p. 156 | OBEYING THE TRUTH

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 14, 1856

OBEYING THE TRUTH.

An esteemed subscriber writes:— “I am in union with the principal doctrines which it (the Review) advocates, (especially the Life and Death question;) but whether I shall ever practically embrace the Lord’s Sabbath, time must determine. As I am far advanced in years, (74,) former habits I find hard to overcome; when brought in contact with a numerous progeny, which the Lord has permitted me to rear up; all of whom are striving to get into the kingdom, and meet on the first day of the week to worship God. One half are Adventists, the other half still remain with the Baptist sect, of which, in former years, we have all been members. I feel desirous to obtain an inheritance, on the New Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, and could I be made fully to believe, that none but those who ever have, and at the present day do, keep the seventh day of the week as a Sabbath, would ever enter the Kingdom, it might produce a feeling which I have never been able to realize. ‘He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. Let every one, or man, be fully persuaded in his own mind.’ Rom. xiv, 6.”

We had supposed that the views of Sabbath-keepers relative to the salvation of Christians who have not in ages past observed the true Sabbath were generally understood. We do not say that none but those who have kept the Sabbath in times past, will be saved, or that there are no Christians at the present time, who do not as yet observe the Rest-day of the Lord. Notwithstanding the Sabbath has been a truth from the beginning, various causes have combined to shut it from the church and bring it into disuse. The church has passed a long sojourn in the wilderness. Rev. xii, 14. The saints and laws of the Most High have been given into the hands of the little horn of the Man of sin. Dan. vii, 25. And it would be unreasonable, as well as unscriptural, to suppose that during all this time there were none, enveloped though they might be in the gloom of error, who were the Lord’s servants and accepted of Heaven. Wherefore accepted? Because they followed the best light they had. We feel safe therefore in saying that whoever walks up to the best light he has, though some plain truths may still be hidden from him, is nevertheless doing all that can be required of him. But when further light comes, it becomes his duty then to follow that light. If it is rejected, then comes sin and condemnation. If that rejection is persisted in, what else can be expected but finally the withdrawal of the favor of Heaven.

This is a natural conclusion from the teachings of Christ. Let us go back in imagination to the days of the Saviour. We will suppose some aged and venerable Israelite meets one of the disciples, and says, Am I to suppose that none but those who believe on this new personage whom you call Messiah, can be saved? Are all sinners who reject him? Are there none who can claim the favor of Heaven but you his followers? Our Lord himself gives the answer in these words: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen, and hated both me and my Father.” John xv, 22, 24. “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Chap. iii, 19. This rule can but be regarded as universal in its application. If rejecting the truth of their time, brought condemnation to the Jews, rejecting special truth of the present day will condemn the people of this generation.

We almost feel like offering an apology for any remarks on Rom. xiv, which has been so often, and so thoroughly discussed. Yet so long as people are unsettled on it, or think that the Apostle here gives a rule by which they can regulate their observance of the divine Sabbath, so long we feel justified in repeating what we think is the true meaning of this scripture, till our views shall be fairly and scripturally met. And we first do well to follow the example of the eunuch with Philip, and seriously inquire, Of what day speaketh the Apostle? Of the seventh day which is the Sabbath of the Lord our God, or of some other day?

If the seventh day, or Sabbath, is here referred to, it is very singular,

1. That there is nothing said about it, or that it is not particularly mentioned.

2. That no reference is made to the Decalogue of which the Sabbath commandment is an important part.

3. That the Apostle should talk in the SAME VERSE about EATING, with which the seventh day as the weekly Sabbath never had any connection.

4. That the Apostle should give such liberty to the church to treat one of the Commandments of God, unless that Commandment had been repealed by as high authority as enacted it.

But if Paul is here speaking of the feast days of the Jews, it is very natural

1. That he should introduce it in such a discourse, the subject of which is meats and drinks and the ceremonies of the Jews, of which these special days constituted an important part.

2. That he should suffer every man to follow his own persuasion; since the law which regulated these feast days was abolished by the death of Christ, and the sincerity of the individual alone remained to be considered. If any day was conscientiously observed as doing God service, the observer was accepted; and if another according to greater light, considered that the gospel required no such observance, he was equally accepted.

We anticipate that the question may here be asked, if it was right to observe those days and ceremonies, since they were abolished? and why did not the Apostle prohibit their observance, instead of permitting each one to follow his own conviction? In reply we might ask, if it was right for Paul to circumcise Timothy, since circumcision of the heart had then taken the place of the outward rite? Rom. ii, 29. Yet he did do it, on account of the Jews that he might get access to them; for all knew that his father was a Greek. Acts xvi, 3. As he says, I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 1 Cor. ix, 22. In this light we are disposed to look upon Rom. xiv, 1–6. As long as the Jewish converts could conscientiously, in the increasing light of the gospel, observe meats and feast days, they were suffered to do it; for though the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile was broken down at one blow by the death of Christ, the wall of prejudice between the Jew and the gospel had to be worn away by slow degrees.

If any stress is laid on the term “every day,” in verse 5, and the inference is drawn that every day must include the seventh, and therefore the seventh is brought down to a level with all other days, we reply, that the same expression is used in Ex. xvi, 4, where the Israelites were commanded to gather a certain portion of manna every day; and yet they were expressly forbidden to seek for it on the seventh day which was the Sabbath, as then they would find none; [verse 26,] and those who went out to gather it on the seventh day were plainly rebuked for so doing. Verses 26, 29. From this we learn plainly that the Lord has reserved the seventh day to himself—“My holy day,” Isa. lviii, 13—and that the term “every day” in both Exodus and Romans refers only to the six days of the week which are given to man for his secular employment.

If it is still urged that Rom. xiv, 6, must refer to the seventh day or Sabbath, we will test it further. The Sabbath commandment is one of the ten, and whatever rule will apply to one will apply to the whole; whatever liberties may be taken with the fourth, may be taken with any of the rest. We will therefore take Rom. xiv, which is so often applied to the fourth, and test its application on some others: One man thinketh he may not steal; another thinketh he may steal anything. He that stealeth, stealeth to the Lord; and he that stealeth not, to the Lord he doth not steal. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Will any one say that this is not a just conclusion from the premises assumed? It certainly is. The fourth Commandment contains a positive precept to keep the seventh day; the eighth, a positive prohibition of stealing: if we are to be persuaded in our own mind in regard to one, why not in regard to the other? There can certainly be no rule presented why we should be so partial as to single out one commandment and subject that to change, and not the others.

We hope that our aged friend may yet be led to practically embrace the “Lord’s Sabbath;” that he may be found in his declining years and gray hairs honoring the Lord his God by keeping the fourth as well as the rest of his Commandments; and then, though all his numerous family still continue to disregard that Rest-day which God has set apart for man, they will not at least have it to say that the example of their father sanctioned them in it.