THE Second Advent Watchman for June 1st, announces the publication of "A New Tract," written by Z. Campbell, of which the Editor speaks in the highest terms. He states that by it is shown, "that our Saturday is the Jewish sixth-day," and, "those who keep Saturday, do not keep one minute of the Jewish seventh day." He further states: "This is emphatically a tract for the times, is utterly unanswerable in its positions, and should be in the hands of every Adventist, yea, of every reader of the Bible."
One might suppose, after reading such a notice, that a volume of great importance to the Christian world had appeared, and which would put Sabbath-keepers to a dead silence. But on opening a letter the other day, from Bro. Wm. L. Saxby, of Springfield, Mass., we found this "Tract." It contains two leaves only! One page is wholly occupied by a table of explanation, leaving the author about two pages and a half of coarse print!! In this space he has made assertions respecting different nations beginning their day at different hours, and that the beast changed the number of the days; (or that one seventh day is the true sixth;) but neglected to give his authority. We inquire, Has he any authority to give? If so, did he forget to give it? Or did he think his assertions sufficient authority?
He has but little to do with the Bible, as he refers to two texts only; Dan. vii, 25; Matt. xxiv, 36; but deals out sneers and scoffs like the following: "The seventh day fanaticism!"—"a mere bubble!"—"being burst, it sticks the whole mark of the beast on the hand and forehead of those who get it up!"—"stumbled into the same pit they have dug for their neighbors." Astonishing! What proof is this!!
But look at some of Mr. Campbell's assertions. On the first page he states that the "ancient Babylonians, Persians, Syrians and modern Greeks," began their day at sunrise, "twelve hours before the Jews," and the English six hours before the Babylonians—which is eighteen hours before the Jews. And the Sabbatarians begin six hours before the American time, which is twenty-four hours, or a whole day before the Jewish time."
Mr. Campbell here makes out his case by asserting that the "Babylonians" began their day twelve hours before the Jews, instead of twelve hours later, which seems more reasonable. It would then stand thus: Babylonians began their day at sunrise, twelve hours later than the Jews, the English at midnight, six hours later than the Jews, and Sabbath-keepers commence the day with Jewish, or, rather, Bible time. In this case all agree in numbering the days of the week.
But on the third page Mr. Campbell says, "It was the beast that changed the number, and not the Sabbath day."—But how is this? If the number had been changed by different nations beginning the day at different hours, as asserted on the first page, how did the beast do it? Did he change the number back again? Or, did he change it the other way, so as to make a difference of two days?
Mr. Campbell adds: "The Scripture does not say he shall change times and laws; but he shall think to change them; [Dan. vii, 25;] and no doubt he thinks he has changed them; but calling the sixth day the seventh does not change the day." This must be a foolish beast, indeed, that would think he had changed the "laws" of God by calling the sixth day the seventh! But will Mr. Campbell, or the Watchman, give us the history showing how and when the beast changed the number of the days of the week?
But what is Mr. Campbell's real position? On his third page, speaking of the error of Sabbath-keepers, he says:—"The error is not in the day, but in the number assigned to it by the beast." If we understand him, this is his position, that we do not err in keeping the weekly Sabbath; but the error is in the day on which we observe it. If this is his position, then all that the Watchman has repeatedly said of Sabbath-keepers, about "the old Jewish Sabbath," "bondage of the law," and "falling from grace," falls on Mr. Campbell's head, as heavily as on ours. But if this is not his position; if he holds to no Sabbath, then why does he say, "The error is not in the day"? All is wrong, if there is no Sabbath, and why labor to prove that the first day of the week is the real seventh?
Reader, watch these men, who oppose the Lord's Sabbath, with care, and you will find that many of them will argue two or more positions, perfectly destructive of each other. J. Turner, the resident editor of the Watchman is an example. In his notice of Mr. Campbell's Tract he says:
"Bro. Campbell has taken, without ever having seen our writings, precisely the same position we sustained in our discussion of this subject in the Bible Advocate in 1847."
But what was his position in 1847? We will quote his words from the Bible Advocate, Vol. III, No. 8, page 62. He says: "I must keep that day of the week which can be proved to be the seventh, for I then believed and do now believe that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God."
J. Turner labored to prove that the first day of the week was the true seventh day, and professed to observe it as the Lord's seventh-day Sabbath. Some rejoiced through the Advocate that T. had embraced the Sabbath, and that he had shown that it came on the first day of the week. But they little thought that their leader would desert them in less than eight months, and take another position, perfectly destructive of the first. But this he did do, as will be seen by the following from the Advocate, Vol. IV, No. 11, page 85. Under the head of Judaism he says:
"We feel called upon to warn the Church of God against a special effort which is being made by a few wandering stars, see Jude, who have recently come to this state, to lead the unwary under the bondage of the law of Moses. We therefore give a few of the many reasons why the law of Moses should not now be regarded as binding on the Church."
But who are these that T. calls "wandering stars," that he charged with teaching the law of Moses? Answer, three Sabbath-keepers who were invited to attend a Conference at Rocky Hill, Conn. Did they teach that the "law of Moses" was "now binding on the Church? No. And T. knew better when he asserted that this was their object. But what did they teach? Answer, just what T. taught eight months before, viz: "That the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God." The difference was, they believed that the seventh-day Sabbath should be observed on the seventh day, while T. taught that it should be observed on the first day of the week. And because they differed with him on this point, he accused them of Judaism, and represented them as fallen from grace, as though they had rejected Jesus Christ and had gone back to the services of the Jewish law.
Now any person of common sense, who will look at this point a moment, will see that all those texts that the Watchman applies to Sabbath-keepers, will apply with equal force to all those who take the position of the Editor of that paper, that the first day of the week is the true seventh day, and ought to be observed. The Watchman holds out two positions in opposition to us, one completely destructive of the other. It cannot be that the Watchman is so "blind," that it does not see this. And to pursue such a course to deceive honest souls must be an awful sin in the sight of Heaven. We present these things to show the honest inquirer after truth, some of the "deceivableness of unrighteousness," practised by some who handle the word of God.
Brethren and sisters, you who have to meet the influence of the Watchman, we would say to you, Watch this professed Watchman closely. And if it does not at once renounce one of these two positions, expose it, that honest souls may be undeceived. To hold such positions, is, in reality, an imposition upon its readers, and an insult to the Lord of the Sabbath.
In our next we will show that a knowledge of the true seventh day has been preserved.