REVIEW OF A. N. SEYMOUR.
By J. M. Aldrich
A. N. Seymour's "Fifty Unanswerable Arguments against Seventh-day Sabbath-keeping" are before me. "Arguments!" did I say? I said so; for such is the term that adorns the title-page of his tract! Let the quotation-marks, however, give due credit to the author. What dictionary may have suggested to his mind the use of such a term, I will not undertake to determine. Did I believe in the ghosts of departed men, I would say, Let the shade of Noah Webster rest upon him! But these so-called "arguments" are said to be "unanswerable." Shall I then be so presumptuous as to undertake to answer them? Indeed, the thought of attempting to answer "fifty unanswerable arguments" is almost overwhelming! But, kind reader, be patient. There is no occasion yet for becoming wholly speechless. A word yet may be offered. But as I shall not presume to answer "unanswerable arguments," I feel bound to give the author credit for more self-conceit than ability to produce arguments that cannot be answered. That he has a remarkable gift, however, for asking questions, none will deny; and with such a faculty it is almost a wonder that another "fifty" were not added to his catalogue. But that his questions amount to arguments will not be so readily conceded. And though his questions are utterly barren of testimony in his behalf, yet it would not be strange if, in the free exercise of the wonderful gift he seems to possess, some questions might be asked that would puzzle even a genius to answer. So, perhaps, in regard to many of the questions that follow, it may be quite difficult to produce answers that will be satisfactory to the mind of the caviler; not, however, from any intrinsic soundness in themselves; far from it; but rather from their peculiar nature—their technical evasion of the real question in issue—their remoteness from the subject, or entire want of bearing thereon. It has been truly said by an eminent writer that "pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines which will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer." It is very strongly in this light that I regard the "fifty" questions which I now propose to consider. If therefore in my narrow limits I fail to answer them all in a manner satisfactory to those who are disposed to doubt and cavil, I shall not be disappointed; but I trust I may be able to show to every candid mind that whatever may be contained or implied therein, they do not involve any arguments or objections against the observance of the Lord's Sabbath; viz., the seventh day. I will first submit his preliminary remarks: "My only object in presenting the following arguments touching the Sabbath question, is truth, righteousness, the glory of God, and the salvation of man from error to truth, confidently believing that no person can overthrow the positions taken; and whoever shall thoroughly digest or comprehend the arguments presented, will never embrace that theory; or, if a believer, will most certainly renounce it. Truth is from God, error is from man. Then let us with the sword of truth, which is the word of God, at once strike a death-blow to seventh-day Sabbath-keeping. O God, in the all-prevailing name of Jesus Christ, thy well-beloved Son, and by the Spirit's power, stamp indelibly the truth upon every honest soul that this communication shall reach, is my most fervent prayer. "Gal. i. 8. 'But though we (the apostles), or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.' Whatever the apostles preached, they preached by the revelation of Jesus Christ; and where is the man who dares be presumptuous enough to deny that Jesus Christ and the twelve apostles did not preach the whole counsel of God concerning this dispensation, that was not fully ordained and qualified to discharge the various obligations imposed upon them by him whose all-piercing eye penetrates every dark cell of the human heart. "Every sensible man, every student of the Bible, must heartily acknowledge that this subject cannot be adjusted only as it is brought to the scrutinizing test of the teachings of Christ and his holy apostles. To ignore the New Testament Scriptures on this theme, is to preach another gospel—to quench the Holy Spirit, and to render ourselves 'vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.' O God, help us to be wise, and seek for that wisdom and righteousness which flows from thee, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and not through Moses or the law. "In order to more clearly and forcibly impress the candid and thoughtful reader, I shall go back to creation and commence asking some plain and direct questions on the subject now brought forward for investigation, and continue down through, closing up with the New Testament Scriptures, and make explanations as I shall deem necessary." The author's "object," as stated, is truly laudable and praiseworthy, and well becoming his profession as a minister of the gospel; and it were indeed a pity that he had not pursued the same accordingly throughout his work, rather than betray therein such a malignant spirit toward the Lord's Sabbath, and those who are trying to observe it according to the commandment. "With the sword of truth" he means to "strike a death-blow to seventh-day Sabbath-keeping." Your weapon, friend Seymour, is a good one, but it needs to be carefully used; for it is a "two-edged sword," and will cut both ways, and possibly after all, you may receive the greater wound. But hold! one moment, friend S., before you "strike" what you intend as a "death-blow" to the Sabbath. Be merciful! Will you not make us acquainted with the guilt of your victim before you crimson your "sword?" Let us know, then, in the plenitude of your forbearance, what there is about "seventh-day Sabbath-keeping" so wicked, so vile, or so obnoxious, as to make it incumbent on you to unsheath the sword to strike the same a "death-blow." Is it not, to say the least, a wholesome and inoffensive practice? You will concede that one day in seven is none too much to be set apart for the proper observance of such religious duties as God requires of his children. (You in fact once acknowledged as much by trying to prove that "the first day of the week" was the "Sabbath of this dispensation." See article published in the World's Crisis over your signature about a year and a half ago.) It is also a conceded fact that one day in seven is none too much for needful relaxation from the physical labor and toil that is becoming more necessary for man to pursue. If then we find the observance of one day in seven absolutely necessary, both for our temporal and spiritual good, why not observe the seventh day as well as the first day, or any other? And if perchance we can glean, or even think we can glean, some little authority from the word of God for the observance of the seventh day, can you not in mercy spare us? Can you not forbear? Can you not sheath again your "sword," and2so after all conclude that you are engaged in at least a useless task? But no, the troubled waters cannot be so easily quieted! Those pent-up feelings must have vent! Then all I can say is, "Strike!" But let me caution you again to be careful how you handle the "sword of truth;" for it is a dangerous weapon in the hands of those not accustomed to using it. It is asked, "Where is the man who dares be presumptuous enough to deny that Jesus Christ and the twelve apostles did not preach the whole counsel of God in this dispensation?" I answer, A. N. Seymour. Why? Because he denies that Christ and the apostles preached the perpetuity of God's law, or ten commandments; whereas, Christ and the apostles did preach as part of the "whole counsel of God," the perpetuity of his law; that it was not abolished; that one tittle thereof should not fail; that whoever offended in one point was guilty of all, &c. Matt. v, 17, 18; Luke xvi, 17; Rom. iii, 31; vii, 7; James ii, 8–12. Therefore in offending against the fourth precept of God's law, both by preaching and practice, A. N. Seymour "becomes a transgressor of the law," and also guilty of preaching "another gospel." I will now submit his so-called "arguments" as per his arrangement, and make such remarks as I may deem proper; and should I to some extent adopt his peculiar mode of argument, it will be that he may better appreciate the same, or at least see what force or logic there is in his method of reasoning. "The Scriptures of truth teach us that God by his Son created all things in six days, and that he blessed and sanctified the seventh day, because that in it he had rested from all his works which he had created and made. Gen. ii, 3. "1. Where is there the least proof in the above language that obligates Adam, or any of his posterity, to do as God did, viz., rest on the seventh day?" It matters not whether the "proof" exists wholly in the text quoted, or elsewhere in the Bible, so long as "truth, righteousness, and the glory of God," is the main "object" in view. The Bible, upon this point, as well as upon others of any importance, is cumulative. And though we do not find the express command in Gen. ii, 3, to "rest on the seventh day," we do find such a command elsewhere in the word of God. The book of Genesis is not a book of commands; but rather a brief history of events, inspired and written many years subsequent to the time of Adam and the patriarchs; hence there existed no necessity for incorporating into such history the commandments of God that were in force during the patriarchal age. Therefore we can easily see why Gen. ii, 3, does not in positive terms enforce the Sabbath obligation. However, as an answer to the question, it is enough to say that the text affords plain inferential proof that Adam and his posterity were required to rest on the seventh day. God sanctified his rest-day; viz., the seventh; i. e., set it apart for a holy and religious use. If therefore the seventh day was thus set apart for religious use at the end of the first week of time, who should use it thus except Adam and his posterity? "2. Where is there one command from God, the supreme Law-giver, to keep holy the seventh-day Sabbath from creation to the exode of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage?" Where is there "one command" from God during the time named, requiring man to have no other gods than him, or not to profane the name of God, or not to steal, &c.? We find no such "command" incorporated into the brief record of that long period of time; but who will therefore suppose that God had no such commands during all that time? or that those "holy men of old" lived in the habitual practice of idolatry, profanity, theft, &c.? No one will suppose any such thing. But if they were obedient unto all the rest of the ten precepts, why doubt their obedience unto the fourth also? Surely this is not an "unanswerable argument," unless it be from the fact that it contains nothing to answer. "3. During the 2500 years from creation to the exode, where is there any example of any one's observing it?" Suppose we cannot give an "example;" would that constitute an "unanswerable argument?" But we do find even in the brief history of the said 2500 years, that it is said of Abraham that he "kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." But, Eld. S. will say, nothing is said about his keeping the Sabbath. True, but we find here that God had commandments and laws during that period, and we have given an "example" of one's keeping them all; and we learn in Ex. xvi that a part of God's law pertained to the observance of the Sabbath; not, however, as some claim, as a precept incorporated therein in the wilderness of Sin, but as a commandment previously existing. Friend S., put on your spectacles and read that chapter once more! "4. Where is there any rebuke for violating any such precept during the same length of time?" Where is there any "rebuke" during that time for violating the third precept, which forbids profanity? There is none recorded; hence, according to Eld. S., I have an "unanswerable argument" in favor of a doctrine that allowed "holy men of old" to profane the name of the Lord. How logical! "5. Where is the sin of Sabbath-breaking mentioned from Adam to Moses?" Where is the "sin" of covetousness or false-swearing mentioned during that time? Why, friend S., how easy it is to produce "unanswerable arguments!" What remarkably free times those patriarchs and "holy men of old" must have enjoyed before the "exode!" "6. What, and where, is the penalty for violating any such commandment prior to the exode?" The "penalty" for violating God's law before the "exode" is the same as for violating it afterward; viz., death! "Sin is the transgression of the law," whether before or after the "exode," and "the wages of sin is death." 1 John iii, 4; Rom. vi, 23. But if Eld. S. can better comprehend his style of argument, I will ask him, What, and where, is the penalty for idolatry "prior to the exode?" "7. Where is there one command of God to any of the Gentile nations, either in this or any preceding dispensation, to observe the seventh-day Sabbath? Eph. ii, 11, 12; Rom. ii, 14." I answer, the "command" is recorded in Ex. xx, 8–11. It was spoken from mount Sinai with God's own voice, was written with his own finger on tables of stone, and was part of the moral rule of his universe, whether composed of Jews or Gentiles. But again, Christ says, "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark ii, 27. Does not the term "man" embrace the Gentiles, as well as the Jews? If not, then it must relate exclusively to the man Adam, who was the only man of earth when the Sabbath was made; for there is no evidence whatever, that the term "man" embraces one portion of the human race, to the exclusion of another. But Adam is the federal head of the whole human family; therefore, if the Sabbath was made for Adam, all nations, whether Jew or Gentile, may claim its blessings through him. But doubtless friend S. will not appreciate this kind of argument; I will therefore resort to his more conclusive mode, and ask him, where, except in Ex. xx, there is "one command of God" as part of a new or original law, to any of the Gentile nations, requiring them to keep any of the precepts contained in the ten commandments? Will friend S. produce the law? What bearing Eph. ii, 11, 12; and Rom. ii, 14, have upon the question, is more than I can discern. "8. Where have we any example of Gentile nations' observing it according to the commandment delivered to Israel at, or after, the exode? Neh. ix, 12–14." The text referred to, Neh. ix, 12–14, as the voucher for another "unanswerable argument" is part of a rehearsal of God's goodness manifested unto the children of Israel; wherein is stated the fact that God came down upon Mount Sinai and gave them "right judgments and true laws, good statutes and commandments and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath," &c. This text is certainly very remote from the question asked; but is doubtless introduced as proof that the Sabbath was not given till "at, or after the exode." How will friend S. have it? "At, or after?" In either case it comes far short of proving what he designs it to prove; for the language—"Madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath"—not, madest for them thy holy Sabbath—clearly implies that it had a previous existence. But the text plainly refers to the giving of the commandment from mount Sinai, though in Ex. xvi,3we learn that the Sabbath was "known" unto Israel thirty days before they came to Sinai; therefore, the text reaches a little too far to suit our friend's present position. How unfortunate for him that inspiration ever penned the 16th chapter of Exodus! The "question" however calls for an "example of Gentile nations' observing the Sabbath according to the commandment." But as the question is offered as one of the "unanswerable arguments against seventh-day Sabbath-keeping" in the present dispensation, or at the present time, I will therefore ask, is not the "example" of Christ, his apostles and disciples, better for us than the example of Gentile nations? Which shall we follow? As a sufficient "example" for us, on the point in question I will only name that of those holy women that came with our Lord "from Galilee," and followed him to the very last, "through evil as well as good report," who "beheld the sepulcher and how his body was laid," and when "the Sabbath drew on . . . returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment." Luke xxiii, 56. "9. Where is the rebuke to any of these nations for violating the Sabbath commandment?" Again inquiry is made for a "rebuke" for violating the Sabbath. Is it not because his own conscience rebukes him, that he is so solicitous on this point? Why, sir, the fact that God, the maker of heaven and earth condescended to make the Sabbath for man, instead of man for the Sabbath; and also the fact that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, is a standing "rebuke" to any man or nation who refuses or neglects to observe it. "10. Where is the sin of Sabbath breaking mentioned in connection with the Gentile nations?" "Unanswerable argument!" What if the sin of Sabbath breaking is not mentioned in connection with the Gentiles; would that therefore make sin, not sin! Strange conclusion! But may not some things be implied as well as expressed? In Isaiah lvi, 6, we find a reward promised to Gentiles that shall keep the Sabbath. Is it not then clearly implied that Gentiles who do not keep the Sabbath, commit sin? So it seems to me. "11. What, and where is the penalty or punishment due to these nations for violating such a requirement?" Death! See reply to "unanswerable argument," No. 6. "12. Where is the evidence that God enjoined the same laws upon Gentile nations, that he did upon the Jewish nation at the exode?" David says God's law is the truth, also that his commandments are sure; they stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. Ps. cxi, 7, 8; cxix, 142. Was such a law, and such commandments binding upon Jews, and not upon Gentiles? Who can believe it? Again, Paul says, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Rom. iii, 19. Here then is "evidence" of a law that is universal in its character, embracing within its jurisdiction, "all the world," whether Jews or Gentiles. It is also a law by which guilt is made known, or by which is the "knowledge of sin." But Paul says, Rom. vii, 7, "Nay, I had not known sin but by the law, for I had not known lust except the law had said 'thou shalt not covet.'" Here then we have identified the law that says "Thou shalt not covet," viz., the ten commandments, as the law by which guilt or sin is made known, and which embraces in its jurisdiction "all the world." Therefore, so far as this law is concerned, "God enjoined upon the Gentile nations" the same that he did upon the Jews. "13. Where is there any evidence that God enjoined the covenant of ten commandments upon Israel prior to the exode? Deut. iv, 13; and v, 3." Did God have a moral government during the nearly 2,500 years prior to the exode? during which time Enoch walked with God, when Noah was a preacher of righteousness, and when Abraham kept God's commandments, his statutes and his laws. All say, Yes. Then surely he must have had a moral rule or code as the standard of such government. Now I challenge Eld. S. or any one else to invent or name a moral code4not embracing the precepts of the ten commandments. It cannot be done. Therefore the ten commandments must have been enjoined on Israel, as also, upon the nations that preceded him—"prior to the exode." Again we learn that sin prevailed during that period. Gen. iv, 7; xiii, 13; xviii, 20, &c. But the only Bible definition of sin is "the transgression of the law." And James informs us, chap. ii, 9–11, by a clear reference to the code of ten commandments, that those who violate them, "become transgressors of the law," and thereby "commit sin." Therefore, how shall we evade the conclusion, that the ten commandments were in force "prior to the exode," and that the violation thereof, constituted the sin of that age? But under this head reference is made to Deut. iv, 13, and v, 3, for what purpose I know not, unless it be to prove that the "covenant of ten commandments" was not binding until spoken from Sinai. But let it be borne in mind that there are two covenants brought to view in the two texts quoted; the former refers to the ten commandments alone, the latter refers to that covenant that was not made "with our fathers," but "with us in Horeb," which was the mutual agreement between God and Israel, Ex. xix, the ten commandments being the moral conditions or basis thereof. But let us not lose sight of the real question under discussion; viz., the Sabbath. If, therefore, friend S. be right in claiming that Deut. v, 3, refers to the ten commandments as the covenant not made with the fathers, it follows that they were not only exonerated from regarding the seventh day as the Sabbath, but were also released from the observance of the other nine commandments! So Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were permitted to have other gods—to bow down to idols—to profane the name of the Lord, to steal, kill, bear false witness, &c.! Does not this prove a little too much! But here comes the 16th of Ex. again, which informs us that God's commandments and laws, embracing the Sabbath were in force thirty days before Israel came to Horeb where this covenant was made, and where the ten commandments were formally declared. Proof: "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath." Therefore, the texts quoted are of no avail to the objector. "14. Where is there any evidence that God enjoins this same covenant upon Gentile nations?" (See reply to No. 12.) Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, taught the perpetuity of this "same covenant," and also that he who was God of the Jews, is also God of the Gentiles. Rom. iii, 29–31. And doubtless Paul designed and taught, that the same law that convinced him of sin, Rom. vii, 7, should be instrumental in the conversion of the Gentiles; otherwise, he would be guilty of preaching "another gospel." Gal. i, 8.