existence in the nature of God? Our highest conception of the moral law is to regard it as the transcript of his nature.... All must agree that no more perfect vindication of the moral character of a law can be given than to show that it is a rule of the divine conduct; that it has been imposed upon his own activity by that infinite Will which is the supreme authority both in the physical and moral government of the universe. That law to which the Creator submits his own being must be of absolute binding force upon every creature made in his image. Such is the law of the Sabbath. ‘God rested the seventh day,’ and by so doing has given to the law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity.”—Pp. 23, 24. 

Such, in truth, is the origin and ground of authority of all moral obligation; such is the origin and ground of authority of the moral obligation of the seventh day. The seventh day is the only day that has, or ever has had, any such sanctions; therefore the seventh day is the only day that has, or that can have under the existing order of things, any claim whatever to the moral consideration of mankind. And the above statement of the ground of moral obligation effectually shows the utter absurdity of the idea that the Sabbath, “being a part of the moral law, is established as an apostolic institution.” How could he possibly think himself called upon to make such a statement anyhow? Why, just thus: He has set out to have the first day of the week the Sabbath; he knows that it cannot be made to appear with any shadow of authority before the days of the apostles; he knows that even though it be made to originate with them, it can have no authority outside of the church unless it be moral; therefore, in contradiction of his own proofs, and in defiance of every principle of the basis of moral obligation, he is compelled to make the apostles the source of moral obligation. But he might better have spared himself the pains; for the idea is repugnant to the very consciousness of every man who will pause to think at all upon the subject. The apostles were the subjects, not the authors, of moral obligation. 

Notice again that the statement which we are here discussing is the conclusion which he has drawn from a series of things which he says had “already been shown;” and we must give him the credit, which is very seldom his due, that from his main premises his conclusion is logical. The proposition under which he draws his conclusion is that, “The apostles, by confirming the moral law, have enforced the obligation of the Sabbath.” Under this, his principal term is:— 

“The apostles of Jesus Christ, as he had done in the sermon on the mount, re-enacted for the church the whole decalogue in its universal meanings.”—Pp. 181, 182. 

To enact, is “to decree; to establish by legal and authoritative acts; to make into a law.”—Webster. 

To re-enact, therefore, is to re-decree, to re-establish by legal and authoritative acts, to make again into a law. Now, if after the enactment by God and the re-enactment by Christ, the decalogue still needed to be confirmed by the apostles, and still needed legislative acts of the apostles to establish it legally and authoritatively as a moral standard, then we submit that Mr. Elliott’s conclusion that the Sabbath, “being a part of the moral law, is established as an apostolic institution,” is strictly logical. But we sincerely question the wisdom as well as the justice of paying five-hundred-dollar prizes for a style of reasoning which can be logical only in the reversal of every principle of the philosophy of moral obligation. 

It most excellently serves his purpose though. His grand argument from “apostolic testimony” he closes thus:— 

“As certainly as historical proof can be adduced for any fact, so certainly is it demonstrated that the Sabbath of the law was abolished by apostolic authority, in accordance with the developed teachings of Jesus Christ. But although the Sabbath of the law ceased, the law of the Sabbath is abiding.”—Pp. 185, 86.

If, then, the Sabbath of the law be abolished while the law of the Sabbath remains, it must follow that the law of the Sabbath remains with no Sabbath. Oh, no, not at all. This is the emergency which he has all the while been laboring to create, and of course he meets it promptly. He continues thus:— 

“And it is in the highest degree probable that the Lord’s day which embodied its spirit was instituted by the immediate authority of the apostles, and therefore by the supreme authority of their Master, Jesus Christ.”—P. 186. 

And so the grand feat of getting Sunday into the fourth commandment is accomplished at last; and “it is in the highest degree probable” that the reader sees just how it is done. But there is yet one more thing to be done that the work may be complete in every part; that is, to transfer to the first day the Sabbath associations with which God has surrounded the seventh day. And we beg that Mr. Elliott be allowed to tell how that is done, because it rounds out his work in such symmetrical proportions. He says:—

“It is easy to comprehend how the Jewish Sabbath must almost at once have lost its hold on the affections of the disciples.... In the most powerful manner possible, those feelings of festal gladness and holy joy inseparable from the true idea of the Sabbath, were forever disconnected from the seventh day.... And by the most natural revulsion of feeling, all that was lost from the seventh day was transferred to the first day of the week.”—P. 188. 

There, the work is done; the climax is reached; the “Hill Difficulty” is passed; and the first day of the week has become the “abiding Sabbath.” It rests for its authority upon an, “it is in the highest degree probable;” and for its sacredness, upon “the most natural revulsion of feeling.” But against all his probabilities of however high degree, and against all his revulsions of feeling however natural, we set the plain word of God “which liveth and abideth forever:” “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.”  (End Excerpt)