THE CHALLENGE: SUNDAY, NOT SATURDAY, IS SABBATH TIME by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 13, 1869

“THE CHALLENGE: SUNDAY, NOT SATURDAY, IS SABBATH TIME.”

By Dudley Marvin Canright

Such is the heading of a pamphlet lately issued at Skowhegan, Maine, written by E. B. Fletcher, a Methodist minister. He opens his argument as is usual with those who oppose the law of God, by denouncing Sabbath-keeping as “a bad influence,” “the Sabbatarian notion,” “the whirlpool of annihilation religion,” “a bad doctrine,” a “demoralizing influence,” “a religion that rejects the essentials of Christianity,” &c. This will illustrate the spirit of the author. But when did this seventh-day Sabbath doctrine originate? Surely the Devil must have originated a doctrine that is worthy of the above epithets. But no; the great God was the author of the seventh-day Sabbath! Can men learn God who thus revile his institutions? Mr. F. next proceeds to state that last year he met me at both New Vineyard, and Athens, Maine, and that he made great efforts to induce me to discuss the Sabbath question with him, but that I refused any proposition that would really touch the question; and that thus he really gained a complete victory, and proved that I could not defend the seventh-day Sabbath. But that is a gross misrepresentation all through. He had drawn up his question, his rules, fixed his time of speaking, &c., all of which I must accept without any alteration, or back down! To offset his one proposition, I offered him his choice of nine; or he might speak an evening, and I would reply, or vice versa; or we would choose three men to draw up a question for us, &c., &c. But no; I must come to all his fixed terms, or back down! So much for his challenges.

As to his argument, it is so weak, and utterly void of any proof, that it seems strange that any candid, intelligent person should endorse it; yet it came forth highly recommended by three reverends! A few words of passing notice is all I deem it worthy of. He says, “We do not violate the Sabbath law, Ex. xx, 8–11, by keeping the seventh-day Sabbath on the time called the first day of the week.” Keep the seventh day on the first day! So well might we talk of keeping the fourth day of July on the tenth day of July. This is not only an absurdity but an impossibility. But how does he try to sustain this position? Why, all that the law requires is one day of rest after six of work. Says he, “This is our Sabbath, certainly.” Very true; it is his Sabbath; but the commandment says nothing about our Sabbath, nor your Sabbath. It is the Lord’s Sabbath-day that the law requires us to keep. Sabbath means rest, Sabbath-day, rest-day, and the Sabbath-day of the Lord, the rest-day of the Lord. Now the Lord’s rest, or Sabbath-day, must come on the day of the week on which the Lord rested. No other day can be his rest-day, any more than a day on which I was not born can be my birthday. Hence his talk about our Sabbath, a Sabbath, &c., is all lost. The law says nothing about any such Sabbath. It requires us to keep God’s Sabbath-day, which is the seventh day of the week and no other. Here is a specimen of his bold assertions without any proof: “The Sabbath succession was certainly interrupted whilst the Jews were slaves in Egypt, and, quite likely, when they were captives in Babylon. Nor is there a word said of their re-commencing the Sabbath on any previous succession. So far from this, the Bible is particular to inform us that when the Jews escaped from slavery they began their Sabbath week on the day the manna began; and kept each seventh day from the commencement of the “bread from Heaven.” Where did he learn all this? Not in the Bible, for it says no such thing.

Again he says, “There is plenty of evidence that our Sabbath time is one day later than that of the Jews in the time of Christ.” Well, then this is just the place to bring forward that evidence; and of course he will do it. So here it is: “As the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, and Christ rose from the dead on the first day, it is generally supposed that he changed the Sabbath time to adapt it more fully to this last dispensation; more especially called his. This may have been. Or the apostles might have changed its time, by divine direction.” “The probability is, that the Sabbath time, for the gospel dispensation, became fully established by the events which occurred on the first day of the week.” Here is the evidence, of which he had so large a supply, showing the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week! How plain it is! What an abundance of Bible testimony! Who will doubt after this? “It is generally supposed,” “it may have been,” “it might have been,” “the probability is,” &c., &c. From what follows, it appears that he considers these reasons even more decisive than any divine inspiration on the point;—better than a “Thus saith the Lord.” He continues: “It would appear that no divine inspiration would be necessary to make known a duty so clearly indicated by the facts in the case!”

This is a virtual admission that there is no divine inspiration for the change, and hence it is not of God. By this mode of proving a doctrine, we might dispense with all inspiration, and reason out our doctrines without any revelation from God. The Bible in his case is not only useless, but is really in the way, to be explained away. By this way of proving a doctrine, we might establish all the abominable doctrines of the mother of harlots. He does not even pretend to offer one text of scripture showing that the Sabbath was changed, yet he has plenty of evidence to prove it. Where is that evidence? Of course he has given the best he had, and the reader has seen what it is.

But he has much to say about keeping the Sabbath on an unbroken succession of weeks. He asserts that it cannot be proved that the Sabbath law requires this. Any day in seven will do that the church may select. This is simply the old threadbare argument of one-seventh part of time. This is the burden of his book. Convenience and expediency and what the majority of people do, has great weight with him in deciding which day to keep. The “interruption of business affairs” troubles him much. So he concludes it is not necessary to keep the seventh day. This is making business and the affairs of this world of more importance than the service of God. The world first, God second, is the real spirit of the whole argument. A good answer to all of this is found in the language of Christ: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke xiv, 26, 33. We prefer to be of that little flock who fear God and tremble at his word, even though it should be inconvenient to do it.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

April 1.