A Written Discussion ... Upon the Sabbath

ELDER J. H. WAGGONER’S SECOND NEGATIVE

Eld. Vogel has turned his insinuation into a direct statement that some of my brethren have argued that the first covenant was not abolished. This I deny, and call upon him to point to a single accredited writer or speaker among us who has so taught. Were his statement true, it would have no bearing against my argument, but he knows the ‘effect’ it will have on some minds. To add that he will believe on my ‘mere word’ that I never held that view, may not have been designed to insult, but could never emanate, in such a connection, from a regard to the courtesies due an opponent. I have not yet considered it due to anybody to offer even my ‘mere word’ on that point. WDUS 118.2

A man more reckless of his statements on the Bible, I have never met. He says Psalm 69 is ‘not a prediction’-does not apply to Jesus more than to ‘any one else of the present day.’ (1) See verses 9, 21: ‘For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.’ ‘They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.’ Comp. John 2:17, and Romans 15:3, etc. And so unreliable are his statements on Isaiah 56. WDUS 118.3

He says when the Lord’s Supper was instituted they ‘did not commune, but merely ate bread and drank wine’! And that is all they do now, according to the true faith. I was aware that Eld. V. was raised in the ‘mother church,’ but supposed that he had got farther from her than he has. Jesus then said, ‘This is my body-this is my blood,’ i. e., they represented his body and blood, and so they do now. His reference to Leviticus 23, for the times of instituting and of observing their feasts, do not serve him, for there was a specific statement of the time of their observance-but not so of the Lord’s Supper. WDUS 118.4

It is amusing to see how strenuously he pleads for inferences in behalf of positive institutions. Campbell is not misconstrued by me. He does inveigh against that which (to use his own words) ‘is supposed to be logically inferred’ in favor of a positive institution. I ask the reader to look again at my quotation from Campbell. He describes and condemns the very course Eld. V. pursues, to-wit: taking a part here and a part there and connecting inferences, without direct statement or precept. The only real service Mr. Campbell did for theology, was to strip the vail of tradition and inference from positive institutions. Eld. V. complains that I said, ‘he knows better.’ I used the words justly. But if he does not yet know A. Campbell’s position, I will try to enlighten him. We will read again:— WDUS 118.5

“A positive institution requires positive precept-a positive and express authority. No positive institution has ever been established upon mere inference. To attempt to found a positive Christian ordinance upon an inference, or upon a series of inferences, is, in effect, to stultify and make void its pretensions. * * * We have called upon its advocates times without number for such a precept-for such a positive injunction, but hitherto we have asked in vain.”—Baptism, p.218. WDUS 118.6

A man hung on circumstantial evidence is unjustly hung, if the evidence is not based on a series of undisputed facts. But Eld. Vogel not only violates every just principle, by trying to build up a positive institution by mere deduction, but even his supposed facts from which his deductions are drawn, are fallacies! WDUS 118.7

1. Revelation 1:10 does not hint of a new institution, nor point out the first day of the week. WDUS 118.8

2. Acts 20:7, does not speak of the Lord’s day, nor of the observance of any day, nor of any duty in that respect. WDUS 118.9

3. 1 Corinthians 16:2, does not speak of the Lord’s day, nor of the observance of a day, nor of any assembling for any purpose on any day. Inference is all that he presents. WDUS 119.1

On Revelation 1:10, he has done a needless work. No one denies that it is a day ‘of,’ or ‘pertaining to,’ the Lord; ‘the Lord’s day’ expresses all that. He quotes Barnes; I accept it, and will quote it again: “So far as the word is concerned, it might mean a day pertaining to the Lord, in any sense, or for any reason-either because he claimed it as his own, and set it apart for his service, or because it was assigned to commemorate some important event.” Now all these particulars apply to the seventh day as the Lord’s day. (1.) He claimed it as his own. (2.) He set it apart for his service. (3.) He designated it to commemorate an important event, even the creation of the heavens and the earth. But neither of them applies to the first day. (1.) He never claimed it as his own. (2.) He never set it apart for his service. (3.) He never designated it to commemorate any event. If this is disputed we call for the precept-the ‘positive injunction!’ They who love the pure word of God more than traditional fallacies, will be at no loss to determine which is the Lord’s day. WDUS 119.2

He revives the question, and re-affirms his position that ‘Lord,’ in the text, refers only to Christ. I should have exposed this before, only that he declared its ‘proper place’ was in this proposition. We will examine the ground. WDUS 119.3

(1.) He said, “Under this dispensation the term Lord, refers exclusively to Christ.” I proved the falsity of that by quoting such texts as Revelation 11:15, ‘Our Lord and his Christ. To this he replied: WDUS 119.4

(2.) “I do not mean that the Father has ceased in his nature to be Lord; i. e., Jehovah, the self-existent One, but in the official sense of head over all things to the church, Jesus is the only head, the one Lord, without a rival, with all authority.” WDUS 119.5

He has reiterated this, but I quote this, in preference to his later statements, because it is more brief and explicit. The second (marked 2) is an evasion of the most marked kind. The question is not as to whether the Father has changed in his nature, which would indeed be a rare question for discussion! but whether his assertion is true that ‘the term, Lord, belongs exclusively to Christ in this dispensation.’ This is too plain a point to dodge, and his first inference in his present argument is based on this assumption. What a ground for positive duty! When he undertakes to prove that the term Lord is used in Revelation 1:10, in a sense in which it is not used in Revelation 11:15, we shall note how it is done. WDUS 119.6

But, were his first assumption conceded, it would not serve his purpose, unless he could establish the other, which is based on the nature of the authority of Christ in this dispensation. The relevancy of the following quotation will be seen as I progress. Thus he said:— WDUS 119.7

“Christ, in his word-state, was indeed present at the creation, but only as agent, not as proprietor. * * * Hence, if the Sabbath had even originated there, Jesus would no more be the Lord of it, than a carpenter is owner of the house which he builds for another.” WDUS 119.8

Now I affirm that both Father and Son are ‘proprietor’ of the Sabbath by virtue of creation; it, and it only, is ‘the Lord’s day,’ whether the term refers to Father or Son, or to both. And such an indignity as Eld. Vogel casts upon the glorious Son of God, I dislike to repeat, even to expose it. Let the reader turn to those scriptures which speak of the work of creation, and see if the above is not an insult to the Maker. See Colossians 1:16-17. ‘For by him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him.’ No; not ‘for him,’ says Eld. Vogel; he was only like the carpenter who builds a house ‘for another!’ And such a monstrous perversion of Scripture as this is to show that Jesus is not the Lord of the Sabbath day-that it is not the Lord’s day. WDUS 119.9

He continues to assert that Jesus is the only ‘Lord’ in this dispensation, but evades the full result of his statement by adding—‘in an official sense.’ Did he carry this limitation through his argument, there would be no dispute between us. But he does not; he makes him not agent, but proprietor, in the New Testament, in a sense that he was not in the work of creation. Thus he quotes that he is ‘head over all things to the church,’ but only that part of the text which does not say that the Father gave him to be that head. He is Lord and Christ; but the Father ‘made him’ such. Has he more independence or proprietorship in this than in creation? When he shows that his present ‘authority’ was not conferred by the Father, and is not of a special kind for a special purpose, and that he is not yet ‘expecting till his foes be made his footstool,’ which will be done by the Father (Psalm 110:1); that God was not in Christ reconciling the world unto himself; that eternal life is not the gift of God through Christ; that Christ is not ‘mediator between God and man;’ that he does not act as ‘advocate,’ and that the Father did not send the Spirit in answer to the prayer of Christ; that his doctrines were his own, and not his Fathers; and that Christ came to do his own will, and not the will of his Father; when such and a score of other Scripture truths are reversed, then will be shown that Jesus has an independent proprietorship in the gospel, which he had not in creation! WDUS 119.10

I said (first negative) that ‘the Sunday is no part of the spiritual (moral) law written in the heart in the new covenant.’ This he denies; and as it is closely related to the question of ‘proprietorship,’ I notice it here. And first, I raise the question, Who made the new covenant? Who is the covenant maker ‘with Judah and Israel?’ Is it the Father or the Son? I say it is the Father-the same that made the first covenant. Hear his words: ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.’ But if Eld. Vogel is right-if the ‘proprietorship’ of the new covenant is in Jesus, then, I ask, Who is the mediator? The Catholics would answer, the virgin, or the pope; but what should we say? WDUS 120.1

And this forever settles the question as to whose law is put in the hearts of the ‘Israel of God’ in the new covenant. Jehovah, the covenant maker, says, ‘I will put my laws in their hearts.’ ‘The commandments of God’ are distinguished from ‘the faith of Jesus;’ and all the positive institutions of the gospel are a part of the faith of Jesus, not of the moral law of the Father. And as the Son does the will, or law, of the Father, nothing in the faith of Jesus can conflict with the law of God. But the Sunday tradition ‘makes void the commandment of God,’ and is, therefore, inadmissible. Christ never proclaimed it, and the law of the Father does not permit it. Thus much for the ground of his first inference. WDUS 120.2

But he says, ‘With reference to the binding force of a sacred day in this dispensation I have something clearer than inference.’ That is not a point of dispute between us. I have argued the same thing for the Sabbatic institution. But that this sacred day is a new institution, or is the first day, he has only inference in his favor. Thus on all the ground of difference between us he stands on inference only. WDUS 120.3

1 Corinthians 16:2, does not speak of the Lord’s day, nor refer to it, nor to any observance of any day. Remember that an inference, when admissible, must rest upon facts beyond dispute; otherwise, it is utterly worthless. Fortunately for my argument, the ground of his inference is denied by his own partizans. The testimony of an opponent, in my favor, is the strongest evidence; therefore, I first give the testimony of authors who were strongly traditionized to Sunday-keeping:— WDUS 120.4

“Let him lay up at home, treasuring; as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, ‘by himself,’ means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity.”—Barnes. WDUS 120.5

“Some are of the opinion that the sums thus set apart were brought to the treasury of the church at the time; but the words do not seem to admit of that interpretation; and if each separately laid by the sum which he proposed to give, the whole would be brought together at once when necessary, without any trouble in soliciting contributions.”—Comp. Com. WDUS 120.6

“Every one was to lay by in store, have a treasury or fund with himself for this purpose. * * * Some of the Greek fathers rightly observe here that this advice was given for the sake of the poorer among them. They were to lay by, from week to week, and not bring into the common treasury, that by this means their contributions might be easy to themselves, and yet grow into a fund for the relief of their brethren.”—Matthew Henry, Com. WDUS 120.7

“The apostle only meant that there should be no private and petty gatherings, then first to be made, when he came, but only one suneisphora [joint contribution] formed, containing all the sums which had been gradually laid up in private.”—Bloomfield, Notes on Greek Text. And of the ‘gathering’ he says: “The word logia is nowhere else found in the scriptural, and very rarely in the classical writers; and seems to have been confined to the language of common life. It properly signifies a gleaning, and then, as here, a slight gathering.” WDUS 120.8

“Certainly it may not be inferred from this passage that collections took place among the congregations on the Sabbath, for it was Paul’s intention that each should make a suitable contribution at home.”—Olshausen, Com. WDUS 121.1

“Lay by him in store; at home.”—Justin Edwards’ Notes. WDUS 121.2

“Par’ heauto, by or with oneself; in one’s house; at home, Fr. chez soi. 1 Corinthians 16:2. So Xen. Mem. 1. 13. 3.”—Robinson’s Lexicon. WDUS 121.3

“Par’ heauto, at one’s home or house. Lat. apud se, Hdt. 1.105, cf. 1,86.”—Liddell & Scott’s Lexicon. WDUS 121.4

These were Sunday men; some of them of the most rabid kind. What but the most evident facts could lead them thus to remove the foundation for a popular Sunday inference? I copy also a few translations:— WDUS 121.5

“Let every one off you put asyde at home, and laye vppe whatever he thinketh mete.”—Tyndale. WDUS 121.6

“Let each one of you lay by himself in store.”—Sawyer’s. WDUS 121.7

“Let each of you lay by him and treasure up.”—Anderson (Disciple). WDUS 121.8

“Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.”—Syriac. WDUS 121.9

To the above I add a summary given by J. W. Morton, in his address to the Synod of the Ref. Pres. church:— WDUS 121.10

“I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means in the collection box of the congregation! Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, par heauto, ‘by on’s self, i. e., at home.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it ‘apud se,’ with one’s self, at home. Three French translators, those of Martin, Osterwald and De Sacy, ‘chez soi,’ at his house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘bei sich selbst,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, ‘by hemselven,’ same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘appresso di se’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘para isso,’ with himself. The Swedish, ‘naer sig sielf,’ near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above. Now if your premise is false, your inference is not only unnecessary, but wholly inadmissible.” WDUS 121.11

Had not so much stress been laid upon this inference I would ask pardon for spending so much time in exposing it. If inferences were admissible on this subject, what could the inference be worth based on a supposition so extensively denied by the most able of Sunday-keepers? And such is the whole foundation of the Sunday argument; the basis of a proposed positive institution of the gospel! WDUS 121.12

Eld. Vogel further infers that Sunday was a sacred day because they were to give on that day, and giving is an act of worship! Good, perhaps, for those whose worship is necessarily confined to Sunday-Sunday Christians! But my brethren all follow this injunction of 1 Corinthians 16:2, yet not one of them regards it as the Lord’s day. This shows to what a strait he is reduced to make inferences for Sunday. WDUS 121.13

His position on Acts 20. is not fully developed, but I will offer a few proofs to show that here, also, he has no foundation for his inference. Prof. Bush, an eminent scholar, said:— WDUS 121.14

“The evening is probably mentioned first because the darkness preceded the light. On the ground of this recorded order of things in the sacred narrative, the Jews commenced their day of twenty-four hours from evening.”—Notes on Genesis 1:5. WDUS 121.15

Lange, on the same text, says:— WDUS 121.16

“Evening and morning denote rather the interval of a creative day, and this is evidently after the Hebrew mode of reckoning; the day is from sunset, the morning that follows stands for the second half of the day proper. In the same manner was the day reckoned among the Athenians, the Germans and the Gauls. It is against the text for Delitzsch to put as the ground here the Babylonish reckoning of the day, namely, from the dawning of the morning.” WDUS 121.17

And so Kitto, Cyclopedia, Art. Day:— WDUS 121.18

“The earliest measure of time on record is the day. ‘The evening and the morning were the first day’ (Genesis 1:5). Here the word ‘day’ denotes the civil or calendar day of twenty-four hours, including the ‘evening,’ or natural night, and the ‘morning,’ or natural day.” WDUS 121.19

The reader will bear in mind that in exposing these inferences, I do not admit that an inference is any just reason for a positive institution. I protest against the whole course of Eld. Vogel, and am glad to put myself on the record as fully committed against inference and tradition. With Alexander Campbell, I demand ‘positive precept’—‘express authority’ for a positive institution. Eld. Vogel said a ‘formal proclamation’ was necessary to make a positive institution binding. But that was only meant to apply against the Sabbath: with Sunday the case is immensely different. WDUS 121.20

His remark that I wish to dictate as to the kind of evidence to be received, and that a pope could do no more, is deserving only of contempt. He did not think it popery in him to ask for the ‘formal proclamation’ of the Sabbath; nor did he ever think it was popery for A. Campbell to demand a ‘precept’ or ‘positive injunction’ for positive institutions. I will yet show him that I stand upon the ground clearly marked out by the great body of writers, of all denominations, on the nature of and evidences for positive institutions. WDUS 122.1