p. 290 | Inconsistency by John O. Corliss

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · May 15, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 19.

Inconsistency.

By John O. Corliss

"How do Sabbatarians know that Saturday is the seventh day?" asked a speaker not long since. "It is impossible," he continued, "to identify the seventh day since the change from Old Style to New Style, as at that period an indefinite amount of time was lost, which so completely mixed up the days, that their definite order from creation cannot possibly be known."

The above is a fair sample of the way some dispose of the Sabbath. With one who does not stop to weigh matters, such an affirmative might be received without discount. But he who will look at the matter one moment, though he may not fully understand the nature of the change alluded to, ought to see how inconsistent is such a statement, especially when made by one who observes a definite day as a rest to the Lord. For if it be true that the Bible enjoins a rest of one day in seven, and we can get no trace of the original order of the days of the week, then certainly Saturday has just as strong claims to being the weekly rest as any other day of the week.

But the inconsistency of this position is further shown in the fact that its advocates themselves observe the first day of the week, stoutly affirming that such a practice is scriptural. Do they know that Sunday is the first day of the week? Certainly, they say, because the Scriptures teach that Christ arose from the tomb on the first day. Tradition and history, both sacred and profane, agree that the event occurred on Sunday. But we ask, how did the identity of that day stand the shock of the change from Old Style to New? Did not the first day become lost with the seventh, among the debris in that general wreck of time? Or, was it alone saved from that dire calamity—snatched as it were a brand from the burning—to become a glory and crown to Christianity, in contradistinction to the seventh-day Sabbath of the Jewish age? Let the advocates of "Lost Time" answer.

It is true, that from B. C. 45 to A. D. 1582, time was computed by what was known as the Julian year, that being nearly twelve minutes longer than the true solar year. Accordingly, in the year 1582 A. D., the beginning of the Julian year was about thirteen days behind the true time. It is plain to be seen that in this there was a disarrangement of the equinoxes; i. e., the sun actually arrived at an equinoctial point several days before the time indicated by the day of the month on which it should occur. To continue this mode of computation, it is evident that in time the seasons of the year would be entirely displaced.

In order to correct this difficulty, Pope Gregory XIII. found it necessary to add ten days. This was accordingly done in October, A. D. 1582, by simply calling the fifth day of the month the fifteenth. Protestant England adopted this reform in A. D. 1752, dropping eleven days between the second and fourteenth of September. Russia however still persists in keeping Old Style, and her reckoning is consequently twelve days behind the rest of the world.

But does this change to New Style affect the days of the week? Russia's Sunday is still identical with that of Europe and America. And why should it be otherwise? In the change made by England in 1752, of dropping eleven days from the calendar, there was no change of the day of the week. The third day of the month was simply reckoned as the fourteenth. Now if the third day of that month was Monday, calling it the fourteenth did not in the least change the name of the day. It was still Monday, but the fourteenth day of the month instead of the third.

The foregoing facts are so generally understood by those who have thought of the matter, that we wonder at times how men of apparent intelligence can face an audience and make such statements as are contained in the first paragraph of this article, without presuming upon the ignorance of their hearers.

For certainly any one above mediocrity can readily see that if time has been lost, and the identity of the seventh day was thus destroyed, it would be impossible to determine when the first day would occur. Yet just such nonsense is frequently dealt out to quiet those who would investigate the claims of God's Sabbath.

We are glad however to see of late a more decided inclination on the part of many to weigh religious questions for themselves. And as this tendency increases, the Sabbath reform—God's great testing truth for the last days—receives a greater share of attention. As the subject continues to be agitated, whether by friend or foe, it must enlist the co-operation of all who sincerely desire to walk in the way of God's commandments. J. O. CORLISS.