p. 101 | BOTH SIDES by Uriah Smith

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 25, 1862

BOTH SIDES.

By Uriah Smith

[The following is a Letter of Admonition from the Congregational Church of Malone, N. Y., to Bro. S. B. Whitney, formerly of one of its members, giving the charges preferred against him, and the reasons upon which efforts were made to sustain them. To this Letter Bro. Whitney has replied; and while space will not permit the publication of the entire Letter and Reply in one number, a portion of each is given in this issue. The Reply to the portion of the Letter which here appears, will be found on another page.—U. S.]

The Congregational church of Christ at Malone, N. Y., to Mr. Seymour B. Whitney, one of its members:

DEAR YOUNG BROTHER: The charges preferred against you to this body by Bro. Wellington, March 8, 1861, were substantially these, viz.: 1. Neglecting to meet with the church, and to sustain its ordinances. 2. Violating the Sabbath; and 3. Rejecting some of the doctrines of religion which are considered fundamental by the church.

Being present when the charges were read, you conceded that all the previous steps of labor with you had been taken according to Christ's instruction in Matt. xviii.

To the first charge, that of absenting yourself from the church and its ordinances, you plead guilty, but sought to exonerate yourself from all blame, from the assumed fact that this church was Babylon, quoting Rev. xviii, 4, 5, as your authority for leaving our society and worship. In Rev. xii the true church of God are represented under the emblem of a virtuous, but persecuted, woman; but in chap. xvii a corrupt church, or power, under the emblem of a rich, but very wicked, woman, having in her hand a golden cup of abominations and filthiness of her fornications—a woman drunken with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Now, have you the evidence to show that the pastor and members of the church from which you have gone out, are the moral children of this profligate and bloody woman?

In respect to the first day of the week, which this church, and the mass of Christians now in the world, observe as a holy day, you tell us that you find no authority for keeping, and of course justify yourself in making it a secular day, while you profess to hallow the seventh day in memory of creation. Now, we admit with you that the seventh day was the Sabbath from the creation, which continued in full force till after the resurrection of Christ, when, as we believe, the first day began to succeed the seventh, and for this belief we offer the following reasons:

1. The resurrection-day commemorates a much greater and more interesting event to the whole human family than the creation of the material universe. The first work was an exhibition of God's attributes in the production of matter and mind. The second was the work of redemption, including the eternal salvation of unnumbered millions. The first was great, the last still greater, as every Christian must gratefully acknowledge. The first was begun and completed in six days, but the last was in progress four thousand years before completed.

During thirty years of the Saviour's humanity he passed in apparent obscurity, and the remaining three and a half years in intense labors and suffering, ending with the cry upon the cross, "It is finished," as he gave up the ghost. Here ended all his sufferings, but one great and indispensable achievement remained to be acquired, viz., his predicted resurrection on the third day. The third day dawned, and our Saviour rose in triumph from the dead and appeared to his disciples, which was the consummation of the great work which he came from heaven to earth to accomplish. And, did Christ give his disciples during the short stay he made with them to understand that the recent events of his resurrection had given a sacredness and importance to that day which he would have them to regard? Let us see. Now, an example of Christ is as instructive and authoritative as a command; and if we find him when finishing up his business on earth, being "the Lord of the Sabbath," giving his example for the first, instead of the seventh day of the week, we have at least one argument for its observance. Mark xvi, 29; Luke xxiv, 15–33; John xx, 19–26. Three meetings, it will be seen by the above passages, were held by Christ with some of his disciples on the first day, and not one on the seventh day. Here is the authority of example.

2. The second argument for the first day of the week, as a Sabbath, is derived from the example of Christians, with the apostles at their head, immediately after Christ's ascension. See Acts xx, 7. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow," &c. See also 1 Cor. xvi, 12; Rev. i, 10. Objections are made by some persons who seem to be quite dissatisfied with the first day of the week, as a Sabbath, to the application of the term, "Lord's day," as used by John. Rev. i, 10. They affirm that this was the seventh, or creation-day. Now, what is most reasonable to conclude was the meaning of John in the assertion, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day?" John was one of the eleven disciples appointed as witnesses of Christ's resurrection, one who met with Christ and the disciples on the first day of the week, previous to his ascension, and doubtless frequently, like Paul, had preached, celebrated the Lord's supper, and taken up collections for the suffering saints at Judea on that day. More than half a century had passed since the memorable event, and all his brethren had gone to heaven; but the rolling away of the great stone from the sepulchre, the thunder of the earthquake, and the immortal glories beaming from the brow of the immortal and victorious Saviour, were still vivid in his recollection, while at the age of nearly a hundred years he stood on the identical day of those great events, on the rough and wild shores of Patmos. So we understand the matter.

But we have a third argument. The testimony of the early fathers concerning the first day of the week shows that they drew the same conclusions from the example of Christ and his apostles which we have drawn.

Dr. Mosheim, giving a history of the church in the first century after Christ, says, page 122, "All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week on which the triumphant Saviour arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship." "This pious custom," he adds, "which was derived from the example of the church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles, who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed universally throughout all the Christian churches, as appears from the united testimonies of the most credible writers."

Page 386. Speaking of the fourth century, he says, "The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and stated time for the public assemblies," &c.

Let us now look at another historian—Townsend's Abridgment of Milner, p. 164: "Constantine pleads zealously in a letter to Sapor, king of Persia, for Christians in his dominions," and among other things, "directs the sacred observation of the Lord's day."

On page 257 Augustine says of Ambrose, bishop of Milan, "I profited by his sermons: every Lord's day I heard him instruct the people."

Every reader of these ancient records knows that the Lord's day here is the same as the first day of the week, sometimes called Sunday, and at others the Sabbath. And this is the day which by far the greater number of Christians, including hosts of martyrs, have observed most sacredly from generation to generation for the last 1800 years. Think of this. Have those millions been wrong while you are right?

(Concluded next week.)