REPORT FROM CALIFORNIA by Daniel T. Bourdeau

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 6, 1868

REPORT FROM CALIFORNIA.

By Daniel T. Bourdeau

Since writing our last report, we have given eight more discourses, making twenty-three in all; yet we consider that our work is but fairly begun. We have now sold sixty-three dollars’ worth of books, and have given away seven dollars’ worth besides. The History of the Sabbath and Thoughts on Revelation are in good demand. Thirteen Thoughts and ten History of the Sabbath have been taken. We have canvassed nearly the whole of the Sabbath question, and still the interest holds good. While some of our hearers are leaving us, others are coming in from the country; so that we have good congregations. One of our hearers has commenced keeping the Sabbath, and others are deeply interested, and are gradually drawing toward us and the truth.

Last Sunday evening, two discourses were given in this place on the change of the Sabbath: one by Eld. McClaferty, a Baptist preacher, and the other by Eld. Lippitt, a Methodist minister, who is said to be the ablest speaker in the county. These discourses were reviewed the next evening by Bro. Loughborough, before a large and attentive congregation.

Both of these ministers taught that the Sabbath was made at creation; that the fourth commandment required the observance of only one-seventh part of time; that the Sabbath was changed to the first day, or from one-seventh part of time and no day in particular to a particular day; viz., the first day. In trying to prove the change of the Sabbath, Eld. McClaferty said, “We have no commandment, no ‘thus saith the Lord;’ but a thus doeth the Lord, and thus do the apostles, is equivalent to thus saith the Lord.” Of course, Bro. Loughborough did not fail to show the fallacy of these positions by proving, among other things, that the fourth command enjoins the observance of the particular day on which God rested, and which he blessed and sanctified; that without the particular day, the Sabbath could not exist; that we may as well say, A god, and no god in particular, and slide off to an idol god, as to say, A seventh day, and no day in particular, when the commandment says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath [or rest] of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work;” that it is impossible to enforce the observance of a particular day by a commandment that only enjoins the observance of one-seventh part of time and no day in particular; that, if the fourth commandment is thus indefinite, we observe it as well, to say the least, as our first-day friends; that we not only have no commandment, and no “thus saith the Lord,” for the first day, but that we are not even furnished a thus doeth the Lord and the apostles, in favor of first-day keeping; that those texts which speak of the first day, never call it the Sabbath, Lord’s day, or Christian Sabbath, nor show that God ever blessed and sanctified that day, or that he ever changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, or that Christ and his disciples ever kept that day as a Sabbath. But the reverse is seen; viz., that Christ and his apostles and followers observed the seventh day, while the first day, even the day on which an evening meeting was held at Troas, Acts xx, with reference to Paul’s departing the next morning, being Sunday morning, was employed as a laboring day.

Eld. Lippitt made more of a labored effort than the Baptist preacher, only to have his theory lowered in the eyes of the candid, in proportion to its exaltation by human wisdom. He stated that as the first seventh-day was not said to be composed of the evening and the morning, it must represent more than a literal day, and cover the whole period employed in the work of redemption, in which God is now resting. From this position he concluded that we are to keep only one-seventh part of time. Strange conclusion this! Should he not rather have reasoned thus: We are to imitate the Creator in resting on the seventh day; therefore, God made a mistake in commanding the people in past ages to keep the seventh day because he had employed that day in resting; and therefore it is premature to keep the Sabbath before the work of redemption is completed. To prove the premise of the elder false, it was only necessary to quote Gen. ii, 2, and the Sabbath law, where we learn that God “blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because that in it he had rested.” The rest was in the past when the Sabbath day was blessed and sanctified.

Time would fail us if we should undertake to notice some forty statements made by Eld. Lippitt, and the answers to the same by Bro. Loughborough. Suffice it to say that victory was complete on the side of truth, and that the opposition to the truth with the victory that followed, raised the interest still higher. The elder proposes to give a history of Adventism, showing its errors and tendencies. We say, Let the wheel roll. They can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth, if we stand in the counsel of God, where he can use us to his glory. If we had Bro. White’s Life Incidents, it would be of use to us in giving a history of true Adventism. We hope to have it in a few weeks.

We feel the tremendous weight of the cause at times, yet have reason to take courage. Health improving. Trying to make a good use of the strength the Lord gives. Pray for us.

[Since the foregoing was in type, we have received the following additional particulars:—Ed.]

According to previous announcement, the opposition to the Sabbath and Advent doctrine was continued by Messrs. Jenks and Lippitt last Sunday evening; the former making a special effort to prove a change of the Sabbath, and the latter pretending to give a history of Adventism, evidently with the design of counteracting our preaching on the speedy return of Christ.

We reviewed Mr. Jenks’ discourse on Tuesday evening; and Bro. Loughborough reviewed the discourse of Mr. Lippitt the next evening. We had good congregations, and both enjoyed unusual freedom. We felt that the good Spirit was present, to help defend the truth, expose error, and powerfully to convict our hearers of the truthfulness of our position.

On Tuesday evening, both of our opponents were present, and were quite prominent in whispering, etc., thus disturbing and surprising some of our hearers. Had we done the same when listening to them, and taking notes, would we have been excused? By no means. Then why should not these men, as examples for the flock, and patterns for the world to follow, manifest good manners, to say the least?

Mr. Jenks had had an opportunity of perusing our works on the Sabbath, and of hearing the reply to Mr. Lippitt’s discourse on that subject, by Bro. Loughborough, and, therefore, was, in some respects, more cautious than Mr. Lippitt had been. Yet all his care and wisdom could not cover the weakness of his position, nor produce evidence from the Scriptures to prove that God ever changed the Sabbath. To do this, it would be necessary to add a new text to the Bible. But we must confess that he took some very strange positions.

For instance, he took for his text the following words of the apostle: “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say,” 1 Cor. x, 15, and immediately stated that he did not wish to have a controversy, alleging as a reason that the majority of hearers would be unqualified to determine the truth from the multitude of texts, quotations, etc., and that they should rely upon the piety and learning of their pastor.

He led out on the Sabbath by saying, “When Christ came, the seventh-day Sabbath was kept. This observance is traced, not to commandments of men, but to a command of Jehovah.” To which we said, Amen. He thus showed, that if the fourth commandment enjoins the observance of the seventh day—the day on which he rested, and that he sanctified and blessed, it

certainly cannot be made to teach that we should keep another day. But he tried to offset against the fourth commandment Eze. xliii, 26, 27: “Seven days shall they purge the altar, and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord God.”

He claimed that the eighth day spoken of in this passage was equivalent to the first day of the week, and that here we had the same as an express command by Christ to keep the first day. In reply, we proved that the Lord, through Ezekiel, was showing the rebellious house of Israel the form and fashion of a house that they would have, with the altar, etc., pertaining thereto, if they reformed, or were ashamed of what they had done. Verses 9-11. The priests would be seven days in purifying the altar, and in consecrating themselves; and from the eighth day and onward, or “so forward,” they would offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings upon the altar. The time when the seven days to be employed in purifying the altar, etc., should commence, is not given; and therefore it would be unreasonable to conclude that the eighth day would be the first day of the week. All that we can learn from this text is that the purification of the altar being completed, the priests would offer sacrifices thereon. What do we see here about the Sabbath, or a change of the Sabbath? Where is the command for the first day, that will compete with the Sabbath law? In fact, no command whatever exists for that day; and “where no law is,” says Paul, “there is no transgression.”

Again, those who keep the seventh day are accused of going back to Judaism. But must not those who use this text as proof that we ought to keep Sunday, go back to “the priests, the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok,” and offer literal sacrifices as the Jews did?

Again, if we are Jews because we keep all God’s commandments, are not those nine-tenths Jews, who believe that nine of the commandments are binding? But in keeping the ten commandments, we only do what the churches teach. For they publish the ten commandments just as they stand in the decalogue, and we conform to the fourth in our practice. How, then, can we be blamed? Are not those rather to be blamed who, while publishing the ten commandments for the world, as does the American Tract Society, composed of nearly a score of Protestant denominations, refuse to keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, under the plea that it has been abolished? How much more consistent it would be to live up to our own principles by walking in the light as it shines on our pathway.

Mr. Jenks tried to lessen the confidence of the people in our position by stating more than once that those who adhere to it are ignorant; and in dwelling on Acts xx, 7, he remarked that the Greek showed that it was the custom of the disciples to meet on the first day. In answering him under this head, we remarked, that though learning and a knowledge of the arts and sciences were to be prized, yet we did not believe that an understanding of the word of God depended on one’s going through a regular course of studies, and being learned, in the common acceptation of the term. If it did, then Christ was the wrong one to select to be the founder and great teacher of the Christian religion; and Christ made a grand mistake in selecting, as a general thing, unlearned men to preach his gospel; and this error was often run into in Old-Testament times. And we hoped that we would not be so puffed up under the idea of learning, that we would feel above the truth when it was presented to us.

As to Mr. Jenks’ pretensions on the original of Acts xx, 7, we admitted that sometimes the Greek shed light on the Scriptures; and as he and others present were versed in the languages, we had two Greek Testaments on the stand, that were at their disposal, that they might teach us a lesson on the Greek of that text, and make their statement good; for it would not answer to be making assertions continually without proving them. But as no one came forward, we challenged any one present or any preacher in the place to produce a lawful rendering of the Greek, that would convey the idea that the disciples met more than once at Troas on the first day of the week, and that it was their custom to meet on that day. It was a farewell meeting. They met to break bread, and not to keep the Christian Sabbath; for that Sabbath was not then known. And, as Mr. Jenks acknowledged, the light part of that day was spent by Paul and those who accompanied him, in traveling on their way to Jerusalem. And as we were ignorant, and our opponents learned, they could very easily expose our ignorance before the people; therefore we invited them to occupy our stand, and affirm that the Scriptures teach that the Sabbath has been changed to the first day of the week; and we would deny. We believed that the cause demanded this, that our hearers might see that we were prepared to prove our affirmations by the word of God. But our opponents were silent.

After stating that Paul commanded the Corinthians and the churches of Galatia to lay by them, or at home, in store for the poor saints on the first day of the week, 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, Mr. Jenks added, “The day was hallowed by acts of benevolence.” Then Christians sanctified the day, and not Jehovah. But who says so, Mr. Jenks? According to this text, they must be at home on the first day of the week. And, as we will show hereafter, here is a system for supporting the gospel, which dispenses with donation parties and religious lotteries and gambling.

In quoting from the epistle of Barnabas, he said that this epistle was not written by Barnabas, but that it was written in the second century; yet it was true as a history. In this he was a good step in advance of Mr. Lippitt, who had previously quoted a portion of this epistle as authentic. But query: Who can leave the Protestant rule of faith, “The Bible, and the Bible alone,” to adopt an epistle that bears a lie in the very face of it—purporting to have been written by Barnabas, when it was not—and stating glaring falsehoods, such as the assertion that a certain creature “every year changes its kind, and is sometimes male, and sometimes female”? If this epistle will lie on some subjects, may it not on the Sabbath question?

Again, Mr. Jenks says, “The guide must be the church, the company of believers in the world, the entire church;” and again, he adds, “Three hundred millions of Christians are agreed on this subject.” This, of course, includes the Roman Catholic church. If it has come to this, that this church must compose a fractional part of our spiritual guide, pray tell us where will be the stopping place in apostatizing from the Bible. This position is too absurd for a Protestant to accept.

In his discourse on the history of Adventism, Mr. Lippitt stated, among other things, that there had been Adventists, even from the first century, who had believed in the immediate coming of Christ, and had been disappointed; that there was but one text in the Old Testament that taught the second coming of Christ, or, in other words, all the texts in the Old Testament that teach the coming of Christ, excepting one, were fulfilled at his first advent; that those who believed in the coming of Christ were groveling and ignorant, and there were no wise men among them; that they were material and sensual in all their ideas; and that the kingdom for which they looked, was a Mahometan paradise of houris. He also told the congregation that they remembered the groveling character of Adventism, as illustrated by their preparing and putting on ascension robes.

In replying to these statements, Bro. Loughborough made the following points:

1. What if Adventists have looked for Christ, and been disappointed, in past ages? Does this prove that we should not expect him when we have reached a period in which we are authorized by the Scriptures to look for him, and believe that he is near, even at the door? We find some who believed that the day of the Lord was at hand even in the days of Paul, who corrected them by saying that that day should not come till there come a falling away, and the Man of Sin, which we understand to be the Papacy, be revealed, exalt himself above God, sitting in the temple of God and saying that he is God, etc. All those, therefore, who looked for Christ before this was fulfilled, were premature in their expectations. But now that the Papacy has arisen, fulfilled these specifications, and occupied the long period that was allotted to it; and now that we have reached the time of the end, when knowledge was to increase, and the wise were to understand, and the leading signs of the advent have been fulfilled, Dan. xi; xii; Matt. xxiv, may we not understand the things that belong to our peace, and consistently believe, yes, “know,” that Christ’s coming is right upon us?

2. Seven texts were quoted from the Old Testament that must apply to the second coming of Christ, and others besides were quoted from memory, referring to the same event; whereupon it was asked which of these texts Mr. Lippitt had reference to.

3. If those believing in the coming of Christ and a literal kingdom on earth, are groveling, ignorant, material, and sensual, then such men as Wesley, Clarke, Benson, Isaac Newton, and a host of others, are guilty of these charges; for they were believers in these doctrines. But what was there groveling and sensual in the dominion that God gave our first parents? Again, think of applying these vulgar epithets to the saints possessing the earth when it is restored to more than its Eden glory.

4. As to the charge of Adventists’ putting on ascension robes, Bro. L. called upon those present to make it good by giving good evidence that they had seen this done; but no such evidence was produced. But what if some had been silly enough to do this (which is by no means true), what would it prove against the Advent doctrine? Have not some arisen in connection with every genuine reform, who have brought the truth into disrepute by their extremes? Our tracts, entitled “Ascension Robes,” were taken quite freely at the close of the meeting.

The efforts of these preachers only reacted against themselves, and served to open the eyes of many in regard to their positions and the nature of their work. There is still another opposition sermon to be given, on the errors and tendencies of Adventism, next Sunday evening. This will doubtless include an attack of our views on immortality, which we are now setting forth before the people. A few have commenced keeping the Sabbath. We will hold our first Sabbath meeting to-morrow.

Upwards of ninety dollars’ worth of our books are being read. We do not see the end of our labors here yet. We do not expect a very large ingathering of souls at first. The nature of the work is such that it will take some time to do our duty here. Many of those who are interested, are scattered, and live at a distance, so that they do not attend every meeting; and we must necessarily repeat and visit much.

More soon.

D. T. BOURDEAU.

Petaluma, Cal., Sept. 11, 1868.