Is not that Different? by N. Orcutt

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 29, 1874

Is not that Different?

By N. Orcutt

In conversation with a Baptist deacon and his wife, who had recently embraced the scriptural view of man's nature and destiny, and had also yielded to their convictions of duty by observing one Sabbath, but had fallen back to justify themselves in Sunday-keeping by the arguments usually adduced, I inquired of them how they settled the question of man's mortality? They replied,

“By the testimony of the Scriptures.” When I plead with them to settle the Sabbath question by the same rule, said the lady: “Is not that different?”

Truly, it is somewhat different. But will the difference justify us, while we decide the mooted question of man's nature by the Bible testimony alone, in settling the other by the opinions, traditions, and commandments, of men? The first is a truth of no small consequence, revealed by God in his word. Of the last the same may also be said; and further, it directly involves the matter of obedience to that Being who made all things, who rested on the seventh day, blessed and hallowed or sanctified it. And in his word he has commanded its observance,—a command he has never abrogated nor changed. Truly we may apply the language of the dear Saviour here: “These ought ye to have done” (i. e., to decide other questions of truth and duty by referring them “to the law and to the testimony”), “and not to leave the other undone.”

There is certainly no question that demands plainer or more explicit testimony to settle than the query whether the great Lawgiver has changed or abolished one of the precepts of his law. And shall we, because of the cross to be borne in obeying God, rest satisfied with evidence upon this point, involving as it does the question of both truth and duty, which we would utterly refuse to receive upon questions of minor importance? “God forbid.”

This matter has been forcibly brought to my mind by reading an article in the Christian Era, a Baptist paper published in Boston, Mass., in which the writer, referring to the subject of baptism, uses the following pertinent and forcible language:—

“It is unchristian and unworthy to charge the guilt upon any party without substantial proof that its practice is contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures.

“The Baptists believe: 1. That the immersion of the body in water is essential to Christian and apostolic baptism. 2. That none have a right to the Lord's supper until they have been baptized. 3. That infant baptism is without divine authority and opposed to it.

“Show me from the teachings and example of Christ and the apostles that I am wrong, and I will strike my colors and make common cause with my Pedo-baptist brethren.

“But we want a ‘thus saith the Lord’—Bible proof. Inference is not sufficient. Any one can draw inferences if he is strong enough, and can prove by them whatever he pleases. Venerable custom will not do, for customs that are black with sin have come down to us through the ages. The opinion of large majorities is inadequate, for the adherents to the truth have always been in the minority. Profane history, human logic and conscience, are alike deficient, for they are all more or less depraved and biased. It is not enough to say this or that practice is not forbidden, for that is no authority whatever.”

This has the ring of the true coin. Will our Baptist brethren, and all others who profess to take the Bible alone as their rule of faith and practice, be consistent and apply this reasoning to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, by settling its claims upon them? Where will their Sunday stand when tested by this rule? “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.”

N. ORCUTT.

So. Vineland, N. J., Sept., 1874.