Z. CAMPBELL AGAIN by Uriah Smith

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Oct 4, 1853

Z. CAMPBELL AGAIN.

By Uriah Smith

IN No. 8 of the REVIEW, we made the following statement: "As Mr. Z. Campbell has announced to the world that the Papal Beast has changed the number of the days of the week, so that our first is in reality the seventh day, we call on him to present the history of such a change. When he will present it, we will publish the language of his historians who make any such statement."

To this Mr. Campbell replies in an article in a late number of the Watchman, as follows:—

"In a late number of his paper, [REVIEW,] he requests me to show the history of the change in the number of the days of the weeks. We have shown by Sacred History, that Friday occurs three days before the first day of the week, whereas, by his reckoning, it is the second; now whether the change was made by the Sabbatarians themselves, or the Pope, or the Devil, I care but little which; of the three authorities, the editor of the Sabbath Herald may take his choice."

Would not such a reply as this from Z. Campbell, with so little regard for his own word, and reputation, have been a disgrace to the infidel, Thomas Paine? Mr. C. asserted that the Papal Beast had changed the number of the days of the week; and as he stated that he had spent much time in searching history, we wished him to present his historical proof, if he had any. But his singular reply shows that he has none, and that his assertion is false. We hoped that Mr. C. would either produce his history, or take back his bold assertion; but he has done neither. Some men choose to be guilty of the folly of going on from bad to worse rather than to confess that they have made a groundless assertion. Read what the wise man has said, Prov. xxvii, 22.

Is Sunday the Seventh day?

We give the following from Vol. III, No. 7, of the REVIEW, which is to the point.

But, say you, though we have no history that records any such event, as the mistake in question, [the inhabitants of the globe were all asleep when this mistake was made, just as they were when Mahomet wrought his miracle on the moon,] yet we have "plain Bible testimony" that establishes the fact that Sunday is the Seventh day. Here it is:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matt. xii, 40.

It is made to prove the point in this way: Christ was crucified on Friday, lay in the grave this period in full time, was raised on Monday, which is thus shown to be the first day of the week; hence Sunday is certainly the seventh day.

An indirect method of establishing a theory that involves the most extraordinary difficulties. But the evidence mentioned shall have all possible weight allowed it.

The "three days and three nights" shall be reckoned in full time, though there are certain facts that seem to modify this, which may be noticed in their place.

We inquire, then, respecting the evidence on which it is asserted that Christ was crucified on Friday. It is answered, "Every one admits this fact." But why does every one admit this fact? There is but one answer that can be given: Christ was crucified the day before the Sabbath, [Mark xv, 42,] which, according to all records, Pagan, Mahometan, Jewish and Christian, comes on Saturday. For this one grand reason, it has been treated as an established fact, that the crucifixion occurred on Friday.

Now mark this point! In order to fill the space of two entire days between the crucifixion day and the day of the resurrection, which this theory presents, you say that two sabbaths came in connection, viz: the passover sabbath and the Sabbath of Jehovah. And that the crucifixion occurred the day before the passover sabbath, and two days before the Sabbath of the Lord.

Very well; have your own idea of this also. Now what have you gained? Simply this: the crucifixion did not occur on Friday, the day before the Sabbath, but it occurred on Thursday, two days before the Sabbath.

One plain fact ought to put this argument into oblivion for ever. It is this: The Sabbath is the fixed point which determines the day of the week on which the crucifixion occurred, and not the crucifixion day, the fixed point which may set the Sabbath forward or backward. Weigh this fact; its force will be seen.

The only way that the day of the crucifixion can be determined, is by its relative distance from the Sabbath; hence it is the height of folly to adjust the Sabbath by the day of the crucifixion. Is it not so?

The premises of our brethren who maintain this theory, sadly clash. Their evidence, when allowed in its full length and breadth, amounts to this: the crucifixion occurred on Thursday. But it is a fundamental point with them that it occurred on Friday. The argument at most can only claim to set the crucifixion back, and can never lay the least claim to having set the Sabbath and the resurrection forward. It destroys the very foundation on which it claims to rest! We bespeak serious attention to the point.

But does not this idea of making out Sunday the Seventh day, look much more like an ingenious excuse for breaking the fourth commandment, than a real, sincere effort to obey it?

On whom does the blessing of heaven rest? On those who obey the commandments, or on those who find an excuse for not obeying?

Not Stepping in the dark.

If, in the purpose of God to release earth from the thralldom of the curse, and restore it to its Eden beauty, he designed that man should know when this was about to be accomplished; if, when he appointed a day in which he would judge the world in righteousness, he intended that we should know of its approach, and prepare for the event; in short, if his revealed will, the Bible, is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, then we were not stepping in the dark, or following cunningly devised fables, when we made known the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Based on God's Word, the fundamental principles of the Advent doctrine, as proclaimed in the past—the commencement and termination of the prophetic periods, the first and second angels' messages and the symbolic visions of Daniel and John, are placed upon an unshaken foundation and cannot be moved; and perhaps there is no one thing, more calculated to inspire confidence in our present position, than the fact that we stand upon the same foundation. Though we were subject to a heavy and grievous disappointment in not seeing our Lord at the end of the 2300 days, yet our confidence in the past is unshaken; because the cause of that disappointment is now fully explained, and all is harmonious and clear. But how and by whom is this explanation given? Surely not by those who deny the established principles of chronological reckoning, and contend that the 2300 days have not yet expired, and that, consequently, the past is a failure; nor by those who place the message of the first angel in the days of the apostles, or Luther, or Wesley: before ever the book of Daniel upon which it is based was unsealed! and therefore the move of '43 and 4, was counterfeit; nor by those who locate the messages in a future age, even after the Lord comes!

We have said that in the past Advent movement, we have not been stepping in the dark; and we now claim, that, in being guided by the same lamp, the unerring Word, adhering still to the same established rules of interpretation, we are not stepping in the dark, while we follow down the track of prophecy as it is further developed. It is no blind step to believe, as God's Word plainly teaches, that the true Tabernacle is in heaven, a sanctuary which the Lord pitched and not man; and unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed; that, since the days have ended, Christ is now performing his last work in the heavenly Sanctuary, as was typified by the work of the priests on earth, in the Mosaic dispensation. We would ask all those who view this point otherwise, this simple question: "What did the tabernacle built by Moses, with its sacrifices, and its work of atonement, signify?"

Again, it is no crooked and distorted theory, to believe that when two angels have given their messages, and the Word says that a third shall follow them, that it will be even as the Word declares; and the third angel will follow and perform his work; and it is in accordance with truth to believe that when he shall have finished his message, that the Son of man will take his position on the great white cloud, which is the next event given in the prophetic chain.

We do not move unadvisedly, when, perceiving from the plain testimony of scripture, that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God, we throw aside the traditions of men, break away from our early prejudices, and step out on his commandments, and keep his law. To those who do this, is promised, eternal life; to those who do it not, everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.

We say, then, that we are the only class who have the harmony of all scripture, and the evidence of the past to sustain our present position. We are the only class whose views will harmonize with the past, and render all its moves consistent and plain; and all those who still claim that the Advent movement was the work of God, and was founded on the teachings of the Bible, must either admit that we have the truth, or that God's Word has failed. The failure of God's word, I am not yet prepared to acknowledge; but I do most confidently assert that we have the truth,—I know of no class of people who have any truth that we have not: I know of no class of people who have all the truth that we have. Our feet are not enveloped in the darkness and inconsistencies of error. Our way is still lightened by the Word of God. Tho' the darkness covers the earth and gross darkness the people, we still have light in our dwellings.

U. S. Rochester, Sept. 27th, 1853.