Interpretation against Obedience.
By Editor
THE editor of the California Christian Advocate has been to Healdsburg lately. Of the Seventh-day Adventists there he writes as follows:— "The Seventh-day Adventists have a strong colony here, and a college. The buildings are frame, but well proportioned and kept, and consist of a college building for school purposes, and a large, fine-looking house for a boarding-hall and dormitories. The Adventists are frugal, industrious, prosperous, and clannish. They do not mingle much with general society, and their devotees are kept strictly to their own work. They are building a large, fine church in a beautiful site. They, of course, keep Saturday for the Sabbath, and this causes breaks in business, and results in supreme disregard of the Christian Sabbath. The Adventists do not often attend services at other churches, and so missed hearing Dr. Briggs's unanswerable argument against their interpretation of the law of the Sabbath." We thank the Doctor for his excellent notice. It is very fair indeed. We would, however, make a remark or two. He says our course in keeping the Sabbath "results in supreme disregard of the Christian Sabbath." Now we, Seventh-day Adventists, are Christians. We love and honor every Christian institution. We desire ever to do so, and that all our works may result in supreme regard for all Christian institutions, ordinances, and principles. Now we urgently request the editor of the Advocate to tell us by the Scriptures what is the "Christian Sabbath," and how it became such. He certainly ought to be willing, and even glad, to do so good a work in the interests of regard for the "Christian Sabbath." We are sorry that our people at Healdsburg did not hear that "unanswerable argument against their interpretation of the law of the Sabbath." We are certain, however, that we can give the reason for their not hearing it. That reason is, there was no advertisement, nor public announcement, that the said argument would be made. If we are wrong in this, the Advocate can set us right. We assure the Doctor, that if such an announcement had been made known, the Seventh-day Adventists of Healdsburg would have filled the house. We know they would have been glad to hear it. In regard to the day of the Sabbath, we deny that Seventh-day Adventists have any interpretation of the law of the376Sabbath, or that there is any such interpretation allowable. Interpretation is "an explanation of what is unintelligible, not understood, or not obvious; translation; construction." We deny that the law of the Sabbath is unintelligible; we deny that it needs any translation; we deny the right of any construction; therefore we deny the right of any interpretation. The law of the Sabbath says: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." That is not unintelligible. It is plain, and needs no interpretation. Before ever it can be interpreted, it must be made unintelligible; and that is exactly what is done by every advocate of the Sunday sabbath. The plain, definite expression, "the seventh day," they make "a seventh part of time," "one day in seven, and no difference what day," or some other equally unintelligible conception, and then they can interpret it. And in no other way can there be an interpretation of the law of the Sabbath. "When words are plain in a written law there is an end to all construction. They must be followed." That is law. To follow the plain words of a written law, as they are written, is neither interpretation nor construction; it is obedience. We hope the editor of the Advocate will never fall into the error that Doctor Briggs did, of making "an unanswerable argument" against Seventh-day Adventists' "interpretation" of the law of the Sabbath. We don't interpret it; we obey it. And we leave to those who disobey it the task of justifying their disobedience by an interpretation.