FACTS FOR THE CANDID

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 15, 1877

FACTS FOR THE CANDID.

Bro. J. M. Gallemore, of Salisbury, Mo., is publishing a paper in that place, called The Salisbury Press. In his issue of Aug. 31, 1877, he makes his paper preach to his readers the following sermon on the Sabbath question, entitled, “Facts for the Candid”:—

It is generally known to the readers of the Press that the writer of this article is an observer of the Bible Sabbath, the day that the Bible recognizes as the Sabbath, which is the seventh and not the first day of the week. To this faith we were converted some eight years ago. During this time, various persons have asked us why we kept the day, and we have always been ready and more than willing to give the reasons for our belief and practice. A few days since, a prominent and most worthy citizen of Salisbury, a professor of religion, asked us why we did not give our views on the subject to the readers of the Press, affirming it as his belief that there were very many who would like to hear them, also confessing his belief that the seventh day is the one men ought to observe, according to the Bible. This conversation has prompted us to the writing of this article. So, with these preliminary remarks, we now proceed to give some facts relative to the Sabbath, which we hope will be duly weighed and considered by the candid.

The Sabbath we find to be a very ancient institution. We read in Gen. 2:2, 3, that God rested the seventh day from his work of creation, and that because he had rested upon it, he blessed and sanctified it. This is an honor that he has never seen fit to bestow upon any other day. Not the Sabbath institution did he bless, neither the seventh part of time, but the seventh day, the day on which he rested. These facts considered, we are unable to see how any other day than the one he rested upon can be claimed as God’s Sabbath or rest-day. Before such a thing could be, would not another work have to be performed by him, another rest entered upon, and another blessing and sanctification proclaimed? We think so.

It cannot be successfully argued that this Sabbath is Jewish; for it was made very many years before Jews came into existence; and not only this, it was “made for man,” and this certainly includes all men, Gentiles as well as Jews. It is not the Jewish Sabbath, but “the Sabbath of the Lord God”: it is his rest-day. It is the day our Saviour kept, also the day kept by the New Testament writers, and Christians of their day, as far down as the New Testament makes any record, as late, at least, as A. D. 65. The writers of the New Testament speak of no other day as the Sabbath. Not only this, we find that the fourth commandment of the decalogue—one of the ten precepts of God’s law, the transgression of which is sin, by which is the knowledge of sin, and by which the apostle Paul found himself a sinner—enjoins upon us that we keep the seventh day. These commandments the Saviour tells us he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, which means to obey. These commandments he says he kept; and he tells us to keep them if we would gain eternal life. Of these commandments it is said in the last chapter of the New Testament, “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,” &c. It is said of them again, “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments;” again, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments;” and again, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Now these commandments all professed Christians admit it is right and necessary to keep, with the exception of the one which says the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, and enjoins us to keep it: this they say is uncalled for, or else they will insist that it is kept in the observance of the first instead of the seventh day. But this seems to us like making void the commandments of God through the traditions of men.

It is the lightly esteemed fourth commandment of God that the Lord tested his people upon, and rebuked them for not obeying, as they journeyed from the land of Egypt toward Canaan. This slighted commandment, we have good reasons for believing, from Bible evidence, God will test his people upon in the last days, prior to the revelation of his Son from Heaven to receive his waiting people.

Now, so far from the first day of the week being the Sabbath in this dispensation, as claimed by many, we insist that there is no foundation in the Bible for such claims. The first day of the week is mentioned just eight times in the New Testament, viz., Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; 20:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; but, as may be seen by referring to these texts, in no instance is it mentioned as the Sabbath, but, on the contrary, it is spoken of as the day following the Sabbath. In Acts 20:7, it is said the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread, but it is nowhere said that this was their custom; in fact, it seems that they broke bread on every day. On the occasion mentioned here, however, the meeting was in the night, and continued until day, about which time the bread was broken. So, if this was a Sunday-night meeting, the bread was broken on Monday morning, while if it was a Saturday-night meeting (as we believe it was, the day then being reckoned from evening to evening), the bread was broken on Sunday morning, when the apostle Paul immediately proceeded on his journey, afoot. Poor apostolic example for first-day observance, we think.

In 1 Cor. 16:2, it is said, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” This laying by, as interpreted by the ablest commentators, is at home, and calls for a counting up of the gains of the past week. So it may be seen that neither this text nor Acts 20:7 proves anything in favor of the first-day Sabbath. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the remaining texts mentioning the first day, as the reader will see.

But, says one, Did not Christ meet with the disciples on the first day of the week? Three instances are mentioned on which the Saviour met with his disciples after his resurrection. On the first occasion they were within for fear of the Jews, and knew not that Christ had risen. The next meeting was eight days after, when Thomas, who had not seen the Saviour, was still a doubter. The third meeting was on a fishing occasion. Says another objector, “Is there not something said about the Lord’s day?” In Revelation it is recorded that John was in vision on the Lord’s day. To find out what day this was, we must see what day is the Lord’s day. The Saviour said he was Lord of the Sabbath, but we believe he laid no special claims to being Lord of any other day.

Now, from the above facts, what does the reader think of the New Testament evidence for first-day observance? Perhaps he is ready to inquire how it is that so many professed Christians are now keeping, or pretending to keep, the first day of the week instead of the seventh? If he will read the “History of the Sabbath,” by Eld. J. N. Andrews, published at Battle Creek, Mich., he will see just how this thing was brought about. It was done during the Dark Ages, and by that power (the Papacy) of whom it is said by the prophet Daniel, that he should “speak great words against the Most High, wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws.” This power claims to have changed the Sabbath, and claims this change as a mark of his power, and that Protestants allow of the change. This power referred to by Daniel, is spoken of in Revelation under the symbol of the beast having ten horns. In Rev. 14 it is said there is a warning message to go forth in the last days of this world’s history, and connected with this message is a special warning against receiving the mark of the beast. It certainly, then, behooves every one to ascertain, if possible, what is to constitute this mark.

The Reformers certainly cut themselves loose from a great deal of traditional error; they indeed wrought a mighty reform, but it is scarcely reasonable to suppose they entirely freed themselves from error. Truth has been brought out gradually, little by little: it has been done by agitation, and we say, Let the agitation continue until the remnant people of God shall arrive at the whole truth. The earnest seeker for truth, if he finds himself still cumbered with Papal error, or any other kind of error, we are quite sure will gladly exchange that error for the truth as contained in the Bible, the only infallible guide for Christians, and will gladly accept of any light upon God’s unerring word.

We thought of giving the edict of Constantine, issued A. D. 321, while yet a heathen, compelling the town people to rest on “the venerable day of the sun,” but allowing the country people freely to attend to their avocation of farming. This we wanted to do, to show something of the starting-point of first-day sacredness, but we forbear.