A Strange Argument by J. O. Corliss

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 9, 1875

A Strange Argument.

By J. O. Corliss

It becomes almost painful, at times, to listen to the numerous conflicting assertions of those who oppose the Sabbath of the Lord, by which they try to justify themselves in the practice of observing a day not commanded nor even sanctioned in the word of God. It is astonishing, too, to see what ingenuity is manifested in framing objections to one of the plainest commands of the decalogue. If one-half the time that is used in framing excuses for not obeying God, was spent in reading the Bible to ascertain his will, many more would be found enjoying his favor than are at the present time.

The latest arguments (?) we have listened to were from a Methodist minister who was sent for from a distance to oppose us. They may be briefly summed up as follows: “Any day of rest after six of labor may be made a Sabbath. In order to prove the definite seventh day binding, Sabbatarians must first show a succession of weeks from creation, which they cannot do. Secondly, they must prove that this succession has been regularly kept; and even then they do not prove the point, as the fourth commandment does not say that God rested on the succession!”

The above is a concise statement of the conclusions arrived at, and is a fair sample of the dust-throwing commonly resorted to, when arguments fail, to cover up the truth and keep the minds of the people at rest. But how in the name of reason and common sense any one can establish a weekly succession of Sabbaths on the first-day, when the seventh presents such insuperable difficulties, I confess myself unable to understand; yet it is said that this “day of rest after six days of labor” must invariably fall on the first day of the week in regular succession!

But let us examine the statements made above, and we shall see that no confidence whatever is placed in the first two; for, after making them, the fourth commandment is appealed to as not saying anything about “succession,” and it is thus acknowledged to be the standard of decision. This is just where we would like to settle the controversy. And while we are ready to acknowledge that the fourth commandment does not state that God rested on the “succession,” we stoutly maintain that it does affirm he rested on the seventh day, and for that reason he commands us to observe it, as a day of sacred rest, as it comes to us in the weekly cycle.

But what about proving a succession of weeks from creation? Does any one suppose that day and night have failed to succeed each other since the birth of light? No. Then why talk about a non-succession of weeks? For, surely, if day and night have not ceased (Jer. 33:20), but a regular succession of days has taken place since creation, it follows that a succession of weeks is a certainty; for as God marked off the first cycle into a period of seven days, terminating it with a day of rest which he calls his own, so every recurring seventh day would bring what God was pleased to call, more than three thousand years after creation, “my holy day.” See Isa. 58:13. This shows that God does regard each successive seventh day.

Whether the Israelites did or did not keep every recurring Sabbath through the old dispensation, has nothing to do with the validity of the commandment, so long as we find the Lord of the Sabbath keeping a day in common with the Jews, and which inspiration tells us was the Sabbath. Luke 4:16. Again we are told by the inspired historian, Luke 23:56, that this was the Sabbath-day of the commandment. The following verse also informs us that the next day was the first day of the week. This shows that at the time of Christ the succession of weeks had not been broken.

Nearly all are agreed that Sunday is the identical day in the week that our Saviour arose, and which inspiration calls simply “first day of the week;” yet, strange as it may appear, many seem not to be able to tell when the seventh day comes. Such often remind me of a lady, who, after admitting that Sunday was the first day of the week, and that the Bible taught that the seventh day is sacred time, asked her friend, “Do you think I will be condemned for not keeping the seventh day if I cannot tell when it comes?” “No,” said her friend, with perfect coolness, “if you have not mind enough to count seven, I do not think you will be held responsible.” She became satisfied that she was not able to locate the day, and so settled down with the determination to follow the tradition of the elders.

A great many are thinking to shield themselves in the last day under the plea of want of knowledge. But God holds men and women responsible for what they might know, and will not take the pains to find out. The prophet says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee.” Let none of us reject the knowledge God’s word brings to us, but walk in the light of its reflected rays, that we may make a safe journey, and at its end rest in the haven above.

J. O. CORLISS.