THE TRUTH FOUND.-A REVIEW by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 8, 1861

THE TRUTH FOUND.—A REVIEW.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

SOME time since a MS. was placed in my hands, which purported to be a review of the tract entitled, The Truth Found. On referring it to those having charge of the Review and Herald it was considered unworthy of publication, and of an extended notice such as a publication would necessarily involve. But the writer, who signs his name "Not a Babylonian," seems to consider himself neglected, as we are informed, or to think that we keep his arguments from the public, as fearing such a powerful exposure of our weakness.

We will not at this time quote the passage of scripture which justifies us in noticing some of his positions, but will rest on the supposition that our readers are always interested to know what new phase the opposition assumes. We notice such arguments in the article as are new and novel. His exposition of Heb. iv, which is about as consistent as the points we notice below, we pass entirely, as we have been notified that we shall soon be called out on that scripture by one who we presume can present stronger opposition than the writer of the present article. We have another reason that will justify us in noticing all the arguments that may be brought against the truth. As advocates and disseminators of the truth we endeavor to bear in mind that the devices and cavils of men, though they may appear unworthy of notice when put forth in written form, are continually being thrust before the world and the brethren privately, and thus often become the means of the overthrow of some who are but just inquiring for the way of truth. The writer of the article is an entire stranger to us, and for aught that appears in the article he has signed his real name; and he does not give us the opportunity of referring to him by any other. But for the sake of brevity and convenience (not to speak of justice) we shall drop the prefix which he has attached to his name, and give only his surname, to wit, "Babylonian."

Taking up the tract he becomes very indignant at the rule of evidence adopted from Dr. Carson, "An unnecessary inference is without authority," and exclaims:

"What! has it come to this? . . . Are the words, acts, or circumstances of the lives of Christ and his apostles of so little consequence that an inference drawn therefrom is unnecessary? God forbid. Yet so Mr. W. teaches."

"Mr. W." does not so teach or think. We did not speak at all of inferences from the words, &c., of Christ, but of unnecessary inferences drawn from them or anything else. It is wonderful that any one that has intellect enough to learn to write a legible hand cannot see the difference. We always thought that necessary or legitimate conclusions might be drawn from the

words and facts of the New Testament as well as those of the Old; and in the tract in question we attempted to draw inferences from the words and facts of the New Testament; of course, confining the argument to necessary or reasonable inferences. But Mr. B. thinks (or at least speaks) otherwise. He writes as though every inference drawn from the New Testament was unnecessary. Dr. Carson's admirable argument has stood the test of the closest criticism from the most able reasoners; and we can imagine but one reason why Mr. Babylonian should object to such a reasonable rule; to wit, the rule would preclude every conclusion he has arrived at in his article!

Mr. B. then, to show the fallacy of my reasoning, tries his hand at logic; and endeavors to draw a conclusion parallel to the first one in the tract on page 3. He says:

"Let us try Mr. Waggoner's position thus: God made the world and all things, not accursed as at present, but good, holy, and unpolluted; therefore the world and all things can never cease to be holy and unpolluted, even as it can never cease to be a fact that God created them so. Conclusion, therefore the world was never accursed for man's sake."

This he calls the "legitimate result" of the argument, and denominates it a "parallel case." Let us trace the parallel in the record of facts and see how far it goes.

God made all things in six days. | God rested the seventh day. He saw that all was good. | He blessed the seventh day. He said, Cursed is the ground, &c. | Where's the parallel?

A sentence on page 4 of the tract will show that Mr. B. willfully perverted the argument. It reads thus: "So it must remain a sanctified day, unless it can be shown to be also a fact that God has removed or withdrawn the sanctity from it." Here is an opening for a subsequent fact to supersede the first. In his illustration a subsequent fact does supersede the first; but in the case presented in the tract no such subsequent fact exists. On this we justly claimed the argument.

Again, there is a further deception in Mr. Babylonian's illustration, as in the tract there are two distinct points examined; first, the creation; second, a quality added. Each of these has its separate argument and conclusion; and what will apply to one will not always apply to the other. Hence, the proviso, as here quoted. But Mr. B. mingled the two together, and left out the proviso, thus presenting the argument in a false light.

On the subject of the repeal of the law he says: "It is admitted that the command was plainly given, but it is not admitted that there are not sufficient grounds for assuming that the command to keep the seventh day holy was, and is, expressly repealed."

He then complains again of the rule as shutting out inferences favoring such assumption. But why talk of inferences and assuming, if it was "expressly repealed?" He used not assume anything, nor infer anything. Let him point to the express repeal and we will cheerfully yield the point.

The following is one of the most singular of all the singular positions yet taken by Sunday advocates or Sabbath opposers. It clearly establishes Mr. B.'s reputation for invention, if not for logic. We call it a rare sample of the ingenuity of error—fertile in expedience, but blind to consequences. After quoting Eze. xx, 13, &c., where the Lord says they polluted the Sabbath, Mr. B. adds:

"Here we have the whole thing stated plainly. The sabbaths which were given for a sign, and the seventh day was so given, were polluted. Is a thing polluted holy? Even a lamb was required to be perfect in order to become a sacrifice, and can this polluted day become the representative of the rest of Jesus? . . . Thus we see the seventh-day Sabbath bears the same characteristics as the other sabbaths. It was a sign like unto them, and was to be kept holy. It was also polluted as they were, thus proving that it was not exempted from any circumstance affecting the purity of the other sabbaths, and therefore must have been a part of the ceremonial law."

We think we may now justly "try Mr. Babylonian's position thus," in one of his own words, only we will give an exact parallel, which he did not do.

The name of the Lord is holy. Ps. cx, 11. It is to be reverenced, and not taken in vain. Ex. xx, 7. Note the following scriptures:

Jer. xxxiv, 16. "But ye turned and polluted my name." Query again: "Is a thing polluted holy?"

Pollute and profane are synonymous. Webster.

Eze. xxxvi, 21. "But I had pity for my holy name which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen." Also verses 22, 23; Amos ii, 7.

Notice, it was holy though they had profaned it.

Mal. i, 11, 12. "My name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye have profaned it."

Is the name of Jehovah "exempted from any circumstance affecting its purity?" Not if Mr. Babylonian's reasoning is correct; and he seems to rest much on this point, as he refers to his having proved that the seventh day is profaned or polluted, and no longer holy. But the children of Israel polluted the Sabbath, and put no difference between the holy and profane. Mr. B. is guilty of the same offense. The text where this rebuke is found carries the point still further.

Eze. xxii, 26. "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane; neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them."

So, according to Mr. Babylonian, the Lord God himself is not exempted from circumstances affecting his purity! Mr. B. was certainly very blind or very reckless in putting forth an argument involving such a blasphemous conclusion.

But Mr. B.'s argument affects his own position also. To pollute or profane a holy day is to do servile work, or secular labor on it; and Mr. B. claims that Sunday is or was a sacred day by the act and appointment of Christ. But has Sunday never been profaned? Would not secular labor on that day neutralize its consecration as much or as readily as it would that of the Sabbath? If Mr. B.'s argument availed anything it would prove that, even if Sunday ever had been sacred, it ceased to be so long ago, by being profaned.

Mr. B. says that I deny that the Lord Jesus arose on the first day of the week, and then, wondering at my infidelity, devotes considerable time and space to prove it. In this he is only unfortunate. I never denied it, and refer to the tract entitled, Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath, for evidence that I believe it and have so published to the world. And when Mr. B., or any one, will show it a duty, by scripture, to keep the day of Christ's resurrection, I will keep the first day. But we believe it from concurrent events, and not because it is so stated, for it is not. And this is what is said in the tract. We do not, however, admit the testimony on which Mr. B. relies. He says:

"The keepers were appointed to watch and know the very hour when Christ arose; and what were they instructed to say? Why, that the disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept. Would they have watched that night if Jesus had arisen the day before? Such is the preposterous condition of Mr. Waggoner's argument."

Not so fast, dear Mr. Babylonian! You appear to be in great haste to exemplify your name. Where did you learn that "the keepers were appointed to watch and know the very hour when Christ arose?" Whatever we may think of your capacities, your opportunities have certainly been great; for the very best proof we have been able to reach says that they were appointed to watch and prevent the disciples stealing him away; and so far from placing any reliance on the testimony of the soldiers, we are of the decided opinion that "what they were instructed to say" was a vile imposition—a falsehood. We hold that this has no bearing on the Sabbath question, and therefore the information Mr. B. gives is of no particular value to us, though it may be to others. As the modern Babylonians follow the Romans in commencing the day at midnight, it is of interest to them to know what time of night the soldiers said he arose. Without this, on your own ground, you prove nothing; and as you are the only person we ever heard of that so fully understood the subject, we refer it to yourself for a further decision.

In immediate connection with this he falls into another error. He imputes to me the belief that the seventh day—

—"is the day on which Jesus proclaims his peace (or rest) without the smallest command given in the New Testament or practice to warrant it."

No, no, Mr. B. Such a ridiculous notion never entered my head. We think you are fairly entitled to a patent on it. Our faith is that the Sabbath is a day of rest—made for man. You say the Sabbath is a day for Christ to proclaim his peace or rest. How a command could reach such an institution, we cannot perceive.

He further blames me for requiring definite testimony in regard to the first-day Sabbath. And why should we not? We have definite testimony on the Sabbath, and shall another institution be admitted in its place without any definite testimony to warrant the change? But we do not argue the point here. Our views are plainly stated in the book in question. We will follow Mr. B. once more. Speaking of us he says:

"He would be satisfied with the laws of the Medes and Persians if there were none in the United States sufficiently definite to suit him."

If there were no definite laws here we should regard no law here; as an indefinite law would be unworthy of any regard. And we firmly believe there is not a jury in the land who would convict on testimony as vague, indefinite, and contradictory, as that offered by the advocates of Sunday for its institution as a Sabbath. The laws of the Medes and Persians have been referred to by others. We will state our position fully on that point.

1. If we had been under the laws of the Medes and Persians and no definite laws had superseded them, we should still observe them, and consider the duty plain to do so.

2. If the laws of the Medes and Persians had been the laws of this land, and the United States had definitely declared that they did not destroy or make them void, then we should hold that they were the very foundation of this government, and keep them accordingly.

3. If the people of this country had found those laws in force, and had said they did not purpose to do their own will but the will of the pre-existing power and authority, then also I should observe those laws, as a citizen of the United States.

We have heard of an ancient feud between the parties, from which we might conclude that Mr. Babylonian had an especial antipathy to the laws of the Medes and Persians, and if so, his prejudice appears to be as wide-spread as deep-rooted, for it extends to other laws that "alter not;" but to the unprejudiced we would appeal: Is not our position on the above three points correct? And such is our relation, in the gospel, to the law of God; for, the Saviour found the laws of his Father existing: He said he came not to destroy it: He said he came not to do his own will, but that of the Father: and there is no law superseding the fourth commandment, or instituting another Sabbath. On this subject we rest with assurance and safety.

We beg permission to go one step further on this point, and ask, Why are we not bound to keep the laws of the Medes and Persians? The reply will be readily given; that government was subverted and overthrown. But who subverted the law of God? Did the Saviour? Or the man of sin? See Dan. vii, 25; 2 Thess. ii. Which gospel does Mr. Babylonian claim his liberty under, that of Jerusalem or Rome? We leave this question open to all antinomians.

On the sanctification and blessing of the first day he is unusually bold in his assertions; more so than most of his co-laborers in the same cause. He says:

"But the occurrences of the day of pentecost are sufficient to elevate it into a day of holy convocation, for the descending of the Holy Spirit sanctified and blessed it."

We must certainly be approaching the climax. What can induce a man claiming to be candid and christian, to make such statements? Did the day of pentecost come weekly? It did not. Did the descent of the Spirit occur more than once? It did. Was every day sanctified on which the Spirit was poured out or descended on the believers in Jesus? Or would first-day be doubly sanctified by its recurrence on that day? Probably Mr. B. and his fellow Bs. never thought of this.

But where do they learn that the day was sanctified by any such means? Nowhere. They do not know it. It is folly and presumption; no less than adding to the word of God, to make it say what it does not say, that they may appear justified in their transgression. There is no ordinary act of disobedience in this; it is rebellion, it is treason. Have not the words of the wise man an application here? Eccl. viii, 11.

But the last proof on this point, and the closing one of his article, is one which, we have no doubt, our opponents will all hail with joy, provided they can be made to believe in Mr. B.'s theory. He says:

"In [Sunday] is the day on which Christ first performed that which he commanded to be done, saying, 'This do in remembrance of me,' as though he had said, Remember me on this day—equivalent to remember the Sabbath-day. This is not a simple co-incidence, but a fact."

We wonder what the fact is, for there are three statements made, neither of which are true. Truly, three false statements in twice as many lines, should not be called a "simple co-incidence"—it is a complex one.

Of all the perversions of scripture that it has been our lot to witness, we have never seen the equal of this. And yet (we are informed) the writer is a minister of one of the large denominations of the day! The words of the act of instituting the Lord's supper are turned from their plain, evident intent, to support another institution, the existence of which is not hinted at in God's word. For, he affirms (and everything with him is settled by an affirmation), that the Sabbath is not seventh day, but first day, in the New Testament. And thus we have the scripture expounded: when Jesus distributed the bread and the wine, and said, This do in remembrance of me, it was equivalent to saying, Remember and keep Sunday!!!

We have always confidently supposed that Paul understood the intent of the Saviour's words, and the object of the institution; and in commenting on it in his letter to the Corinthians he says: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. xi, 26. But according to Mr. Babylonian, the Saviour had altogether another object in view—his words looked in another direction. And the words of Paul, corrected to suit Mr. B.'s theory, would read thus: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do keep Sunday!

Thank you, Mr. Babylonian; in behalf of all the opposers of God's holy Sabbath, we thank you. We never should have thought of finding Sunday in 1 Cor. xi, 26, if you had not set us on the track.

It is very generally conceded that the Saviour gave the commandment above referred to as early as Thursday evening; so that if we had any authority whatever for attaching the institution to a day, or if Mr. B.'s words were true, that the Saviour meant to say, Remember me on this day, the observance would be fixed to fifth or sixth-day, and not to first-day. But there is not a shade of evidence that the Lord's supper and the observance of any day in any manner, are at all connected. It is on a par with other assumptions by which men seek to justify their transgression of God's law, and shows the weakness of the cause they are trying to sustain, and their own recklessness in their efforts to sustain it.

Though such efforts as this of Mr. B. are unworthy in themselves of any consideration, they yet serve to show the nature of the opposition which is now being so extensively offered to the law of God. And if the truth on the Sabbath can be set aside or evaded in this manner, what duty in God's word can be enforced? Well might the infidel denounce the Bible as an instrument of contradictions and absurdities if it would justify such quibbles and evasions as those of Mr. B. herein noticed, or even of many of more learning, and of (apparently) more candor.

We cannot look upon such efforts without solemn reflections. While fools make a mock at sin, the worldly moralist would often despise it, and the saint of God would hate it. If, then, sin appears odious according to the position and character of the beholder, how must such perversions of truth and of the testimony of the Bible appear in the sight of a holy God? Surely, angels must look with astonishment at the presumption of mortals in insulting heaven with vain excuses to set aside the authority of the Creator.