Testimony of Others by E. T. Russell

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 9, 1916

Testimony of Others

By E. T. Russell

E. T. RUSSELL

It is a source of pleasure to most people to know that others hold the same opinion on theological questions as themselves. I have been highly gratified, in reading Christian (Disciple) publications, to find that they so nearly agree with the teachings of Seventh-day Adventists, not only in regard to the proper mode of Christian baptism, but also in regard to the unchangeable character of the law of God. In fact, some of their publishing houses issue large charts containing the law of God, the ten commandments which were spoken and written by Jehovah. This is strong presumptive evidence of their high appreciation of these sacred precepts, as they are evidently placed in that form to be taught to their children.

The readers of the following quotations will at once appreciate the soundness of the positions taken by the leading authors of the Disciple Church:—

God’s Law Must be Kept

“The first table of the law, which came before us last Sunday, defines our duties to God; the second table defines our duties to each other. Both must be kept. The divine law has never been repealed. This decalogue is the basis of human law, ‘the common law,’ the world over.”—The Christian Sunday School Teacher, June, 1887.

“The words were written by the finger of God; but the tables were not less surely fragments hewn out of the rock of Horeb. Hard, stiff, abrupt as the cliffs from which they were taken, they remain as the firm, unyielding basis on which all true spiritual religion has been built up and sustained. Sinai is not Palestine; the law is not the gospel; but the ten commandments, in letter and in spirit, remain to us as the relic of that time. They represent to us, both in fact and in idea, the granite foundation, the immovable mountain, on which the world is built up, without which all theories of religion are but as shifting and fleeting clouds; they give us the two homely, fundamental laws, which all subsequent revelation has but confirmed and sanctified: the law of our duty toward God, and the law of our duty toward our neighbor.”—Student’s Quarterly, second quarter, 1887.

The Sabbath a Memorial of Creation

“Heaven left not this fact, the creation, the basis of a thousand volumes to be gathered from abstract reasonings, vitiated traditions, ingenious analogies, or plausible conjectures, but from a monumental institution which was as universal as the annals of time, as the birth of nations, and as the language spoken by mortals. An institution too, which, notwithstanding its demand, not only of the seventh part of time, but of the seventh day, in uninterrupted succession was celebrated from the creation to the deluge, during the deluge, and after the deluge till the giving of the law.”—A. Campbell, in “Popular Lectures,” pp. 283, 284.

“The humblest pillar in honor of the dead has ‘In memory of’ inscribed, either in fact or by circumstances, upon its front; and so reads the fourth principle of the everlasting ten, Remember that in six days God created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore, remember the seventh day, to sanctify and hallow it.”—Id. p. 284.

God’s Law Cannot be Changed

“Either the law remains in all its force, to the utmost extent of its literal requirements, or it has passed away with the Jewish ceremonies. If it does not exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day for it.”—“The Christian Baptist,” by Alexander Campbell, Fifteenth edition, p. 44. St. Louis Christian Publishing Company.

The Sabbath Cannot be Changed

“‘But,’ say some, ‘it was changed from the seventh to the first day.’ Where? when? by whom?—No man can tell. No, it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again; for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed. It is all old wives’ fables to talk of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio—I think his name is Dr. Antichrist.”—Id.

“When I think of the nature of sin, and the holy and immutable laws of God, against whom it is committed, I see no difference between one sin and another. There may be great and little sins as to their temporal relations and consequences; but when he against whom every sin is committed, and that divine and holy law which is violated in the least offense, are considered, we must say with the apostle James, ‘He that offendeth in one point is guilty of all.’ It may be the veriest peccadillo on earth; but in heaven’s account, one sin would ruin a world, as it has done; for he that keeps the whole law and yet offends in the least point, is guilty of all. He that said not a jot or tittle of his law shall fall to the ground, he that magnified his law and made it honorable, will suffer no person to add to, to subtract from, to change, or to violate a single point with impunity.”—“A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion,” between Alexander Campbell and Rt. Rev. John B. Purcell, p. 204. Christian Publishing Company, 1883.

Change Proved

“It is clearly proved that the pastors of the church [Catholic] have struck out one of God’s ten words, which, not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality.”—Id. p. 214.

Rev. Clark Braden, a minister and an author, and ex-president of one of the Western colleges of the Disciples, said in the Christian Standard of Sept. 26, 1874:—

“Others observe the first day, contending without a particle of evidence that the commandment has been changed from the seventh day to the first. Our preachers are by no means agreed in their teachings. They have no well-defined views on the subject, and are defeated when they attempt a defense of our practice of observing the first day, or a review of the arguments of the advocates of the seventh day. Nor are we alone in this. There is no clear, tenable teaching on this subject in our theological works and commentaries, or by any religious press. Advocates of the observance of the first day stultify themselves by taking contradictory and inconsistent positions.”

In order to be in harmony with the teachings of the founder of that church and with the teachings of other leading men, as set forth in the preceding quotations, there is only one thing our Christian brethren can do and be consistent, and that is to keep the whole law, not desecrating or omitting one jot or tittle; and if they should do so, in that respect they would be one with us as a people keeping the seventh day. As they have rejected sprinkling, which was instituted by the Catholic Church, and practice immersion as taught in the Scriptures, why should they not reject the Sunday, an institution established by the same church, and observe the seventh day enjoined by “the fourth principle of the everlasting ten”? As it is part of that law of which Christ has said that not a jot or tittle shall fall to the ground, “he that magnified his law and made it honorable will suffer no person to add to, to subtract from, to change, or to violate a single point with impunity;” no, not even if it were changed by “Dr. Antichrist”!