Not Satisfactory | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 30, 1864

"Not Satisfactory."

So says Bro. Himes of the Voice of the West, in reference to our remarks in Review No. 11, relative to "Holy time; or the Sabbath." The reader will remember the circumstances that called out those remarks; namely, two parties of missionaries were alleged to have gone to the Society Islands, and Sandwich Islands, in opposite directions, and consequently were one day apart in their reckoning of time, and the Sabbath of one came one day before that of the other; and those who believe in a specific day of holy time were called upon to tell which day, in this case, was the Sabbath. To this we replied that Sunday-keepers have no reason to urge this against observers of the seventh day, inasmuch as it rests against their own theory just as much as it does against ours; and Sunday-keepers were the ones who got into the difficulty; and when they would tell how the first day could be kept under such circumstances, we would tell how the seventh could be observed also. But Eld. H. thinks this does not meet the case, for reasons which we shall presently see.

He dwells quite emphatically upon the words "specific day of holy time," "same specific time," &c. Perhaps we do not understand each other here. If he thinks we believe that the same absolute hours should be kept, the world over, he attributes to us views which we never held. We do not understand the Bible to enjoin that the Sabbath-keeper on this side of the globe should commence the Sabbath at the same moment that it commences in Palestine. None of our publications have ever set forth such a claim. But the sun governs the day the world over; and the day is to commence here, as in the eastern hemisphere, when the sun, so to speak, brings it to us, not before.

He says, "The seventh day, which the Jews kept in Palestine, 'the sabbath of the Lord their God,' begun at sunset on Friday evening and closed at sunset on Saturday evening. There is no dispute about this."

We set this down as one good fact admitted. The reader will please keep it in mind. It has a bearing on many questions which may arise hereafter.

He refers to the penalty of death attached to violation of the Sabbath, in Ex. xxxi, 15, and asks if this is binding. We will answer this question, though we fail to see its connection with the point under discussion. That penalty is not now binding. See History of the Sabbath; also Review of Preble.

In relation to the same scripture he further says, "Here the seventh day was specifically enjoined; but it was the seventh day in Palestine." Very well, doesn't the seventh day come anywhere else on this globe except in Palestine?

Again he says, "And all could keep it because there was little or no variation in the setting of the sun, which marked the commencement of 'holy time.' If the Jews had occupied a territory in which the sun set with the variations of the two hemispheres, then, they could not have kept the same specific time, because of the variation of time; and near the Poles the variation would be not only hours but months, as the sun is not seen for many months in some parts of the year."

If the "setting of the sun marked the commencement of holy time" in Palestine, why not here? The commandment enjoins the seventh day; not the hours which are identical with the seventh day in Palestine, but the seventh day as it comes to us wherever we are on the globe. The remark about "specific time" is indefinite. Shall we understand Eld. H. to say that the fourth commandment could not and cannot be kept in two hemispheres, but only in a particular locality? A commandment given to Adam, the head and father of the human race, and embodied in the midst of a law that is moral and of universal application, would naturally be supposed to be itself of universal application, and binding upon all the race. If Eld. H. affirms

that it is only a limited commandment, and the Sabbath, a local institution, he must prove it. For the reasons given, to say nothing of others, we say that it cannot be such; and to say that it cannot be kept by all is simply an impeachment of the wisdom of the great Law-giver, by accusing him of giving a law which it is impossible for his subjects to keep.

But can the Sabbath be kept in different localities East and West? The Bible represents that it can. The Sabbath was kept in Jerusalem certainly. It was also kept in Corinth, Acts xviii, at least a year and six months, by the apostle Paul and his company. Where was Corinth? Nearly fifteen degrees to the westward of Jerusalem, involving a difference of time of nearly one hour. Now if the Sabbath could be kept in Corinth, and Paul has not intimated that there was any difficulty in keeping it there, where the difference in time was one hour, could it not be kept in localities still further west, where the difference in time would be two hours, four hours, six hours, or twelve hours? Just exactly as well; and no man can deny it.

So much for the difference of time east and west. But how is it "near the poles" where "the sun is not seen for many months in some parts of the year?" Answer. The revolution of the earth, and the consequent succession of days can be traced there just as accurately as here; and wherever succession of days can be traced, the Sabbath can be kept. There is no difficulty whatever. The truth is, there is no degree of either longitude or latitude where succession of days can not be traced and the Sabbath kept without the least difficulty. The objection on this point is purely imaginary. To suit this objection, God should have arranged his people single file on some particular line of longitude, taking care that they did not extend too far north or south, and then told them to stick to that line; as there they could obey his requirements, but anywhere else on this earth, they could not!

Again we quote: "But it is said that 'this is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle, not Sabbath-keepers.' This would be true if 'Sunday-keepers' took the ground that the first day of the week was 'time holy' in the same sense that 'Sabbath-keepers' enjoin upon us the seventh day."

Well, we supposed they did. We may have something yet to learn respecting the position of Sunday-keepers. We have seen so many of their positions, we supposed we had them all; but if there are yet others, we will spare no pains to become familiar with them. We "take the ground" that the seventh day is "holy time" in just this sense: Because God has given a commandment for its observance, placed his blessing upon it, and sanctified and set it apart for men, requiring us to sacredly devote the seventh day of every week, in regular succession, to the honor and worship of himself. We supposed that Sunday-keepers considered the first day holy in a similar "sense," but if they do not; if they do not consider the day holy in the sense of ever having ever been blessed of God, or of having any of the sacredness of the original Sabbath transferred to it, or of being set apart for man, or of having any command for its observance; then we would like to know upon what ground the institution rests and why they keep it. But if any of these things do belong to Sunday, then upon our friend's own admission, our statement that this, namely the discrepancy in case of the missionaries above noticed, is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle, is "true." Says Eld. H., "We keep the first day as the Lord's day, and Christian Sabbath, and so speak of it. We do not belong to the no-Sabbath party. Neither do we Judaize and keep the seventh day." We are glad to hear that he does not belong to the no-Sabbath party. Then the publication of Prof. Whiting's article in the Voice of the West, was all a mistake, as not setting forth the views of that sheet. Still we would like to know on what ground his Sabbath rests, as he discards all those on which the fourth commandment bases the seventh day. We would like his authority also for calling the first day the Christian Sabbath, and for his calling it Judaizing, to keep the seventh day. Why does he not say also, neither do we Judaize and refrain from worshiping images, swearing, lying, or stealing? That he does not do these things because they are forbidden by the ten commandments, we are well persuaded. But why

does he not stigmatize this as Judaizing, just as much as he does the keeping of the seventh day which is enjoined by the same code of commandments?

But Eld. H. seems to be extremely anxious to let his readers know that we believe Sr. White's visions. After quoting the terrible denunciation of the third angel of Rev. xiv, against those who worship the beast, he purports to give our views of it as follows:

"This is the terrible fate of all 'Sunday-keepers.' Bro. Smith, not only believes the Bible, but also the visions of sister White, that are understood to teach this doctrine. And as her visions, with him, stand on the same ground and bear the same authority with the inspired writings of Moses, Daniel, and John, he is bound to believe that we, and all 'Sunday-keepers,' are exposed to the above terrible fate awaiting those who do not see, believe, or keep what they profess to believe to be the 'third angel's message, relating to 'holy time,' or 'the Jewish Sabbath.'"

In relation to our application of the third angel's message, the worship of the beast and his mark, we are almost uniformly misrepresented. We do not make the sweeping application as above asserted, that "this is the terrible fate of all Sunday-keepers." We do not accuse all Sunday-keepers, in the sense of that prophecy, of worshiping the beast, or of having his mark. What we do say is this, that when the light comes, those who wilfully shut their eyes to the truth, and deliberately adopt an institution of the beast in place of one which God has given us, having been fully informed that it is such, thereby transfer their allegiance and worship from God to the beast, and then become subjects of the fearful threatening of that message.

But for what purpose are the visions brought in here? The third angel's message is in the Bible, not in the visions, and our ideas of that message are formed from the Bible, not the visions. But he says, "As her visions with him stand on the same ground with the writings of Moses, &c., he is bound to believe that we and all Sunday-keepers are exposed to the above terrible fate." Should we not be bound to believe it just as much according to our views of the message, if our ideas of the visions were not such as they are? Of course, if we believe the Bible. For what purpose then were they so unnecessarily brought in? Shall we say, For effect? Because the visions are understood to be with a certain class a most potent means of raising a prejudice, which is blinder than the grave?

Hear him further: "We think therefore they ought in view of our supposed liability to the terrible punishment 'the smoke of which is to ascend up forever and ever,' to tell us with some degree of exactness, when the 'holy time,' for which they contend, begins and ends."

Ah! this is another question altogether. This discussion arose on the supposed difficulty of keeping a particular day, because time is gained or lost in going round the world. This, and the question as to when the day begins here in the United States, are two questions altogether. And we can tell him with great exactness when the day begins and ends here. It begins at sunset on Friday, and ends at sunset on Saturday. This he has admitted was the beginning and end of the Sabbath in Palestine, marked by the sun. The sun marks the same limits to the day for us here, exactly.

Again: "We, as 'Sunday-keepers,' want to be saved from the awful doom that is said to await us. It is their duty, and their business to set this matter right."

We have tried to do this. We think our duty and business has long been accomplished in this respect.

Again he says, "To say, 'This is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle, not sabbath-keepers,' and that he 'never heard of any who kept the seventh day getting into any difficulty,' does not meet the case."

We did not say that this is a question for Sunday-keepers to settle. It was not this question at all in reference to which we used that language; but the question of the gain or loss of a day in going round the world. To change the issue so completely as it is here, and then apply our language to the new issue introduced is indeed "not satisfactory." Neither did we say that we had "never heard of any who kept the seventh day getting into any difficulty," but "into any such difficulty;" namely the difficulty of having their reckoning disarranged by going round the world, and finding themselves one day apart in their Sabbath.

But the case is just this: Sunday-keepers, it appears, have found themselves in this difficulty; and they keep

just as definite and specific a day as we do. With them it is the first day of the week, that particular day and no other. With us, it is the seventh day of the week, not a particle more particular and definite than their first day. Now we will repeat the idea advanced in our former article: If they can keep the first day, can we not keep the seventh? And when they find themselves in difficulty in keeping their day, how can they turn around and with an air of triumph propose it to us as a difficulty lying wholly against the seventh day, when it lies equally against their own theory of the first day? We do propose this, in all sincerity and candor, and fairness, as meeting the case, that is, among Sunday-keepers, with whom the difficulty occurred. But mark, we do not 'decline to answer,' the question as to how this difference in time can be got along with, as Eld. H. declares that we do by our former reply. We only wish to transfer the burden of proof to where it belongs. But we will do more than this: If Sunday-keepers really think there is a difficulty in the case, and will give up that they cannot remove it, then we will try; for we think there is no difficulty whatever in the matter.

We are next told how we came to adopt sunset time for the Sabbath, thus: 'Now the case is just this; the Jew, was required to keep the seventh day in Palestine. This was to begin at sunset. And Bro. Smith will remember the meeting of the seventh day ministers, some time since [we think in Battle Creek,] in which, the subject was discussed, as to when 'holy time,' or the Sabbath commenced. There was division of opinion. Some taking the ground, that it began at 6 o'clock P. M. and others that it commenced at sunset. In the midst of the controversy, Sister White had one of her visions, in which it was revealed to her, that 'holy time' should begin at sunset. So this is now the law of the great body of the Seventh-day keepers.'

There never has been any question among us whether we should keep the seventh day of Palestine or the seventh day here. It is the seventh day here. We would repeat, that this question of the time to commence the Sabbath, has nothing to do with the question of gaining or losing a day in going round the world. But then, if this question had not been raised, the visions could not have come in; for they say nothing about the question of the gain or loss of time as above mentioned. But Bro. H. evidently needs to be posted on the affairs of S. D. Adventists. The meeting of the seventh-day ministers referred to, we do not remember. The subject came up at the Conference held in the autumn of 1855, at the time the office was removed to Battle Creek. A few ministers, and only a few, were, in the natural order of events, present at that Conference. But the discussion was had, and the question decided with all but a few, and the article which appeared in Review Vol. vii, No. 10, as an exposition of the sentiments of Sabbath-keeping Adventists on this point was written, before anything was shown to sister White concerning it. Thus the statement that 'in the midst of the controversy sister White had one of her visions'(!) and so sunset time has come to be the law for the great body of seventh-day keepers, turns out to be not exactly so. Eld. H. will thus see that he has 'unwittingly placed' this matter 'in a false light before his readers.' We 'cannot think' that he 'will let it remain as it is.' And lest any should say that Sr. White, having changed her sentiments had a vision accordingly, we will state that what was shown her in vision concerning the commencement of the Sabbath, was contrary to her own sentiment at the time the vision was given. That some were decided by the vision, who otherwise might not have been we do not deny. And herein is seen one of the objects and blessings of this gift. Harmony now reigns where there might have been discord and division. From that day to this, the question has reposed among us, as calm and clear as the sunlight. And if those engaged in some other causes, could feel that they had in their midst, some Heaven-ordained means to bring them to the 'unity of the faith,' Eph. iv, 11-13, we apprehend that on many occasions they would find it an inestimable blessing.

We have already drawn out these remarks to far greater length than we at first designed, but must make one more quotation from Eld. H.'s article before closing. He says:

'It is well known that we have kept aloof from the controversy, and have never indulged in bitter or unkind remarks about those who differ from us on this question. And in coming West, to locate near the center of the great field of missionary labor, we did not intend to interfere with the interests, or the rights of others, engaged in the proclamation of the coming kingdom. We shall speak the truth as we understand it. And if there is any light given us by our fellow-laborers in other fields, we will not reject it.'

To the sentiment here expressed we heartily respond. Neither do we intend to interfere with any man's rights but simply to promulgate the truth as far as in our power, and defend it as occasion may require. What we have said thus far in relation to the Voice of the West, has been called out by what has first appeared in that paper. Our design is simply a friendly interchange of sentiment; and we trust that it may result in good.