Conflicting Arguments Against the Sabbath
Opponents in Confusion on the Sabbath Question.
TRUTH is harmonious, while error leads to confusion. And perhaps there is no subject on which there is greater confusion of opinions than on the Sabbath question. Our opponents being in trouble as they see the Sabbath cause advancing, seek to check its progress; but unfortunately for themselves, they take positions which are directly opposed to each other.—And some of those most active, frequently take two or more positions, just as will best suit the occasion, which are perfectly destructive of each other. It is a fact that they have no settled position, no system on which they may harmoniously unite. But they have a mass of objections to the bible Sabbath, which when compared are seen to devour each other. The Bible mentions but one weekly Sabbath. The commandment which guards and enforces it, is placed in the midst of God’s moral law. The Son of God declared that the Sabbath was made for man, and that he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. And that one jot or one tittle would not pass from the law while heaven and earth remained. Not one text can be found in the New Testament that declares the abrogation of the weekly Sabbath; neither is there the least intimation that it was ever to be changed. Then, as bible Christians, we can do no less than to observe the Sabbath of both Testaments. This is a safe position, and one that we shall never yield up, unless our opponents will show that it is erroneous, and present to us a scriptural system of truth on this subject. But as this view of the subject has been, and is being received by many of the Advent people, the movement has called out opposition from advent papers and advent ministers. And as they war against the Sabbath, they present a front of complete confusion [Babylon] of sentiments. We will here name some of the many positions of our opponents. 1. The Editor of the Advent Herald has taken the position with Mr. Jennings, in his Jewish Antiquities, that the Sabbath was instituted at creation, and that it was changed from the seventh day back to the sixth when the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and that the first day of the week, on which Christ arose, is the original seventh day. But the fact that the Jews were required by the fourth commandment [Ex. xx, 7–11] to observe the very day on which God rested at the close of creation, completely upsets the whole matter, and shows the position false. The Jews were required to observe God’s Rest-day, and not the sixth day of the week, the last in which he created all things, as taught by Mr. Jennings. 2. Brother Bliss, assistant editor of the Advent Herald, is “not prepared to say that the argument of Mr. Jennings is perfectly conclusive.” He therefore differs with his Bro. Himes, and thinks the Sabbath has been changed. That another day should now be observed for another reason. That the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath. He refers to the testimony of the “Fathers” as authority. We would here say, that it ever has been the boast of Protestants, (and especially of the teachers of the Advent faith,) that “the Bible and the Bible alone” is the basis of their religion. While on the other hand, Papists add to the holy scriptures what they call “the traditions of the Apostles, and the interpretation of the church.” See note in the Douay [Catholic] Bible on 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17. Hear Martin Luther—“I do not cease my cry of ‘The Gospel! The Gospel!’—Christ! Christ!—and my enemies are as ready with their answer—Custom! Custom! Ordinance! Ordinance! Fathers! Fathers!” With a consistent Christian, the testimony and practice of the “Fathers” have not authority sufficient to direct him in devotion or duty, when their testimony is not supported by the Scriptures. Unfortunately for the advocates of the first day of the week, they cannot give us the inspired testimony of Paul, Peter, John, James or Jude for the change of the Sabbath, from the seventh to the first day. And as they cannot, they leave the Book of God, and give the uninspired testimony of those who wrote after the death of the Apostles, in the time that Paul refers to when he says—“For I know this that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Acts xx, 29, 30. We leave this point, only adding that the Bible shall decide this question with us. 3. Some zealous advocates of First-day object to our views of the Sabbath, on the ground that we cannot tell when the true seventh day comes. But do they know when the first day comes? Most certainly they do. They do not have the least difficulty in ascertaining the day of the resurrection of Christ.—Well, then, we observe the day that comes next before theirs, which must be the seventh. And if they are sure that they have the true First-day, they should give themselves no further trouble upon the point, whether we observe the true seventh. 4. But some of these advocates for First-day tell us that in sailing around the globe one way, a day is lost, and by sailing around it the other way, a day is gained. Very well. But do they not see that their first-day Sabbath is affected by such a circumstance, as much as the seventh day? They ought to see this, and be silent. This objection is not only against Christians observing the seventh day; but if it is of any force at all, it goes against the Jews ever keeping the Sabbath. It is against the Sabbath institution itself. 5. Says another, “A day has been lost,” and he refers us to the time when it is said that the sun stood still. Josh. x. But let it be here understood that this was in that dispensation when, as all will agree, the observance of the seventh day was enforced with the temporal penalty of death. And if this is a valid objection, it strikes at the very root of the Sabbath institution. But look here, my doubting brother, your case reminds us of unbelieving “Thomas.”—Our Lord Jesus Christ at his first Advent, styled himself, Lord of the Sabbath. If it were possible that a day had been lost, certainly the Lord of the Sabbath set the matter right. His followers “rested on the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment.”—Luke xxiii, 56. Here is a nail driven in a sure place by the Master. 6. The Advent Harbinger teaches that there is no Sabbath. That it was abolished at the cross. But will the Editor of the Harbinger be so kind as to give us one text from the New Testament, that reads, “without note or comment,” that the Sabbath was then abolished? We reject his inferences on certain texts in the epistles of St. Paul, and call on him to give us the “plain word of the Lord.” Will he do it? These no-Sabbath men generally teach that the ten commandments were abolished at the cross, and that Christ, during his public ministry, re-enacted nine of them for the gospel, leaving the Sabbath out. We would here call on them to give us the plain word of the Lord that Christ re-enacted one of the ten commandments. We ask for only one text. Again, will they do us the favor to show how nine of the commandments could be re-enacted by Christ during his ministry, before the ten were abolished at his death? 7. The Editor of the Advent Watchman has two positions in opposition to the Sabbath, which he uses as may best suit the occasion. First, that he “must keep that day of the week that can be proved to be the 7th,” which he labored to prove, came on the first day of the week. See Bible Advocate Sept. 23d, 1847. His other position is, that there is no Sabbath, and those who observe the seventh day are “fallen from grace,” under the “bondage of the law,” and are certainly mesmerized!! See his article in the Advocate of May 4th, 1848, and his more recent articles in the Watchman. He first teaches that there is a Sabbath, that it is the seventh day, that he “must keep” it, but it comes on the first day of the week.—He next asserts, with equal positiveness that there is no Sabbath, and labors to prove that those who keep it will be lost, and that they now have a wicked spirit. Certainly, Mr. Turner is aware that he turns square about in changing from one of these positions to the other. That he now holds both of these positions may be seen by his latest remarks on the Sabbath in the Watchman, and his notice of, and remarks upon the Tract published by Z. Campbell. See our article on this, in No. 4, headed, The Watchman and Z. Campbell. 8. Mr. Z. Campbell’s late effort against the Sabbath is considered by some very wonderful. He has issued a Tract of two leaves, with only two pages and a half of print. He asserts that the first day of the week is the Jewish seventh day, and Mr. Turner thinks the work excellent. Speaking of the error of Sabbath-keepers, Mr. Campbell says, “The error is not in the day, but in the number assigned to it by the beast.” Then we shall understand from this that Mr. Campbell thinks it is right to observe the seventh day Sabbath, and not the first day of the week in honor of Christ’s resurrection. Then we would inquire of the Watchman, if Mr. Campbell is not under the bondage of the law? Is he not falling from grace? And is he not becoming mesmerized? But we see that Mr. Campbell’s Tract finds a place in the Harbinger, though, probably, the editor of that paper does not believe in one position taken in the Tract. He has within a few years published his article against the Sabbath four times, in which he gave his reasons for keeping the first day of the week. Cook and Crosier also think the first day is the proper day of worship. They style it the “day of apostolic preference.” Well, then, if Mr. Campbell is right as to the number of the days of the week, they should hold our second day, [Mr. Campbell’s first,] what is called Monday, as their day of worship. Will they do this, or will they join Mr. Campbell in keeping the seventh day on what is called Sunday? Or will the Editor of the Harbinger inform his readers that Mr. Campbell is in error? The Tract, as published in the Harbinger, is prefaced by remarks peculiar to the author, which closes with this sentence. “The following is an extract from the Tract.” But he has given the whole Tract, with the exception of four lines and one third!! Mr. Campbell says—“The writer has spent considerable time in comparing the dates of different nations; ascertaining the true time of eclipses, and other noted events, and is confident that he has arrived at the true difference between our time and that of the Jews.” And we have the result of his long and studious researches on two and a half pages! which, by the way, is mostly composed of groundless assertions and reproaches! He continues:—“He has given his attention to the Sabbatarian fanaticism, and entered the field against it, as well as mesmerism, electro-table tipping, no-devilism, circle disclosures, and all such latter day45delusions as militate against the gospel of Christ.—And having mounted the car of sacred truth, is running 'The Opposition Line' to every thing opposed to the religion of Jesus of Nazareth.' We have given this noisy strain of fanaticism, that our readers may see with what insanity some of these men who oppose the Sabbath are being seized. His remarks not only bear against advent Sabbath-keepers, but also fifty thousand Seventh-day Baptists, who have been long investigating the Sabbath question, and have not found the least difficulty in defending their position by the word of God. But this mighty reformer has "mounted the car of truth." What an elevated position! He has already a Tract of two leaves which he advertises with his own pen. "For sale by Bro. Marsh, Rochester, and by Bro. R. T. Young, 140, Fulton street, New York; and by the author at South Adams, Mass. Price three dollars per hundred." He adds—"Let the brethren send in their orders immediately, as a means of assisting the writer to get out a larger Tract of eight or twelve pages on Ellen White's visions, third angel's message, &c." We cannot say what will become of the fourth commandment, or Sabbath-keepers, or the third angel's message by the time that Mr. Campbell runs his car a second time. But what a pity that he did not run his car as far as Rochester, against "no-devilism" at the time of Dr. Thomas' lectures before the no-Sabbath people in this city. The Doctor told his audience that all the devil there was, was "sin in the flesh," and that they could "see no more of the devil than when they looked in the glass." But our object in this article has been to point out the confusion of our opponents, and not to dwell at length upon the errors, inconsistencies, and fanaticism of individuals. We only wish their real position to be seen, that it may be shunned. Now, those holding to these different views are all agreed that our view of the Sabbath is incorrect. But none of them are able to give us a harmonious view of the Sabbath question. Each class is ready to throw out their objections against us; and put them all together, they are a mass which contradict each other, and set each other up. Truth is a unit. It is strait and harmonious, while error in its varied forms is fated to run crooked and devour itself. As a people, we are united in observing the Sabbath of the Bible. We are a united, happy people.—And our opponents ought to know that they need help more than we; for while they are in confusion, and in trouble on the Sabbath question, we are united, and have a harmonious system of truth to present.—We would call their attention to their own sad condition, and suggest the propriety of their helping each other out of the fog, to some one position on which they may unite, before they any farther oppose us.