Is It the Best They Have?
By Editor
The plainer any truth is, the more crooked and inconsistent will be the various shifts that are devised to get around it. On no subject, perhaps, is this statement more frequently and fully illustrated, than on the subject of the Sabbath. In No 6 of last volume, the reader will remember that we published an article on the Sabbath question from the Voice of the Prophets, written by Prof. N. N. Whiting, in which the whole question of the Sabbath was made to rest, without argument, and almost without comment, on Col. ii, 16. The falsity of the assertion, that "Col. ii, 16, is decisive on the Sabbath question," we fully showed in the same paper, proving, if we may be allowed to judge, that that language of Paul does not refer to the weekly Sabbath at all. But in a late number of the "Voice of the West," we find the said article from Prof. Whiting again published in full without note or comment, thus setting it forth as an exponent of the Sabbath views of that class of Adventists, represented by that paper. The republication of this article in the Voice of the West, which is but a continuation of the Voice of the Prophets, where it originally appeared, has led to the question at the head of this article: Is that the best position they have on the Sabbath question? Does this institution with all its varied and glorious associations, end at last in an ignoble connection with meats and drinks, and so far lose its once royal authority that no one can question our course whether keeping or violating it? Does this whole question center in this one text from Paul? If so, those who make use of it, disarm themselves of all opposition to the Sabbath; for how can they consistently oppose that which Paul declares to be a matter of complete indifference? Nevertheless it is a fact that this class of persons, as a general thing, show by their actions, that they marvelously overlook this point in the bearing of their argument. Again, if Col. ii, 16, refers to the weekly Sabbath, it does so, because the Sabbath is abolished; for Paul says, Let no man judge you, &c., in reference to those things only which have been blotted out and taken out of the way; and, we repeat, if this refers to the Sabbath, then that also has been nailed to the cross, and has ceased to exist. And is this the position of the "Voice?" Shall we set it down as a no-Sabbath sheet? Does it believe that the institution of a day of rest, which experience has shown to be to man a physical necessity, to say nothing of his spiritual wants, a blessing which man possessed under the former dispensation, is done away under this? If it does not, how shall we account for the appearance in its columns of Prof. Whiting's article which affirms this position? And if it does, how shall we account for the frequent occurrence of the word Sabbath in its columns, such as, on such and such Sabbaths, such and such meetings were held; or on Sabbath, such and such a date, meetings will be held, &c., said dates for the Sabbath invariably falling on Sunday? Here, it seems to us, is a slight piece of inconsistency which it would be well for the Voice to explain.