Earlier text: History of the SabbathFIFTY UNANSWERABLE ARGUMENTS.
A FEW weeks since we noticed an advertisement which appeared in the Millennial Harbinger of a tract of sixteen pages, entitled, Fifty Unanswerable Arguments against Seventh-day Sabbath-keeping, by A. N. Seymour. We have read the tract, and find nothing new in it, only that the same old thread-bare objections which have been repeatedly shown up, are presented in the form of questions, in the writer's peculiar manner. He speaks with great confidence that he has just the thing to blow up Sabbath-keeping, and on the first page calls on God, in an ejaculatory style, to help him. He pretends much of the fear of God and love for souls and the truth, yet beneath all this is seen his well-known stripe of willful prejudice, extravagance, and fanaticism. He has evidently overdone the thing, which makes the effort appear exceedingly flat. In the very midst of his "unanswerable arguments," he states that Mrs. White has visions, which fact seems to constitute one of his most important proofs that the seventh-day Sabbath is abolished. Fifty unanswerable arguments! One or two unanswerable arguments might be supposed sufficient to close the mouths of Sabbath-keepers, but here are fifty! No wonder that the writer says on the tenth page, "So let Sabbath-advocates twist and turn which way they will, and run to each avenue and shriek for help, yet they shriek in vain." Terrible! Terrible! But, seriously, what has the writer done? Why, he has simply asked fifty questions, which reminds us of the following from Horne in his letters on infidelity—"Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done the same question will be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written on the subject." Should we give the fifty questions, and a full reply to them, which would cover nearly the whole ground of the law and Sabbath, the readers of the Review would be worried with much reading, in which they would find few, if any, new ideas on either side of the question. But we will notice one instance in which the fact been book? t. Sup-ote the eve that reading ing it. baptism stituted remem-Would r heard ' much Not on-s of are Chris-ey com-ys that preach, I of the nisters, the gos-er exist-which how? authen-itnesses is sub-Newton city in history tion in pertness and ignorance have called to their aid deception, in stating one of these questions called unanswerable arguments—evidently designed to deceive those unacquainted with the positions of Sabbath-keepers. Here it is: "26. Did not Jesus strictly enforce upon the multitude, and upon his disciples the whole law (of which the ten commandments compose a fraction) previous to the crucifixion? Some deny this; but let me arraign them before the standard of God's tribunal, and let them, if they will, contend against his own immortal arm." See Matt. xxiii, 1-3. Oh, do not, I beseech you, make Christ a liar, and thus endanger your own eternal salvation. Our ministers have ever been united in teaching in harmony with Matt. xxiii, 1-3, that both the ceremonial and the moral law were in full force until the death of Christ. This fact they have used with force against the reckless assertion of the no-Sabbath men, that Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath. What a farce! Mr. S. here erects a man of straw, upon which he expends his ammunition. He knows very well that he puts Sabbath-keepers in a position that they do not occupy, that he may bring Matt. xxiii, 1-3, against them. And all this talk and parade in the use of such phrases as, "God's tribunal," "contend against his immortal arm," "make Christ a liar, and thus endanger your own eternal salvation," is an effort to cover with great solemnity an act of miserable deception. But the way the tract winds up! Here is an extract from the last page: "Dear brethren, you who have this great truth burning upon the altar of your hearts, do not neglect to carry this present truth among the Sabbath congregations everywhere! Go to head quarters, to Battle Creek, and implore them in the name of Jesus Christ and the holy apostles, to open their doors, their church, the columns of their pages, and their hearts, for the reception of the truth. They have had a great zeal, a zeal too, that is not according to knowledge, for our conversion. Now then, let us return the favor with a zeal and power that is according to knowledge. They will, and must feel the force of facts, and every honest soul must forsake that sandy foundation, or be lost eternally." Here we have it at last!—Sabbath-breaking a test of salvation! That is, if we persist in keeping the commandments of God we shall be "lost eternally!" We did not suppose that the no-Sabbath men, in their rebellion against the government of Heaven would ever reach so high a pitch of fanaticism. At least, we were not looking for it at present. But these are rapid times. The harvest of the earth is fast ripening for the sharp sickle of the Son of man. Satan is rushing on to frightful madness ill-balanced minds which are sealed up against the third message. We would call the attention of the readers of the Review to the list of publications found on the last page. In our works on the Sabbath, you will find the objections to the Sabbath candidly and fully answered. As a sample of how faithfully and fully this is done, we will give the first six of Mr. Seymour's "unanswerable arguments," and an extract from Bro. Andrews' History of the Sabbath. Mr. S. says— "1. Where is there the least proof in the above language [Gen. ii, 3], that obligates Adam or any of his posterity to do as God did, viz., rest on the seventh day?
"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?
"3. During the 2,500 years from the creation to the exode, where is there any example of any one observing it?
"4. Where is there any rebuke for violating any such precept during the same length of time?
"5. Where is the sin of Sabbath-breaking mentioned from Adam to Moses?
"6. What and where is the penalty for violating any such commandment prior to the exode?" The following recently appeared in the Review; but it is so clearly to the point that we again repeat it: "It is objected that there is no precept in the book of Genesis for the observation of the Sabbath, and consequently no obligation on the part of the patriarchs to observe it. There is a defect in this argument not noticed by those who use it. The book of Genesis was not a rule given to the patriarchs to walk by. On the contrary, it was written by Moses 2500 years after creation, and long after the patriarchs were dead. Consequently the fact that certain precepts were not found in Genesis is no evidence that they were not obligatory upon the patriarchs. Thus the book does not command men to love God with all their hearts, and their neighbors as themselves; nor does it prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, adultery, theft, false witness, or covetousness. Who will affirm from this that the patriarchs were under no restraint in these things? As a mere record of events, written long after their occurrence, it was not necessary that the book should contain a moral code. But had the book been given to the patriarchs as a rule of life, it must of necessity have contained such a code. It is a fact worthy of especial notice that as soon as Moses reaches his own time in the book of Exodus, the whole moral law is given. The record and the people were then cotemporary, and ever afterward the written law is in the hands of God's people as a rule of life, and a complete code of moral precepts. "The argument under consideration is unsound, 1. Because based on the supposition that the book of Genesis was the rule of life for the patriarchs. 2. Because if carried out it would release the patriarchs from every precept of the moral law except the sixth. Gen. ix, 5, 7. 3. Because the act of God in setting apart his rest-day to a holy use, as we have seen, necessarily involves the fact that he gave a precept concerning it to Adam, in whose time it was thus set apart. And hence, though the book of Genesis contains no precept concerning the Sabbath, it does contain direct evidence that such precept was given to the head and representative of the human family. "After giving the institution of the Sabbath, the book of Genesis, in its brief record of 2370 years, does not again mention it. This has been urged as ample proof that those holy men, who, during this period, were perfect, and walked with God in the observance of his commandments, statutes, and laws [Gen. v, 24; vi, 9; xxvi, 5], all lived in open profanation of that day which God had blessed and set apart to a holy use. But the book of Genesis also omits any distinct reference to the doctrine of future punishment, the resurrection of the body, the revelation of the Lord in flaming fire, and the judgment of the great day. Does this silence prove that the patriarchs did not believe these great doctrines? Does it make them any the less sacred? But the Sabbath is not mentioned from Moses to David, a period of five hundred years, during which it was enforced by the penalty of death. Does this prove that it was not observed during this period?" THE VISIONS A TEST.
By Uriah Smith
THE oft re-iterated fear is still occasionally expressed, that the visions are to be made a test of fellowship. We have heard a great deal, first and last, about the visions being made a test; and many are the panics that some have tried to raise over this subject. But let us look soberly at it for a moment. Take, first, the man who professes to believe them. Will he refuse to be tested by them? So long as he maintains his position, he cannot. The person who professes to believe the visions, and then refuses to be corrected by them on the subjects of tobacco, dress, covetousness, &c., shows at once that all his professions were the mere pretenses and false assurances of the hypocrite. Such a man is not, of course, entitled to the confidence of the church for a single moment. And in such cases the visions necessarily make themselves a test. But how is it with those who have not yet become decided in regard to them? As this is a subject on which there exists with some a peculiar sensitiveness, we may perhaps best arrive at the correct principle on this, by first considering how the matter stands on other points of faith. Here is a man, for instance, who does not agree with us on the subject of the second coming of Christ. He believes that we are wholly mistaken in regard to this great truth. Can we feel union with such a man, and take him into our fellowship and communion? We cannot. We can but feel that he shuts his eyes to some of the clearest light of the Scriptures, and refuses assent to their most unequivocal testimony. We cannot therefore extend to him the hand of christian53fellowship. Just so with the Sabbath. Can we fellowship the man who violates it? We cannot. On a vital point connected with the teaching of the word of God, we are at issue; and the union that would otherwise exist between us, is of course destroyed. So with the subjects of baptism, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, &c. Where there is not agreement in theory, there can be, in the christian sense, no real communion of heart and fellowship of feeling. This is the principle that will everywhere manifest itself. It is moreover a principle that is everywhere acknowledged and acted upon. And this principle applies to the subject of spiritual gifts just as it applies to every other. The perpetuity of the gifts is one of the fundamental points in the belief of this people; and with those who differ with us here, we can have union and fellowship to no greater extent than we can with those who differ with us on the other important subjects of the coming of Christ, baptism, the Sabbath, &c. And this is the sum and substance, the length and breadth, the hight and depth, of that great bugbear which Satan has conjured up to frighten the timid about making the visions a test of fellowship. The principle above laid down, which applies to almost every point of religious belief, has a multiplied application to the subject of spiritual gifts; for while other subjects are distinct, and, as it were, occupy a separate province by themselves, the subject of spiritual gifts has, by the providence of God, become more or less connected with almost every point in the whole range of present truth. But let us for a moment look at the position that some would have us occupy on this subject. To this alone, of all the subjects embraced in our theory, we must attach no importance; this alone we must make of no consequence; on this alone we must look alike with indifference whether our friends honor and reverence it, or whether they trample it under foot. But if there is a subject in the whole range of New Testament teaching that is entitled to a high and honorable seat in the temple of truth, and which should be esteemed and cherished by every lover of the pure testimony, it is this. Of what else have we the formal and explicit statement that God has set it in the church? 1 Cor. xii, 28. What else is said to be a special gift of God to men? Eph. iv, 8. We may be sure that God has given no gifts unto men, which he is willing to have neglected and despised; he has set nothing in his church, but what he designs should be loved and cherished, and reverenced by all his people. What then can we say of that course which would suffer this truth alone to be ignored and dishonored; which would guard with the utmost sanctity every other truth, and suffer this alone to be trampled in the dust! Yet this is the course some would have us take. They would have us say in effect like this: You must agree with us in all the fundamental points of our belief, with one exception, before we can receive you into our fellowship; that exception is spiritual gifts. That you may treat with as much neglect as you choose. It is a matter of indifference to us whether you love or hate it. We, to be sure, believe it to be as plain and scriptural a doctrine as any in the Book, and that it is a special arrangement of God for his church; but we shall take no pains to maintain its standing, or shield it from abuse. We shall extend to you the hand of fellowship alike whether you receive or reject, honor or despise it. How could a doctrine be more effectually degraded than by such a course; nay, what great or insult could be offered to its divine Author, who has expressly set it in the church! If we are cherishing doctrines that deserve no better treatment than this, let us give them up completely and at once. Let us purge our theory from everything but that which deserves maintenance—everything but that to which we can justly challenge belief from all who would come within our communion. There has existed a delicacy of feeling upon this subject of which the enemy has taken advantage to force some into a timid, wavering, conservative course concerning it. It was formerly so with the Sabbath. Every little while the out-cry would be raised, "Why, you are making the Sabbath a test! you are making the Sabbath a test!" But when the position was boldly taken that if there is a test brought to view in the word of God to be applied to men on earth, it is the law of the great Jehovah in all its length and breadth, and that, if that was not a test, none could anywhere be found, the agitation on this point subsided. So we believe it would be with the subject under consideration; and that consequently, the time long ago arrived when this delicacy should have been entirely laid aside, and this subject allowed to take its stand by the side of the other important points which compose our religious belief. If any should be still startled at the view here presented, we would say that this is but the practical working of this question as experience thus far has shown. Suppose the body of Seventh-day Adventists should stand with open arms ready to receive all, whether they receive the gifts or not, it is a fact that those who reject the gifts do not have true union with the body. From the very nature of the case they can not have it; and though they may for a while maintain their connection with it, they are unprepared to weather with this people the storms which they have yet to encounter. The first slight breeze will break the slender cord that binds them to the church, and they will rapidly drift away from the body. So then should we break down all barriers on this question, and extend the hand of fellowship to all on the opposite side, it would not help the matter a particle; for while they occupy that position, union can not exist on their part. And since this seems to be the inexorable law that governs this matter, why should we endeavor to have our profession and theory on the point differ from what has already been proved to be its practical working?