The Burden of Proof by Uriah Smith

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 19, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 24.

The Burden of Proof.

By Uriah Smith

BETWEEN the two institutions, a true and false Sabbath, the seventh and first day of the week, it would be well for all to understand with whom lies the burden of proof; which party are bound to make good their position. The following acknowledged logical principle will be in point here:—

"‘Any ancient institution is presumed to be well founded until its principles can be shown to be false and mischievous, or it can be shown, by fraud or violence, to have supplanted a more ancient institution. In the latter case the burden of proof falls upon the more modern, and the presumption lies in favor of the more ancient institution. It happens, sometimes, that those are called innovators, who are, in reality, the advocates of what is truly ancient and venerable. If they prove this to be the fact, they, of course, transfer the burden of proof to where it justly belongs.’"—Tappan's Logic, p. 482.

Applying this principle to the question in hand, the burden of proof will be found invariably to fall upon the defenders of the more modern institution of Sunday-keeping. We are not the innovators—introducers of a new and novel institution, as some would fain have us believe, but are the advocates of that which is truly ancient and venerable. And this institution, the Lord's Sabbath, on the seventh day of each week, has every presumption in its favor; its principles cannot be shown to be false or mischievous; and certainly it cannot be shown to have supplanted by any means an institution more ancient or venerable; for its existence is coeval with the world itself. The burden of proof then is "transferred to where it belongs." The advocates of the more modern institution of Sunday-keeping, are bound to show us its lease of life, the right it has to existence a single hour. It certainly has, with the mass of mankind, in so-called Christian lands, taken the place of the more ancient Sabbath. Is this a lawful succession? or is it a usurpation? Has it gained its present position by divine right, or by fraud and violence? The whole controversy of the first-day Sabbath turns upon these points; and on these its advocates affirm that it exists by legal succession, and divine right; on the same we deny. And remember that every presumption lies with us in favor of the more ancient institution.

But not only are the first-day advocates unable to prove what they claim on their affirmation, but we can even turn the negative into a positive, and show that it has usurped the true Sabbath, not only by fraud or violence, but both by fraud and violence. Let these principles and facts be remembered; and let him who affirms that Sunday is the Sabbath, bear in mind how much will devolve upon him to make that affirmation good. U. S.