p. 522 | A Check on Adventism by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 22, 1883

"A Check on Adventism."

By Editor

OUR readers may rest assured that it gives us no pleasure to deal with such vagaries and "whimsys" as Mr. Woodward has crowded into his book. We review him solely from a sense of duty to the truth of God's commandments. We are compelled to make mention of the Methodist denomination, not from any prejudice we have against them, for we have always entertained kindly feelings toward them, as much of our early religious experience was spent—and pleasantly spent—in their company, though we belonged to another church. But the Methodists on the Pacific Coast have always kept up a warfare against us, and in an unreasonable manner. In self-defense—no, in defense of the truth we hold—we have repelled their attacks. Dr. Benson, former editor of the California Christian Advocate, was unceasing in his direct opposition to us, and finally published a pamphlet against us; for it was professedly against us as a people, containing ill-natured and undeserved remarks about the Seventh-day Adventists. And these have been repeated by the present editor of the Advocate. We reviewed the professed argument of Dr. Benson, saying but little about his unjust personalities.

Next we reviewed Mr. Armstrong, though his pamphlet had little reference to us. His controversy was with the Seventh-day Baptists. But his exposition of Ex. 16 was too glaring a misrepresentation of that chapter for us to pass by without exposing it. We convicted him of willfully perverting the word of God. This language is not too strong, under the circumstances. When a man appears before his readers of the English, and claims to have demonstrated by the Hebrew text that the seventh-day Sabbath originated when Israel left Egypt, and misrepresents both the text and the grammar of the Hebrew, knowing that very few of his readers can detect the deception, no language is too strong to apply to the wickedness of his course. We asked, and it was only reasonable to ask, the Methodists to undertake to defend his course or withdraw his book from the market. If we were placed in such a light before the world, we should consider ourselves bound, as Christians, to do just what we asked of them. But they did neither; they cannot defend it, and the Advocate advertised it editorially afterward.

Then came Mr. Woodward, with a pamphlet more pretentious and more full of errors and deceptions than its predecessors. It bore the high-sounding title of "A Check on Adventism!" The reader will recognize our duty to notice it. But we have no fears for Adventism on its account. Adventism can stand any number of such "checks" as this, and thrive under them. If Methodism can stand the recoil from such a blast, we congratulate it. As a writer, Mr. Woodward has not shown himself worthy of much attention. But the book was published by the Methodist publishing house in San Francisco, recommended by the Advocate, and contains a highly complimentary "Introduction" by Dr. Stratton, who, to our great astonishment, manifested the weakness and prejudice shown so prominently by his denomination on this coast. The Advocate said, in reference to our first brief notice of the work, that Mr. Woodward and Dr. Stratton are able to take care of themselves. That is very gratifying intelligence. Nothing would please us more in this matter than to have Dr. Stratton come forward and try to defend some of the positions taken by Mr. Woodward.

We have something more to notice in regard to his alleged change of the Sabbath at the exode.

1. He says that the week was changed, that is, a new week was given, to Israel, in which the seventh day of the original week became the first day; and the sixth day of the original week was the seventh day of the Jewish week! And yet he says that when the Jews left Egypt the Egyptians kept the first day of the week as the patriarchal or original Sabbath. Now inasmuch as the original Sabbath was the seventh day, and according to Mr. Woodward it was never known as the first day until after the Jews left Egypt, and then only in a week given specially to them and not given to any other nation, we would be pleased to know how it came that the Egyptians had been observing it as the first day of the week before the new week was revealed to the Jews! Here Mr. Woodward has made his own dilemma, from which we would like to see him attempt to extricate himself. Perhaps Dr. Stratton can show us the "cogency" of his position. And others to notice are no better.

2. He says that the sacred day of the nations, the first day of the week, was the patriarchal Sabbath, and to this day he applies the words of Nevins, viz., that the idea was general among them "of some peculiar sacredness belonging to the seventh day." But the truth is, that they always honored the first day as the day of the sun, and they never counted it the seventh day, to which their tradition attached that "peculiar sacredness." This is a fact fatal to the Sunday-seventh-day inference. Dr. Akers professed to demonstrate that a change was made at the exode, but his starting-point is a supposition. He supposed, or affirmed without a particle of proof, that the work of creation commenced on a given day of a given month, while there is no chronology existing to which he can refer to sustain his guess-work. Again he supposed that the Jews left Egypt on a given day of the week, of which he had no proof whatever. But, it will be replied, was he not a D. D., a learned man, and should we not respect his positions on that account? We will see, (1) His being a D. D. does not give him any special knowledge of what occurred four thousand or five thousand years ago, unless he learns it by some record of those times. That he has not got. (2) Dr. E. O. Haven, a Methodist, D. D. also, and LL.D., and Bishop of the M. E. Church, and late President of Michigan State University, some years ago published a work entitled "The Pillars of Truth," in which he said:—

"There are some who maintain that it can be chronologically demonstrated that, on account of some confusion in time of disaster, revolution, and ignorance, the Jews are themselves mistaken, and that the genuine Sabbath is our Sunday, wrongly called 'the first day of the week.' There is no good reason, however, for denying that the Jewish Sabbath is the true seventh day, reckoning from the creation of man, and that the Christian Sunday is the first day of the Hebrew week, or the genuine week."

We know of no one who is so severely hit by Dr. Haven, in the above extract, as Dr. Akers. We say that Dr. Akers, and of course Mr. Woodward in following him, had "no good reason" for his statement. And we have Dr. Haven on our side! The Bishop, a man of better education, and far more candor than these petty controversialists, fully sustains all that we claim on the question. If we had no Bible evidence, but admitted that it is to be settled by human authority, we would then rather stand with Dr. Haven, than with Mr. Woodward opposed to Haven, even with Dr. Stratton to introduce him! Was this a "whimsy" with Dr. Haven?

3. Mr. Woodward quotes from our Sunday-Law tract to prove his position, which is another rank deception on his part. He claims that the nations kept the patriarchal Sabbath, known as the first day of the week, while the truth is that not a single nation ever recognized the first day of the week as the patriarchal Sabbath. Our quotations, repeated by him, had no reference to any Sabbath, but to "the day of the sun," the first day of the week being dedicated to the sun,

and always distinguished from the seventh day. If Mr. Woodward's claim on the change of the week were true, we should find some trace of some nation reckoning the days of the week different from the reckoning of the Jews. But no such trace can be found. Every nation, and in all times, reckoned the days of the week just as did the Jews. This is a strong point which cannot be evaded.

4. Mr. Woodward's reason for the change of the week and of the Sabbath is not only fanciful, but foolish. He says:—

"The original Sabbath day had become so connected with idolatrous worship, and buried beneath superstitions, and so desecrated by immoral practices, that it was practically impossible to free it, at that time, from these pollutions, and make a day so clean and pure, that it would always, by its associations, suggest to Israel the true worship of God, and be helpful to that nation struggling for liberty and purity."

Our printers have not "exclamation marks" enough to spare to do justice to this "reason." Let us take its dimensions.

1. Because the nations had abused the original sanctified rest-day of Jehovah, the Lord, when he separated his people from the nations, gave them a purer day to keep, one which was never sanctified, and which nobody had ever regarded as a sacred day!

2. Because the holy rest-day of the Lord had been abused by the nations, therefore the Lord caused his chosen people, to whom he committed "the lively oracles," to disregard it altogether; to count it, and to use it as, a profane day!

3. The Lord found it absolutely necessary to break off all association in their minds, of the new Sabbath with the old or original Sabbath; yet when he enforced this new Sabbath upon them he told them, in his own person, and himself wrote the words in stone, that it was the day upon which he rested when he made heaven and earth!

4. If any inquire where the evidence for this "reason" is found, we reply that it is an entirely new version, fresh from the brain of "Rev. T. H. Woodward, A. M.," "Irresistible," is it not?

5. Again he says, of the necessity for this change: "While the heathen were worshiping, Israel was working; and while Israel was worshiping, the heathen were working." This is another deception; for it is a fact that the heathen never observed the first day as a rest-day, or Sabbath. Although it was called "the day of the sun," and venerated as such, no rest from labor was required upon it, either by precept or custom, until the time of Constantine. The alleged reasons of Mr. Woodward never existed as facts.

6. He contradicts himself in this "reason," for he says: "This disregard for the sacred day of each other would produce a mutual dislike, which was the very thing necessary," etc.; yet in another place he says (as we quoted last week) of the first day of the week: "even under the Jewish economy, as the great day, the Sabbath of creation." That is to say, that the Lord took steps to cause them to turn entirely away from the original Sabbath of creation, to "produce a mutual dislike," and thereby effectually separate them from the nations, and yet took steps to cause them to regard it, and to observe it by holy convocations and special observances, as "the great day," "the Sabbath of creation," superior to the new Sabbath given to them!" Truly, "the legs of the lame are not equal." It is no relief to his inconsistency that we proved that his assertion is not true concerning these holy convocations; they were not on the first day of the week, as he affirmed, but the first day of the feast, which came but once a year. Rather it is a double contradiction on his part; he contradicts himself and the Bible also.

The thoughtful reader may like to have a mystery solved. Mr. Woodward informs us that the Lord turned his people away from the original Sabbath because it had been so defiled by the heathen that it was impossible to free it "from those pollutions, and make a day so clean and pure that it would always suggest to Israel the true worship of God." Where he obtained that information he seems unwilling to tell! But the singularity of the case is that, after the heathen had continued to pollute it for full fifteen hundred years longer, and Israel had totally disregarded it and profaned it for the same length of time, it was suddenly found to be exactly adapted to the pure worship of a Christian people! As Mr. Woodward is the only man that ever lived who had any understanding of this matter, as he has now for the first revealed it, he ought assuredly to "rise to explain."

We will close this part of our review by referring in few words to the use that is made of Deut. 5 and Ex. 31. Mr. W. says: "The sacred record gives another reason why they should observe this Sabbath;" and then quotes Deut. 5:15, referring to the Lord having brought them out of the land of Egypt. Now there may be local and temporary reasons for observing a duty in addition to the general reasons. But mark this fact: When the Lord gave the reason of the institution of the Sabbath, and told the Jews why the seventh day, which he commanded them to keep, was the Sabbath, he always referred to the fact that he made the world in six days and rested the seventh day. He never gave, anywhere nor to anybody, any other reason. Americans are often told that they ought to give homage to God because of our being so highly favored of Heaven as a nation. That is good as a local reason, but it is not the ground of the obligation. So with the keeping of the Sabbath. Israel could not keep the Sabbath—they could not serve God, Ex. 8:1—in the rigor of their servitude in Egypt. Thus there was force in the appeal to them to keep the Sabbath because they were redeemed from bondage. But that was not the ground of obligation to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. That duty originated when God made the heavens and the earth, and sanctified the seventh day.

And the Sabbath was a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel. This is supposed to mark it as peculiarly "Jewish." But of what was it a sign? Read Eze. 20:12, 20. "Moreover, also, I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." "Hallow my Sabbaths, and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God." This is most important knowledge, and it is a blessed privilege for any people or individual to possess it. But the full answer remains to be given; it is found in Ex. 31:17. This chapter—see verses 13-17—refers to the seventh day, which the Jews were commanded to keep. It says: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Mr. Woodward quoted only the first part of this text in commenting on the sign; he did not quote that part which tells us that it was the memorial of creation. If Israel kept the seventh-day Sabbath which was commanded them in the wilderness, they would thereby know that Jehovah was God; Eze. 20:20; why? because it was proof to them of his creative power; on it he rested when he made the world and all things therein.

We submit the subject from the Old Testament with one question, which we ask every reader to consider, and answer as before God and in view of the Judgment. Did God command to Israel in the wilderness any other weekly Sabbath than that of the fourth commandment of the decalogue? We affirm that he did not; and we affirm that that was the creation Sabbath. Read Ex. 20, and see. That being so, Mr. Woodward is engaged in an unequal warfare in fighting against that Sabbath. He is fighting against God, who sanctified that Sabbath and always claimed it as his own.