p. 184 | To Correspondents by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 6, 1856

To Correspondents.

By Editor

Lucy Button, Madison Co., N. Y.:—We sympathize with you in your affliction. It is a consolation to us that the REVIEW has been a blessing to you; and as long as we have evidence that it is so still, as good evidence as your letter affords, we will gladly continue it. We trust it may continue to be an aid and comfort to you and others through the remainder of our closing pilgrimage.

C. A. Boudreaux, Franklin Co., Vt.:—We are pleased with your reasoning for the institution and perpetuity of the Sabbath from the very beginning to the days of Christ, and also for its universal obligation on the whole family of man; but we do not see how from your own premises you can satisfy your conscience by keeping the first day. If at the death of Christ there had been a suspension of all law on the subject, and every man had been left to keep or not to keep a Sabbath, as his taste or convenience might dictate, there would then be some plausibility in your reasoning. You say that if the Sabbath had never been changed to the first day of the week, you are convinced that there are satisfactory reasons why it should be hallowed. But who is he that can hallow a Sabbath for the use of men? Not man, but God only. But no one claims as far as we have heard, that God ever sanctified the first day of the week. At least they have no authority to present for such a claim. Has God then failed to do his duty in regard to it?

You first reason from analogy as follows: "Was the work of creation vast and glorious? the work of redemption is also vast and glorious." This we admit; but what of it? Again: "Was the seventh day the first that dawned on a lovely, a finished creation? the first day of the week was the first that dawned upon a risen, conquering Saviour." This we also admit; but what of that? What has all this to do with the Sabbath? You see that all such reasoning cannot go one peg towards establishing a religious institution, which wants the divine sanction and precept for its support.

You claim, as hosts of others have done, apostolic example for the observance of Sunday. This we have repeatedly denied, and do so still appealing for support to an impartial reading of the record in the New Testament. You quote for proof of your position, Acts ii, 42, 46. We consider you rather unfortunate in your quotation; for it reads that they continued DAILY in the temple and in breaking bread from house to house. Is this a "satisfactory reason" therefore why EVERY day should be "hallowed?"

You next quote Acts xx, 7, where we learn by the context that the disciples had come together for an evening meeting; but nothing is said about a meeting in the day-time; and nothing is said about this being the CUSTOM of the disciples; but only a single instance is there mentioned. This instance can have no weight with any but those who are laboring hard, not to learn whether or not the seventh day is the Sabbath, but to prove that it is NOT the Sabbath.

1 Cor. xvi, 2, is next called to the stand to witness for the new institution. But have you ever read J. W. Morton's exposition of that text? If not, we would be glad to furnish you with the Sabbath Tracts that contain it. He gives twelve different translations in which the expression "by him" in the text, is rendered, not in the "collection box of the congregation," but by himself, at home. And he says that three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, read, "chez soi," at his own house, at home. Were it not for a scarcity of texts which could in any way be wrested into proof for Sunday-keeping, such passages as these would never be appealed to.

Like many who have gone before you, you wind up with Rev. i, 10; and it is a little remarkable how perfectly confident every one is, that that means Sunday. Where they find proof for this they do not tell us. But as we let the Bible be its own interpreter, we will do so in this instance. In Isa. lviii, 13, will be found an interpretation of Rev. i, 10. As you read that text mark the expression, "My holy day," and you can no longer doubt which day the "Lord's day" is.

Concerning the "fathers," whoever thinks he has authority from them for keeping Sunday let them keep it merely as a human institution, and not endeavor to defend it by the fourth commandment.

As for ourselves, the more we look over this subject, the more we are convinced that this darling institution now dandled in the lap of christendom, is a Pagan, Papal, and traditionary mongrel.