Mrs. T. M. Shearer.
North Yakima. Washington. December 21st, 1894.
Reply.
By way of introduction to what we desire to say on the subject proposed by our sister, we desire to copy some extracts from the pamphlet referred to above by her.
A gentleman here in Newark, OH by the name of D. M. Guy has been much interested in our meetings. We supposed a writer means 7th Day Adventist meetings. Has written Cardinal Gibbons asking the following questions.
One was the Sabbath change on the first day.
2. If so, by what authority and when? 3. Did Christ or the apostles declare a change in the day? 4th Are not Protestants inconsistent in keeping the first day as a Sabbath and not the other feasts?
Mr. Guy received the following answer. New paragraph Cardinals Residence, 408 S Charles St. Baltimore, MD. November 14th, 1894.
Mr. D. M. Guy. Dear Sir, your letter to Cardinal Gibbons is received and he bids me answer. First. The 7th day Sabbath was charged, changed to the first day. Second, it was done by the sanction and authority of the Catholic Church. At first, the custom was obtained in some localities. It became general in the 4th century. 3. There is no declaration of Christ or the apostles on the subject. 4th Protestants are inconsistent, as you say.
Yours very truly. C. F. Thomas Chancellor.
There is considerable other matter in the pamphlet, but as it does not especially belong to the part of the subject we forbear to quote further, we desire to call special attention to these statements of Cardinal Gibbons. His declarations must be considered authoritative from the Romish standpoint, and he says briefly and emphatically above, first, that the day was changed, second, that it was done by the sanction and authority of the Catholic Church, or Romish Church.
Third, that Christ and the apostles had nothing to do with this change.
And 4th. That Protestants accept this feast day. The Protestants are inconsistent in that they do not observe the other feasts also appointed by the Church. Protestants professed to make the Bible as their only guide, and yet here they follow not the Bible, but the dictum of the Church of Rome, which claims her traditions and authority to be equal and in some respects superior to the Bible. It seems to us that so far as the charge of inconsistency against Protestants is concerned, the facts fully sustain it. As far as the controversy between Romanists and Protestants is concerned, we have nothing to do.
We are neither Romanists nor Protestants, but it is our joy to know that we as a people, under various names, indeed, but with the oneness of sentiment in all that is essential to the faith of Christ, have never been one with Rome, but ever since the papacy began, have not ceased to testify against her. As the embodiment of antichrist on earth. All Protestant sects had their origin in Rome, and five centuries ago were one with that apostate church. Out of the false church, surely the Bride of Christ, the Church of God, could not arise. This is one of the main reasons why we can never receive the ordinances nor the ministrations of any Protestant sect. They all came out of Rome and have no higher authority than Rome. Much of Rome has been retained by those sects which sprang out of her baptisms. Ordinations and church organizations can never rise higher than their origin. If Rome was antichrist five centuries ago, then Protestant baptisms, ordinations, and organizations cannot be such as are authorized by the God of Heaven. As Cardinal Gibbons well says, Protestants are inconsistent in receiving the first day of the Sabbath as they denominated from Rome, and at the same time refusing all else that Rome holds out to them.
But Cardinal Gibbons, if he were interrogated, would assert another truth concerning the inconsistency of Protestants. He would assert, and with absolute truth too, that the Apostolic baptism was dipping, and that Rome and Rome alone is responsible for the introduction of sprinkling to take the place of dipping. Cardinal Gibbons will have no more hesitancy in saying this, that he didn't say that the church had changed the Sabbath. Because that church owns no allegiance to the Bible more than to her traditions, and her claim is, to Protestant ears, the most abhorrent one that she has a right to change times and seasons and ordinances. Protestants take Romish Sabbaths and Romish Baptisms and give them no credit for their own property. Some would call this if practiced in ordinary affairs of life a name bordering on stealing.
It is, on the other hand, our rejoicing that we have received nothing from Rome but bitter persecution. And that we owe nothing to Rome except to pray for our enemies, and for all who evil entreat us and despitefully use us. It is our joy to turn to the Scriptures alone for instruction and doctrine and practice, and to the Holy Spirit, and not to the Church either true or false, for the interpretation of the Scriptures. We will well ask if we must have a College of church dignitaries to interpret to us the words of Jesus, or prophets, and of the apostles who shall be found capable of interpreting their interpretations. Let us hear what our Father in Heaven says directly, and not through the Babel of human voices, which all alike claim to tell us what our Father above has really said. Let us beware of those who seek to expound the scriptures, and take the place of the scriptures themselves in our attention. For us all, there is a need for warning. We are all so prone to trust in this seen rather than the unseen things. Even an apostle would not be followed any further than he followed Christ.
But we are well aware that these thoughts are rather out of line with the inquiry proposed by our sister. We hope, however. That they may not seem out of place, time and space would forbid that we should enter into any extended discussion. Of what is called the Sabbath question. It is. Moreover, been handled in this paper, and has been often. Sometime during the past year, there was a very complete and very forcible presentation of this matter published in the signs. We do not now recall written, but think it was sent from Tennessee. We do not, therefore, desire to again cover all that ground, even if we had the ability to do so, which we have not, but we'll briefly suggest a few things.
The Mosaic Law never enjoined the keeping of the Sabbath upon any people but the Jews. However needful, for the welfare of man and beast, are rest from the toil of one day in seven may be, it is certain that in its ceremonial religious aspect, it was enjoined upon the typical people only while no doubt the physical and moral benefit to that people resulted from the observance of the law of the Sabbath, yet its chief object was as a type to point forward to the better spiritual rest unto which they do enter, who have ceased from their own works. But while the Sabbath pointed to this rest from our own works, and was designed to do so, the carnal Jews so perverted this law, as they did also all the other types that they made the doing of this law of the Sabbath one of the works by which they hope to be saved. What a commentary this is upon the utter perversity of fallen man, that he should turn the type of absolute rest from the works of the law into a work of the law by which he must be saved!
Paul found this to be the condition of things among the Jews. Indeed, it had been in his own condition prior to the revelation of Christ in him. But now Christ had been so revealed in him that there was no room left for types except as types. by referring, to which he could better preach Christ. The substance had so filled the whole mind and heart of Paul that the shadows must flee away. The Shadows witnessed that there is a sun. But nevertheless, when the sun appears and bears testimony to its own presence, the shadows disappear. Moreover, as Paul went through the churches of Christ themselves, he found much of legality still remaining. Many had not been brought out into the clear light of the word as he had been. He found many to whom he had to say, "my little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." That is until they should be freed from all legal hope and should come to trust and rejoice only in Jesus.
Paul knew that every type, including also this of the Sabbath day was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus had said, "Come unto me, all you that labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Or a Sabbath. And so Paul wrote, "There remains, therefore a rest a Sabbath to the people of God. This Sabbath, unlike the type, shall never end and give place to another week of toil. This Sabbath, this rest, is forever and ever. This is the Christian's privilege and joy. How sweet is this rest which shall not be ended. What a blessing to understand and realize what this rest in Christ means. That they who would go back to observing the days and times, even Sabbath days, are returning to their toil. They are ceasing to rest. How much this robes them Of! How it dishonors him who had given them rest! How completely this would deny the truth which God had declared. That the works were finished! Therefore Paul, while he exhorted to forbearance and love between the weak who still felt bound to observe the day, and the strong who saw their rest in Christ clearly yet was very earnest and bold and testifying that days were nothing but Christ was all.
Paul exhorted his brethren very earnestly, because he had their interest at heart, and loved them as brethren, to turn away from the bondage of observing days to the liberty of Christ. Their weakness in this matter was a loss to them. Paul desired that they should receive and enter into all the fullness of truth and grace that was in Jesus Christ. He well knew that if Christ were all in all to any man, that man henceforth would not be subject to ordinances. Some brethren today may not see this matter clearly, even as some in Paul's day did not. But as Paul still loved them as brethren, and was only desirous that they should not miss the joy which he had himself found in coming to see in Christ the fulfilling of all Sabbaths to him, so now we hold such brethren in full fellowship and love only desire that we may be able to throw off this yoke of bondage through Christ, which strengthens them. We would that all our brethren and Christ should have not one Sabbath day and seven only, but to them every day should be a Sabbath, since every day Christ is theirs, and they are Christ's.
To sum it all up, the Jewish Sabbath of the seventh day was never changed by divine or Apostolic authority to the first day of the week. There could be no Sabbath before the six days of labor because there can never be such a thing as rest until after the toil has made us weary. A first-day Sabbath, therefore, would be an absurdity. Cardinal Gibbons tells the truth when he says that the change was made by the sanction and authority of the Romish Church. Still further, the whole spirit and letter of the New Testament teachings are that Christians through Christ are free from the law of the seventh day or Jewish Sabbath.
Still, further, we as Baptists do not cease from labor the first day of the week or any other day, because the Lord has sanctified it as a holy day, but solely because we must be law-abiding citizens, and because it is needful for man and beast to have rest from toil, and because we desire to meet for the public worship of God at least that often. And the day in which, by law, we are commanded to abstain from endless toil, is the most suitable one upon which to meet for worship.
Elder FA Chick
Editorial
February 6, 1895
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.