A Marvelous Discovery by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 24, 1865

A Marvelous Discovery.

By Editor

As the reader is aware from what has already appeared in the Review, there is an unusual stir in the ranks of the opposition on the subject of the Sabbath. To be continually dwelling upon the false positions of our opponents is not pleasant; but it may be nevertheless profitable; for every exhibition of their weakness, is an addition of so much strength to our cause. We shall therefore endeavor to keep the reader posted in relation to what is going on in this direction.

Some of the many attacks that have been made on the Sabbath, have astonished us by their bold and unwarrantable assumptions; others have appeared to deserve only pity or contempt. As an article calculated to excite all three of these emotions, we give the following from A. N. Seymour as found in the Voice of the West, of Jan. 3, 1865. Under the heading of "Seventh-Day Sabbath-Keepers in a tight place," he says:

"Some few years since, this people commenced keeping their Sabbath at six o'clock. But a dispute arose among them, whether they should commence the Sabbath at six o'clock, or sundown time. After considerable controversy on the question, Mrs. E. G. White had a vision on the matter and she decided that sundown time was God's appointment for the church to lay by all worldly interests and keep holy the seventh-day Sabbath or the twenty-four hours that God sanctified and blessed. This vision settled the dispute; and ever since, Sabbath-keepers have observed sundown time. I now wish to present a thought which, if I do not entirely misapprehend it, completely overthrows their church and hobby of Sabbath-keeping, and stamps indetibly the mark of the beast upon this class, providing that, observing the first day constitutes this mark; for they are found to observe parts of this day, to say the least.

"A short time since, I requested Mr. Paine, a graduate of Hillsdale College, to give me the distance between the following places, and the difference of time also. He presented me with the following table.

From London to N. York, 4935 miles.	N. Lat.	W. L.
" " " San Francisco, 8549 m.	"	"
" " " Jerusalem, 2433 m.	"	E. L.
" " " Pekin, 8201 m.	"	"

Difference of time between London and N. York, 4 h. and 44 m. earlier. " " " and San Francisco, 8 h. 12 m. earlier. " " " Jerusalem, 2 h. 20 m. later. " " " Pekin, 7 h. 52 m. "

"Church time Sunday Dec. 4, 1864, in the following places: Pekin, 2 o'clock 30 m. P. M. Sunday. Jerusalem, 4 " 56 m. A. M. Sunday. London, 4 " 02 m. A. M. Sunday. N. York, 11 " 18 m. P. M. Saturday. San Francisco, 3 o'clock 6 m. P. M. Saturday.

"Now then observing sundown time, who can fail to see that it is impossible for all Christians to observe the seventh-day Sabbath, located as they are throughout the world. There is a constant variation of sun setting all around the earth to its inhabitants, so that there is a continual difference of time as regards the commencement of that which some regard holy time. So that while some try imperfectly to observe the Sabbath, others, on the opposite side of the globe are locked in profound slumber, and vise [vice] versa. The best that the Christian world can do is to observe the seventh part of the time, as it comes to them. But this forever destroys seventh-day Sabbath interests.

"On this ground it may be asked how could the Sabbath then ever be observed by God's people in a past dispensation? I answer, God called his people out of Egypt into the land of Canaan, and there commanded them to keep the Sabbath; and there they could and did keep it; and God never enjoined Sabbath keeping upon any nation outside of that land; and when the gospel dispensation was introduced and its messengers commanded to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, no command flows from their inspired lips rendering obligatory the fourth precept of the Decalogue or the keeping any other specified day.

"Will the Crisis, Review & Herald please copy?"

So it seems, A. N. S. has just discovered that time differs east and west. Since the merited castigation given him by J. M. Aldrich in his reply to his 1876 Questions, this man has been comparatively quiet. But having at length discovered "a thought" in the shape of an objection to the Sabbath, which is as old almost as the Sabbath itself, and has been answered as often as brought up, he is very jubilant over it as a new and marvelous discovery, and thinks now he has the whole fraternity in a "tight place." We will not spend time in answering this oft repeated quibble. For any reader of the Review and our works on the Sabbath, it is unnecessary. And as for the writer, if this objection is a specimen of the rapidity with which he receives ideas, it would be about ten years, should time continue, before he would come to a full comprehension of it should we answer it. We will just remind the reader, however, that those who bring up the difference of time east and west as an objection to the Sabbath, have never attempted to explain how Paul could keep the Sabbath at Corinth, as recorded in the Acts, where it would commence nearly an hour later than at Jerusalem. We think they had better do this before they say anything more about this objection.

But it is not on account of the writer, by any means that we notice the above article: for it has never been our lot to meet a person who would attach to such puerile efforts such mighty importance. But perhaps nothing better could be expected from a man who has to apply to a graduate of college to tell him that the sun does not shine all over the earth at one and the same moment. What astonishes us in this case is that the Voice should consent to publish such articles. Eld. Himes has frankly avowed himself as opposed to the no-Sabbath side of this controversy. Yet here is an ultra no-Sabbath article admitted into his paper. The statement about the visions is the same that was made by Eld. Himes in the Voice sometime since (from which A. N. S. probably got his information) and which we expressly corrected in Review Vol. xxiv, No. 14. Yet here the same statement appears again without comment or qualification. Eld. H. found it necessary in 1848, to open in the paper he was then publishing a "Liar's Department" to correct the misstatements of his opponents. We may yet find it necessary to do the same thing.