THIRD SUNDAY EFFORT IN
BATTLE CREEK.
Our brethren generally will be interested to know how the Orthodoxy of this city are disposed to look upon us, or what efforts make against us. Two efforts against the Sabbath, have already been noticed. To these we have now to add a third. Mr. Odell of the Methodist church, took up against us on the 9th inst. To his effort we have made the following reply. At this late hour in the agitation of the Sabbath question, we naturally expect, when we hear an announcement of some fresh effort to be made towards the settlement of this controversy, that some new light at least will be shed upon the subject; for on what other ground can such an effort be justified? There is surely no virtue in simply repeating the stale and threadbare arguments for the common theory which have already been a thousand and one times refuted; and if a person has nothing more than this to do, it invariably leaves the impression that he is either himself ignorant of the state of the question, or presumes upon such ignorance in his hearers. Being present at the delivery of the sermon above referred to, we feel unwilling to let pass unnoticed some of the positions taken, or to leave uncorrected some of the statements made. Our object in this is to correct the misapprehension of any, who, being unacquainted with the other side of the question, may have been led unwarily to look upon unfounded assertion as Bible testimony, and unknowingly regard the most palpable misstatements as honest truth. With these remarks we introduce the reader to the positions taken and the strictures we have to offer thereon. The ground assumed was briefly this: 1. The fourth commandment is partly moral and partly ceremonial: The enforcement of the Sabbath institution is moral; the designation of the day is ceremonial, and may be changed at pleasure. 2. A seventh part of time is all that is required; and by the observance of any seventh day, the command is truly obeyed. 3. We cannot tell when the seventh day comes. 4. The rotundity of the earth, its revolution upon its axis, and the different localities of men, forbid their keeping the same time. 5. Christ and his apostles changed the day. 6. The change proved by ecclesiastical history. To these propositions we reply in order. 1. The division of the fourth commandment into two parts, moral and ceremonial, is wholly an unwarrantable act. Whoever will carefully read the fourth commandment, will see that the idea of an abstract institution is in no wise contemplated in that commandment. If part of it is moral, the whole most assuredly is. If not, how happens it that God has introduced into the very bosom of a moral decalogue, a command which is partly ceremonial, and just so far out of place? To contend for a ceremonial part of the fourth commandment, is being wise above what is written. Any reflecting mind can but see that there is no such thing as a Sabbath institution disconnected from the day. It was the day which was the special subject of God's regard and divine enactment. It was the day which he sanctified and blessed. It is the day which he commands to be kept holy. And without the day the institution does not exist. 2. A seventh part of our time only is required. Said the speaker, "It cannot be disputed that the command is truly obeyed by the seventh day, at whatever day the cycle may begin." And again, "The wording of the command does not enjoin the seventh day especially, but the Sabbath as an institution." "The seventh part of time and not the seventh day from the date of creation, is all that the Lord demands." "No specific time enjoined in the commandment," but "the expression is the most undefined." Well, if the Bible said anything of this kind, we might admit it. But when the Bible is silent upon the point, or rather, speaks directly to the contrary, as we shall by and by show, how much is human assertion supposed to be worth? We are confident that with every genuine Bible student it will shrink into its own appropriate compass. But there is one question to which, right here, we would like an answer. If it be true that one day is seven, and no day in particular, is all that is required, then it "cannot be disputed" that we who observe the seventh day, are as truly obeying the commandment, as any other class of people. Then pray tell us why all this ado about seventh-day Sabbath-keeping? If by keeping the seventh day, we are living in as strict accordance with the fourth commandment as yourselves, and that too, on your own admission, why all this enmity against the practice, and all these efforts to cast odium upon its advocates? Oh, but all the community should be agreed upon some particular day. Provided they should, so long as we disturb no one, no one has any ground of complaint. Consistency is a jewel everywhere; but especially so, on the Sunday side of the Sabbath question, where it is so rarely seen. Again: Will the seventh-part-of-time advocates tell us where they get their sacred time? It was conceded from the Methodist desk that man cannot make time holy by any act of his; and it is certain that God has not placed one day above another, if he has blessed only a seventh part of time and no day in particular. On this hypothesis, all days are alike, since the observance of any day of the week would equally meet the requirement of the law. Yet we were treated last Sunday to a quotation from one of the fathers, which spoke of Sunday as a sacred day. How did it come to be sacred? From whence did it derive its sanctity? We call for chapter and verse. But the 4th commandment is not so indefinite a thing as it is asserted to be. If a definite day is not pointed out by that commandment, we ask what language could do it? We are commanded to remember the Sabbath day; and then we are told what day the Sabbath is; it is the, not a, seventh day. And why? Because on the seventh day of the first week of time, God rested from the work of creation, and blessed and sanctified that day. Now it must be apparent to all that we are commanded to keep the very day of the week on which God rested, and on which he placed his blessing. We go back to creation, and inquire, Did God bless any particular day or no day in particular? To say that God rested on one day in seven, but no day in particular, and placed his blessing upon a seventh part of time, but no particular part, is utterly absurd; and hence, since we are commanded to rest upon the very day of the week upon which God rested and placed his blessing, to say that it only means one day in seven, but no day in particular, is utterly absurd also. 3. But we are told that we cannot tell which day is the seventh day. Said Mr. O., How do those who keep the seventh day know that it is the seventh day? Does the Bible tell them? "No. Who then? The Jewish fathers." And so he proposed to offset this tradition against that which upholds the Sunday as the Sabbath. Did he expect his hearers to accept this as a consistent parallel? When we say that Sunday-keeping is a traditional institution, we mean to affirm that the institution itself is supported only by tradition; that there is no other authority for setting apart that day as a day of rest. But on the other hand, should we concede that we are dependent on the Jewish fathers for our knowledge of the seventh day, it would only be an admission that we are dependent on them for the reckoning of the time, but not for the use which we are to make of the seventh day. This important distinction will be apparent to all; and it shows that the attempt to make it appear that the seventh day is equally dependent with the first, on tradition, is wholly abortive. But we are not dependent on the Jewish fathers for a knowledge of the true seventh day. We have already seen that the law requires the celebration of the seventh day of every week in regular succession from the first week of time. And when we come down to the time of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, we find the seventh day of the week pointed out unmistakably by the miracle of the manna. We pass on to the time of the first advent. No one can deny that Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, knew which the true seventh day was; and we find him observing the very day which the commandment enjoins. From that time to this we have the agreement of Jews, Christians and Mahomedians in the reckoning of the time. We have then the true seventh day, even if it had been lost in the patriarchal age, or during the bondage in Egypt, pointed out by173God himself in the wilderness of Sinai, acknowledged by Christ, and preserved by undoubted chronology ever since. Our knowledge is consequently as perfect as knowledge need be, that we have the true seventh day, dating from creation. 4. The world is round; therefore men cannot everywhere keep the same time. It is not a little amazing to hear observers of the first day use this argument against the seventh. They all doubtless believe that it is the duty of people the world over, to keep the first day of the week. Oh, yes. And people the world over, east, west, north, and south, have no trouble in keeping that day? None at all. But the moment we tell them that it is the seventh and not the first day which they are required to keep,—behold, the world is suddenly round, and men cannot everywhere keep the same time! therefore the seventh is not the day to be kept! What admirable logic! In using this argument (the reader will pardon the misnomer) the Elder reminds us of the anecdote of the woodman, who, having ascended a tree, became so earnestly engaged in topping the boughs, that he unconsciously cut off the one upon which he was standing! If a formal reply to this objection is deemed necessary, we answer that God probably knew, when he made the Sabbath and gave the law to guard its sanctity, that the world was round, and that it revolved on its axis, and that men would everywhere inhabit it, and that time would differ, east and west, and that the days and nights would vary in length north and south! If therefore God has given a Sabbath law of universal application, as we are all happily agreed that he has, it must be of course adapted to these circumstances. Hence no one has ever known us to contend that the commandment requires the same absolute hours the world over. Whoever spends his time in refuting such a supposition, is simply demolishing a man of straw of his own creation. The commandment requires the seventh day; and the day may be represented as traveling around the earth from east to west. It carries with it the sanction of law; and whenever and wherever it comes, it demands of us that during its hours, we cease from our secular employments, and engage in the special service of our Maker. Now unless we are willing to take the position that there are some portions of this mundane sphere where the seventh day of the week does not regularly occur, we must admit that there are no localities where the Sabbath may not be kept according to the commandment. But what about the time lost or gained by sailing around the world? We answer, it is only apparent, not real. Suppose two individuals whose ages were the same to an hour, should start from a certain point and travel, the one east and the other west, till they met on the other side of the globe. They would then be, it is claimed, in their reckoning, one day apart. But does any one suppose that by such a maneuver one of those individuals would become a day older than the other? If not, it is evident that no time absolutely is gained or lost, but only apparently. And such being the case, we apprehend it might be easily enough corrected. At any rate, whenever a practical illustration shall occur—when a person shall go round the earth east or west, and thereby gain or lose a day, and fail to have his reckoning corrected, and persist in plodding along a day behind or before the rest of the human race, it will be time to notice the matter further. Till then we need not trouble ourselves to speculate about what might be. 5. "Christ and his apostles changed the day." What? Were we not told at the first, that no particular day, but only a seventh part of our time was required by the fourth commandment? And can one day in seven but no day in particular, be changed to another day in seven but no day in particular? Is the Sabbatic institution thus "loose on the handle"? Or, when it was changed, was it changed from no day in particular to some day in particular? How shall we understand this slip-shod method of interpretation? A seventh-part-of-time theory may talk of obeying the fourth commandment by observing a different day from one previously kept; but for it to talk of changing the day is manifestly inconsistent; as there can be no such thing as a change of the day of the commandment, if there is no particular day enjoined in the commandment. But we can show from the nature of the case that a change is impossible. The Sabbath is a memorial of creation, a celebration of God's rest after his six days of labor. No other reason is anywhere given for the institution. Now any one must see that a weekly celebration of any event must be confined to the very day of the week on which the event occurred. Mark it. An event of one day in the week cannot be commemorated by observing another day of the week. The Sabbath is therefore fixed to the seventh day, on which God rested. If we keep Sunday to commemorate redemption, we have another day for another purpose; and consequently it is another institution. But, say you, Sunday commemorates creation and redemption both. Well, let us try it in a parallel case. Suppose a person should rise up and endeavor to make this nation believe they were celebrating the landing of the Pilgrims on the 22d of December, as well as their national independence, by observing the 4th of July. He would be hooted, and justly, too, from one end of the Union to the other for his inconsistency. Let equal justice be done on the Sabbath question, and we shall hear no more about resting on the first day of the week, to celebrate God's rest upon the seventh. "But redemption is greater than creation." How do you know? We call again for chapter and verse. Either event is above your comprehension or mine; and it has the appearance of presumption, at least, for us to undertake to decide which is the greater; and it is adding audacity to presumption, to venture then, on the strength of that decision, to change one of the fundamental laws of the Almighty. "But Christ rose from the dead on Sunday." Well, what has that to do with the fourth commandment? Any lawyer will tell us that the repeal of a law must be as explicit and as authoritative as its enactment. Now before the fourth commandment can be made to enforce the first day of the week, its exclusive reference to the seventh, must be repealed. The resurrection of Christ furnishes no such repeal, nor have we an account of any such repeal in all the inspired volume. "But Christ met with his disciples twice or thrice on the day of his resurrection." Well, in the name of reason, what of that! He was with them constantly before his crucifixion; and after that event he met with them once while they were fishing (see Jno. xxi, 1-6; rather inappropriate business for a Sabbath); and again he met with them on the day of his ascension, which, according to common computation, was Thursday. Is that too a Sabbath? And finally, Luke tells us in Acts i, 3, that he was seen of them forty days. Think of that! Forty consecutive Sabbaths! What a hallowed time that must have been! We speak on the supposition that a meeting between Christ and his disciples made the day holy on which it occurred, as our Sunday friends seem inclined to argue. But Pentecost is left yet; yes, that great day on which the "Christian Sabbath" was so signally honored. We only wish the reader to bear in mind a fact or two here: The ascension of Christ took place forty days after his resurrection; between the ascension and Pentecost, the fiftieth day, there were ten days. Pentecost falling upon the first day of the week, we ascertain by counting back that one first-day must have passed between the ascension and Pentecost. Now the significant question arises, Why was not the Holy Ghost poured out upon the first first-day after the ascension? If the design in that outpouring of the Spirit was simply to honor the Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, why was one Sabbath passed over in silence ere the Spirit was given? The answer is obvious: It was not God's design to honor the first day of the week, but only to mark the antitype of the feast of Pentecost. For this reason it was necessary to wait till the "Pentecost was fully come." So reads the record; and the sacred historian does not even condescend to notice the day of the week upon which it occurred. That had no connection with the matter. It is further urged that it was the custom of the disciples to meet on the first day of the week to break bread. Acts xx, 7. We answer that the Jews reckoned the day from evening to evening. See Kitto. This meeting of Paul's at Troas, therefore, took place on what would now be called Saturday evening. He continued his speech until midnight, broke bread, and spoke till break of day; and when the Sunday morning had fairly dawned, off he went afloat on his journey. It is susceptible of the clearest proof that this was Sunday; hence we conclude that Paul had no very great reverence for that day. 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, says nothing about "devotional worship," nor does it give any intimation of a public assembly, but simply orders that each one should lay by in store at home, &c. Rev. i, 10, does not tell us which day of the week the Lord's day is. They are therefore inconclusive. 6. The change proved by ecclesiastical history. The limits which we have assigned to this article, forbid our giving the quotations here which we would be glad to. We can only state that a small work has lately been published at this Office, which presents the matter in its true light. But three writers previous to the time of Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, are ever claimed as offering any testimony on this question. Of these, the epistle of Barnabas is a forgery, according to Mosheim, Neander, Milner, Kitto and Eusebius; the epistle of Pliny speaks of a "stated day," but does not intimate that it is the first day of the week; the testimony of Ignatius has been garbled, according to Kitto, the word, day, being interpolated, to make it read, "Lord's day," when no such idea is contained in the text; and Justin Martyr has been misrepresented, as he was a no-Sabbath man. That famous and hackneyed quotation, "Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Lord's day?" &c., is also shown to be a forgery. What then was our astonishment, having been assured that the above named work in which these things are fully exposed, had been placed in the hands of the speaker—what was our astonishment to hear him coolly lay them before his audience as plain and honest truth! and then unhesitatingly assert that they who will state that this has been forged or altered, "will state or deny anything!" and that whoever "will not believe such testimony, will not believe anything!" The majority of the early fathers were no-Sabbath men. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustinus and Theodoretus, all agree that the Lord's day or day of the resurrection is an institution altogether independent of the decalogue, and entirely different from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. To quote them, therefore, as enforcing Sunday from that commandment, betrays an unacquaintance with their views, or an intent to mislead. But could it be shown that all the fathers were unanimous in calling Sunday the Sabbath, that fact would be entitled to no particular weight with Protestants, so long as the writings of the "grandfathers," which alone are inspired—the New Testament itself—cannot be shown to contain a hint in its favor. The speaker having announced in the commencement of his discourse that he did not "enter upon the discussion to meet any individual, but for his personal gratification and the benefit of the congregation," we were sorry to see the effort end in an attempt to heap contumely upon those who conscientiously differ with him on this subject. The seventh-day Baptists said he, arose, and said wisdom was with them, and would perish with them; but the world minded no more about them than a large locomotive would about the barking of a "whiffet dog." And the Adventists arose, and have set time after time for the Lord to come, and failed in every instance. If Sabbath-keeping Adventists are included in this statement, we respectfully repel the falsehood. We have no connection with those who have been continually setting times since 1844, as every one at all conversant with our history well knows. And any man who considers truth of more value than 10 cts., may avoid the liability of thus misrepresenting us, by perusing the publication in which we give our reasons for the only times we have ever embraced or defended. But the audience were further told that failing in our Adventism, and bound to have something to sustain us, we had resurrected these old "rotten questions;"174namely, the seventh-day Sabbath and the mortality of man. The whole statement is false in fact, though we hope not intentionally so. Finally the occupant of the sacred desk, through the medium of an illustration we need not mention, asked his hearers if they would believe us if we should "tell them that the moon was made of green cheese." Friends, we ask you to bear in mind one fact here, and then the reverend gentleman's allusion may go for what it is worth. Remember that we never have asked any man to believe a thing because we said so. We ask no man to take our word for anything. Whatever we cannot bring chapter and verse for, you may reject with scorn. But while we grant you this liberty, we request you to take a similar course with others. Don't believe a thing on any man's mere assertion, even though he be an advocate of Sunday-keeping. Call for proof. Require chapter and verse. Do so in reference to the Sunday question. Depend upon it, if it is a Bible institution, the Bible will say something about it. God does not leave us in reference to our duty to him, to inferences and guess-work. Let no man then declaim you into a belief that that is a Bible institution, which the Bible knows nothing of. If Sunday-keeping is of divine origin, show us the "Thus saith the Lord" that supports it. Long enough we have been treated to assertions, assumptions, ambiguous circumlocutions, and that "which is just as good as law," and that which "amounts to almost a law." We want positive testimony. If there is a law for Sunday-keeping, produce it. We call for the statute. If it cannot be found, show us the man who can convict us of sin, in making it a secular day; for the apostle expressly says that "where no law is there is no transgression." Rom. iv, 15. And to make this a practical question, and induce some one to find the authority called for if such exists, we make the liberal offer appended to this paper. In conclusion we may be allowed to express our regret that we are such a "troublesome" people to Mr. O. He says, "There was a party from the first who kept the seventh day of the week; but they were always small and a trouble, just as all other Judaizing teachers have been." We might remind him that this is not the first time the righteous have been considered the troublers of Israel. Ahab looked upon Elijah in just such a light [1 Kings xviii. 17]; and the Jews thought it expedient to get rid of the troublesome Jesus by some means, even if it was by crucifixion; and Paul was called a "pestilent fellow" [Acts xxiv, 5]; and the "sect" to which he belonged was "everywhere spoken against." Acts xxviii, 22. As to the smallness of the party, we recollect that the Saviour somewhere speaks of a way which is narrow, and which few find, and one which is broad, wherein the multitude walk. We shall never be frightened nor ashamed on account of paucity of numbers; for God and his hosts are ever an "overwhelming majority."