p. 156 | A Brief Experience by E. Goodrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 12, 1864

A Brief Experience.

By E. Goodrich

ABOUT the time the Sabbath question began to be agitated among Adventists, I was invited in company with another man, to prepare myself to oppose the spread of the supposed error. And having listened to a great deal of anti-sabbatarian preaching, and believing that somehow or other the Sabbath had been abolished or remodeled, I did not know which, I consented to oppose it. I had no compunctions of conscience, neither did it occur to me that never having heard the other side, perhaps I was prejudiced and therefore had better wait until I had heard. I engaged to oppose. After investigating the question several days, as I was one evening seated in my chair leaning against the wall meditating upon it, all at once like an electric shock a thought in the form of a well defined question presented itself to my mind. The question was, Will you teach and grant to others the right to violate the fourth commandment, when you yourself cannot show that you have a right to break it? The thought was sickening, I saw at a glance that I could not answer the challenge. I saw that I could not show a single reason for breaking it myself, and therefore it would be presumption in me to say to others, Break it. And in the time that it takes to tell it, the resolve was formed and the answer came, No, I never will! I never will grant to others a right which I do not possess. And although I did not embrace the Sabbath until sometime after it had been discussed, I was convinced that all the argument against it was public opinion, and all the objections those of personal interest; yet as the fourth commandment was one of God's precepts, given at the same time and in the same manner, and clothed with the same sanctity as the other nine of the decalogue, I then and there resolved that until I could find an undoubted right for breaking it myself, I never would teach others to do so. And having never found such a right, I never have taught others to disregard the fourth commandment. Men's rights are derived rights, they are the rights of creatures. To teach the Sabbath as a duty only, is unfair. It is not only a duty but a privilege—a right guaranteed by the Creator to all his creatures—beasts of burden as well as man. The duty of resting and the right to rest, are inseparably connected. You cannot have one without the other. Men's right to rest is founded on two facts, that the Sabbath is sacred as a day of rest. If it is thus sacred it is our duty to observe it. If the Sabbath exists at all it exists as divinely ordained—sacred as a duty, and equally sacred, a right. If the right to rest is perpetual so is the duty. And where is the man, however much filled with his no-Sabbath, no-law sentiments, who would have the boldness to say to all that labor and toil in the great

tread-mill of time, Sirs, you have no right to rest? There is no more courage to say this than there was on the part of the priests, the scribes and elders to say that the baptism of John was of man, for fear of the people. And it is a matter of doubt if there are any who are willing to shoulder the responsibility of saying in so many words, Resolved, that as the fourth commandment is abolished, therefore men have an undoubted right, not only to disregard it themselves but to teach others also. There should be no doubts, no quibbling in this matter. Either the Sabbath as a divine ordinance does or does not exist in this age. If it does, then have the courage to say yes, certainly by all means. It ever has existed, and always will exist, both in this world and in the world to come.

Those who advocate the perpetuity of the Sabbath and the fourth commandment use the strongest terms of which they are capable. And if the Sabbath is as great a burden, and to teach it as great a heresy as the no-Sabbath and no-law advocates seem to teach, why not say so? Why not use language that admits of no double meaning? But some how or other there seems to be a general impression, if not a settled conviction in the minds of all, that man's physical, moral and religious well-being demands a Sabbath. And all are willing to have one. And as the fourth commandment of the decalogue is the only one that recognizes a weekly Sabbath, no one objects to its sacredness and perpetuity, provided that it is applied as they wish to have it. I judge that this is the case from the fact that the most bitter opponents of the Sabbath never have a word of objection to offer against the preaching of the perpetuity of the ten commandments, provided the fourth is not applied to the seventh day. And they have not one word of fault to find, or criticism to offer against the almost universal use of the term Sabbath, if it is applied to the first day of the week. From this it would seem that all the opposition against the Sabbath as a divine institution, and the fourth commandment as a moral precept, is not a matter of principle, but a matter of personal interest. Kind reader, look at this matter, and ask yourself whether you have any right to live in opposition to the fourth commandment, or to teach men to do so.

E. GOODRICH.

Edinboro, Pa.